August 10, 2007 Old Thread: Important Please Read: MP3 music - it's better than it sounds

[Old Quad Guy]

Can you decode matrixed quad from decent bitrate MP3s?

Others can chime in better, but many members have told us they do with both SQ and QS.

There are certain ways to do the settings that escapes me, but "Joint Stereo," if I'm not mistaken, should not be checked and use bit rates above 192 for best results.

 

[neil wilkes]

..on a (related) tangent, a few years ago on a TV show here (The Gadget Show) they did some listening tests, to see if their audience could tell the difference between an mp3, a CD and an LP.

During the tests they used excerpts from "Dark Side of the Moon".

They failed to mention if they used the SACD layer for the tests, although the CDP was a Denon SACD capable unit -- which angered me no end at the time!

The end result, however, was rather interesting..

http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/35716/35765

I saw that test, and it was so flawed it's not funny and here's why.
1 - they did not use MP3, they used AAC so different codec.
2 - The whole thing was pointless because there is now an entire generation - those people included - who think MP3 is how music should sound, so they are simply unused to real dynamic range and no distortions caused by the crappy codec.

Try flipping a decoded MP3 stream to Mid/Side, mute the Mid component and pan the side across both channels....then tell me it still sounds acceptable.
Also please go to http://www.tcelectronic.com/rome.asp and play the film from Thomas Lund - The Loiudness wars, part 1.....it is a true eye opener.

MP3 blows, and it is bad for your brain too. There was research done (I will try to find the links) where 24/96, CD & MP3 were played simultaneously on a console through the same setup, but with nobody knowing what was what.
It turned out that whilst the brain can rebuild the missing fundamental frequencies & associated harmonics, it does not like to do this & triggers a chemical in the brain very, very similar to the anger response.......just say "no" to MP3.

ALso, I keep reading about how CD is dead but it still does not go away. There is nothing wrong with CD, it is the lousy mastering that ruins it.
It certainly beats vinyl...

 

[zfox]

2 - The whole thing was pointless because there is now an entire generation - those people included - who think MP3 is how music should sound, so they are simply unused to real dynamic range and no distortions caused by the crappy codec.

MP3 is completely unrelated to dynamic range compression. Buggy codecs that distort the signal have ceased to exist long time ago. BTW, removing inaudible data, can be called distortion? Not for me.

Try flipping a decoded MP3 stream to Mid/Side, mute the Mid component and pan the side across both channels....then tell me it still sounds acceptable.

Any link that elaborates on this method? Should be an interesting read.

MP3 blows, and it is bad for your brain too. There was research done (I will try to find the links) where 24/96, CD & MP3 were played simultaneously on a console through the same setup, but with nobody knowing what was what.
It turned out that whilst the brain can rebuild the missing fundamental frequencies & associated harmonics, it does not like to do this & triggers a chemical in the brain very, very similar to the anger response.......just say "no" to MP3.

A link about the related research paper would be helpful. BTW, MP3 (and other lossy codecs too) should only remove inaudible data.

ALso, I keep reading about how CD is dead but it still does not go away. There is nothing wrong with CD, it is the lousy mastering that ruins it.
It certainly beats vinyl...

We agree 100% on that.


BTW, some credible ABX tests can be accessed here. According to the results, an MP3 encoded file that utilizes 160Kbps or higher should be transparent compared with its lossless source.

 

[DKA]

I can't imagine that decoding would be ruined by the compression to mp3, but that's just me.

mp3 serves a purpose. It allows for you to keep more music on a portable device on which you're not looking for an audiophile experience. Other than that, there's just very little purpose to it. It is a valid purpose, though.

 

[ar surround]

Has anyone compared the sound of an iTunes downloaded song (AAC file at 256 kbps) to the identical song as an MP3? Is the iTunes download much better than the MP3? I've downloaded a few early-1960's pop oldies which were likely "mastered" to sound good on AM radios. The iTunes file sizes are 5 to 6 MB for a 2 to 3 minute song compared to 25 to 30 MB for that on a CD. It can't hear much difference between the iTunes download and the same song on a CD, and in some cases, the download sounds better...perhaps because it doesn't capture all the high frequency noise, nasty harmonics and other garbage present on the source tape?

 

[DKA]

Has anyone compared the sound of an iTunes downloaded song (AAC file at 256 kbps) to the identical song as an MP3? Is the iTunes download much better than the MP3? I've downloaded a few early-1960's pop oldies which were likely "mastered" to sound good on AM radios. The iTunes file sizes are 5 to 6 MB for a 2 to 3 minute song compared to 25 to 30 MB for that on a CD. It can't hear much difference between the iTunes download and the same song on a CD, and in some cases, the download sounds better...perhaps because it doesn't capture all the high frequency noise, nasty harmonics and other garbage present on the source tape?

