Anyone really notice a difference in sound quality of mp3's?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
I have heard this argument many a time, both by music fans who post comments on boards like this, or by band members themselves who argue that fans shouldnt download music because the quality of the music is not up to snuff.
Every once in awhile a bad quality album will be released and you can tell, it sounds way muffled. Its obvious.
However is a 192kps or 265 or 320 kps really all that different?
In Rainbows was 192 right? Could you really tell a difference between that and the physical album quality?
Maybe its because I have so many downloaded albums, and am used to the sound. Do you think the sound quality loss is all that signiicant?
You hear people say that all that time "I wont download music because the retail album is a far better sounding".
Every once in awhile a bad quality album will be released and you can tell, it sounds way muffled. Its obvious.
However is a 192kps or 265 or 320 kps really all that different?
In Rainbows was 192 right? Could you really tell a difference between that and the physical album quality?
Maybe its because I have so many downloaded albums, and am used to the sound. Do you think the sound quality loss is all that signiicant?
You hear people say that all that time "I wont download music because the retail album is a far better sounding".
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The only time I can really notice is if I'm listening to something on a super high end piece of equipment.
Vinyl sounds warmer, but at the expense of crackling and other oddities.
EDIT: I can't tell a difference between mp3 and a lossless digital recording. When the music's that loud, who would know.
But for FLAC + SHN to MP3 i don't get one bit. I convert all my at the slowest conversion for best quality and i set it for full quality and it sounds no different.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Yes, that's always an issue too.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I can tell the difference between a 128 itunes file and a cd though. I made a cd mix of songs recently, some of which were just aac files from itunes, and some which were WAV files i ripped off my cd's. Even when the songs were from the same album originally, I could hear a difference between the aac files and the WAVs while listening to the cd. The computer files were often distorted and sounded like crap if I played them at all loud on my cd player.
Agreed with the itunes files. The only albums I buy from itunes are the itunes exclusives and I can hear a big difference especially when my ipod is on shuffle. I can tell by listening which songs were from downloaded from itunes and which were ripped from CDs....especially with headphones on!
Every life is falling down
Brown to black, it's coming back
Dies to be part of the ground
Seed to seedling, root to stem
good speakers you can hear the difference, and i think anyone can. but computer speakers that come with the system or $20 headphones for ipods it makes no difference really.
When I put the record on the turntable I was floored...I've listend to the "Remaster" on CD a thousand times and I can honestly say that it comes nowhere near the original vinyl pressing. Every instrument and every amazing litle nuance of this album come through crystal clear. It honestly feels (especially w/ side 2) like Neil is in my living room playing this amazing music live. It was a total revelation.
I will never listen to this album in any other form.
It kind of makes you wonder why we ever moved away from vinyl. Mind you...It may not be as convenient as the CD format or the MP3 format...but the sound quality just wipes the floor with any other format out there.
I think this is a big reason why vinyl sales have doubled in the last year. People are starting to catch on that this digital technology isn't what it's cracked up to be and that the warm comfort of vinyl will always be the ultimate way of exeriencing and celebrating the art of music.
Later
Ever try to throw a record on in your car? Or play it while you're on the subway commute to work?
Super Audio and DVD-Audio beg to differ...and they have surround sound capabilities. Check, mate.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Unfortunately this is a misconception that people are arriving at because Vinyls do not have the capabilities to allow themselves to be as compromised in sound quality as CDs do. I'm not sure of the specifics but when recording to Vinyl they could only turn up the volume so loud in the studio otherwise the track would clip, or skip...or something like that. Anyway, another important thing I feel should be pointed out was the Vinyl you listened to was made many years ago before the advent of over compression whereas the remasterd CD you have was mastered in today's era and thus has succumbed to being over compressed and less dynamic because of this.
If that remastered CD was done in a smart fashion it would at the very least sound as good as the original Vinyl.
CDs by nature are compressed because they are digital. The SPARS code (DDD, ADD, AAD, etc) for any disc will always end with a D because the final mastering to CD will always be digital. Vinyl can be as lossless as possible down to the final mastering because of the format. It's an analog-based format. With that being said, the right mixdown algorithm can make a CD sound very crisp and 95% of listeners will not hear the difference between a well mastered CD and a well mastered record. "Brothers In Arms" comes to mind, as it got rave reviews when it came out for how well it sounded, and it was a true fully digital DDD recording (the downside being it was recorded digitally and thus will never truly have a lossless recording). Some audiophiles will disagree, especially when you throw 180g records into the mix. The major problem in the past 15 years has been clipping. Final mixdown engineers are told by the record companies to make their CDs as loud as possible (for the same reasons some commercials are louder than the TV show...you perk up), and in doing so they "clip" the upper ranges of the recording and thus introduce popping and clicking. Pearl Jam has this happen with the CD release of their self-titled album.
There are re-masters that sound worse than the original mix because instead of cleaning them up, all they do it make them louder and thus destroy the intended sound and levels. Well done re-masters, which is what I hope to god the PJ album re-releases go through, can remarkably clean up recordings and make them really shine.
Then of course there is my hobby, which I've brought up in my earlier posts: SACD and DVD-A. The fact that no-one has mentioned them yet once again proves my point as to how horribly marketed both formats were when they came out a few years ago. The right recording, in surround sound (or just in stereo in some cases) will blow your mind on the right system. It is the best of both worlds: convenient format, and essentially lossless audio signals. I keep hoping to god that Sony, the proprietor of SACD, releases PJ discs in 5.1 SACD format. It's my dream.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Thanks for the breakdown. I kind of understand all that but when I need to put it into more technical terms I cannot.
Isn't it possible to have "bricked" the music before it even gets to the final mixdown engineers? I heard that that was the case with Metallica's latest album. This might also be a reason why some Vinyl releases sound terribly over-compressed.
As for SACD's, I remember seeing the SACD section in a Best Buy about 5 or 6 years ago (It might have been longer, my memory fails me). I didn't even know what they were so, yeah, I'd say they could've marketed them a bit better. It probably didn't help that many people were against the thought of updating their current collection of CD's with other CD's even if they sounded better. I guess the amount of money to put together a really nice SACD system was outside of many people's budgets though too, which is too bad. On top of all that you had two formats, SACD and the DVD-A and from my understanding they were competitors. That probably was just asking too much from the market since they still needed to compete against the regular CD.
It is definitely possible for clipping/etc issues to be introduced before the final mixdown even occurs. You can record with less than stellar microphones and have a lot of hiss or distortion; you can chunk the mixing & editing stages in a variety of ways: combining too many tracks (bouncing) onto one track, not getting the mixing levels just right, etc. As they say, you can't polish a turd
SACD and DVD-A are competing formats along the lines of HDDVD vs Blu-Ray and, going back further, VHS vs Beta. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and thus their supporters and critics. SACD is an audio-only format which uses DSD technology. It is essentially bitstream technology, a completely different formatting that conventional CDs. SACD also has the option of carrying a CD layer, which is called a "Hybrid SACD", that can be played on any cd player. DVD-Audio discs are also hi-def, but they can carry video content as well. They use the same underlying technology as CDs, which is called PCM or Pulse Code Modulation. CDs can encode up to 16 bits and a 41khz sampling rate. DVD-A uses the same technology but with much more encoded information and can go as high as 24 bits and 192khz (though only 96, which is still indecipherable to the human ear). Some critics derided Sony et al for not making every release a hybrid SACD, and others claimed DSD technology had limitation (while others said the limitations were beyond anything humans could hear). Others said DVD-A also had quality limitations because it used PCM technology, and that people would scoff at only being able to use a disc in a DVD player with DVD-A capabilities. Sure, DVD-A discs can be dual discs w/ a CD layer on the flip side, but that's a while different issue.
So both sides fought, neither won because of a lack of marketing and public awareness as to what they were. As you said: you walked into Best Buy, saw a SACD section and didn't know what to make of it. Some say SACD is going to make another push in the coming months. We'll see. I love my hi-def discs and am still utterly blown away when I pop one in (there are some that actually sound horrible, but it's worth a few duds for a few gems), after owning a nice system for around 5 years now.
-B-
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
This is why I have no interest in high-def audio... It was bad enough when record companies gouged us at $20 per cd, now they want even more for an SACD or DVDA. Plus, it's a waste of money right now. As we saw with video, one format always wins out... BluRay beat HDDVD and VHS beat betamax. I'm happy to wait until the victor between DVDA and SACD is announced and then consider upgrading.
Besides, you REALLY have to be an audiophile to get the difference here. I don't have high end audio equipment. I have a little tabletop boombox and before that I was using a cd player I bought in 1994. If I want to play DVDA, the only speakers my dvd player connects to are the shitty speakers on my tv. So unless you're willing to drop a few grand on pimped out audio equipment, what good is SACD/DVDA going to do you on shitty speakers? No thanks. I'll wait until I've got a steady job and can afford to do it right before diving into this market. Remeber minidiscs?
Understandable. But I took the plunge and love it. I have a DVD player that will play both formats, so I don't really care about which format wins...if either does (there's a lot of talk of a new format replacing both). I have had a good 5 year run of enjoying my hi-def formats, and I'm up to probably 75 titles now, including:
Dark Side Of The Moon
Kind Of Blue
A Night At The Opera
LA Woman
Tommy
The entire Talking Heads catalog
etc.
If you can't tell, I'm a big fan :ugeek:
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I have to disagree with you here though. I have played the new formats for people who swear to me going into it that they are tone-deaf, not big music fans and know there is no chance they will notice a difference. I have proven every one of them wrong.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I'll bet you have nice speakers though... no way would I hear a difference with it playing through my tv speakers, and I'm guessing with great speakers a lot of average listeners would be wowed with a regular cd. My point was not that the difference is unnoticeable, just that you've got to be a real audiophile to be willing to invest the time and money to make such a switch worthwhile.
Gotcha.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
So which format do you prefer, if you do prefer one, that is?
Personally, I think the regular CD isn't being utilized as well as it could be and have hoped that SACD or DVD-A would make a comeback of some sort just so that maybe people will start utilizing regular CDs to sound better.
I think I give the edge to SACD, but part of that could be mental and part of it could be to the fact that I have way more of them. I agree with reviewers who say SACD seems a little warmer and more enveloping and DVD-A is a little crisper and sometimes has a slight digital "sheen" to it. Then again, I have great titles in both formats, and a few real duds (AIC greatest hits on SACD is a travesty). Give me either anyday though...I love them! Think I'll go throw on some Talking Heads on DVD-A right now actually!
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
So by that logic.......
Have you ever tried to throw a movie screen in your car, or watch one when you're on the subway to commute to work?
Obviously they should tear down every movie theater in the country and we should all watch movies on our ipods. After all, its more portable and convenient.
No, you asked why we moved away from vinyl. There are a number of good reasons... in fact, by YOUR logic, we should all trash our dvd players and blu-rays and either go back to vhs or buy our own personal projectors... because those digital discs are probably compressed and thus crappy and worse than analog technology.
vinyl records and turntables = not cost prohibitive and readily available