I wouldn't count on a huge difference, certainly not one that's going to matter on a portable device. Honestly, what matters more (to me, at least) here is the quality of the mastering. In other words, my mp3s derived from hi-rez stereo sound better on my IPod than something that's been limited to hell.

 

[fredblue]

I wouldn't count on a huge difference, certainly not one that's going to matter on a portable device. Honestly, what matters more (to me, at least) here is the quality of the mastering. In other words, my mp3s derived from hi-rez stereo sound better on my IPod than something that's been limited to hell.

totally agree with you. as I said on here the other day, "garbage in = garbage out".

I've a fair few redbook CDs that wipe the floor with their stereo SACD counterparts - and it's not always brickwalling that's the culprit, though it is nearly always the worst offender with modern recordings and remasters.

as much as the mastering though, the tape source is crucial too.

take the Deep Purple CD reissue series for example. the remixed tracks taken from the multi's sound wonderful compared to the remastered transfers of the stereo masters.

superior sound is one of the great benefits of going back to the multitrack master tapes to do 5.1, as evidenced by every classic album SW has remixed into surround so far, not only do you get great surround sound but in lovely sound quality too.

 

[The Bright Side]

I must say, I understand that technically, there's a difference between MP3 and CD (as the article suggests), and obviously the hi-res formats. But at the risk of being a heretic, I just don't hear the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 (or OGG, which I started using when I switched to Ubuntu in 2009) and CD. I simply don't, and believe me, I tried. I have my entire CD collection (over 800 titles) on my hard disk as VBR MP3 and OGG, and that's how I listen to them most of the time. Mostly because 610 of my titles are in Germany and I only have the other ~200 here in Canada. I still spin the CDs when I'm in the living room, but that's it.

That said, I agree with you guys about garbage in = garbage out. If music is mastered badly, it'll sound bad on CD and MP3. Like Gary Moore's 80s albums. What a shame, such good music.

 

[Q8]

I find 160 mp3's sound just about like CD's on most music. By the time you hit 192 or 360, I would challenge any of you to tell the diff between CD's. In fact, tht should be. Test for you. Have someone blind play sever songs from CD and the MP3 counterpart and see. If you can tell the diff. Now low bitrate MP3s are justterrible. They make my teeth chatter.

But I really feel like analog really gives you a lot that digital doesn't

 

[Fourplay]

We live in a very strange time. Just as HDTV was being introduced to the consumer market there was a popularity explosion by the name of YouTube. But both of these have thrived because they do different things. Such is the case with mp3 vs SACD (et al). Theatrical films were not killed by VHS, as was once feared. Everything is a tool, and one need only ask what one is trying to accomplish with the tools being employed.

Yes, there is a risk that an un-educated population will lose interest in audiophile sound in a way that will discourage the production of such product. On the other hand, it is harder (tho not impossible) to file share the hi-rez formats, and I suspect that the per-capita buying of physical or at least billable product to be greater amongst audiophile enthusiasts than amongst those feeding on fast-fidelity. In a time of rapidly diminishing public interest in paying for anything digital, I should think the music industry to be very short sighted to ignore the last bastion of premium price paying customers. Just sayin'

Ken

 

[fredblue]

I must say, I understand that technically, there's a difference between MP3 and CD (as the article suggests), and obviously the hi-res formats. But at the risk of being a heretic, I just don't hear the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 (or OGG, which I started using when I switched to Ubuntu in 2009) and CD. I simply don't, and believe me, I tried. I have my entire CD collection (over 800 titles) on my hard disk as VBR MP3 and OGG, and that's how I listen to them most of the time. Mostly because 610 of my titles are in Germany and I only have the other ~200 here in Canada. I still spin the CDs when I'm in the living room, but that's it.

That said, I agree with you guys about garbage in = garbage out. If music is mastered badly, it'll sound bad on CD and MP3. Like Gary Moore's 80s albums. What a shame, such good music.

have you got the DVD-A/DualDisc of Gary Moore's "Back To The Blues"..?

it's mastered so LOUD it'll make your ears shrivel up and die if you try to play it at anywhere near normal listening levels!

the 5.1 mix is typical "Silverline" rubbish, too.

 

[The Bright Side]

have you got the DVD-A/DualDisc of Gary Moore's "Back To The Blues"..?

it's mastered so LOUD it'll make your ears shrivel up and die if you try to play it at anywhere near normal listening levels!

the 5.1 mix is typical "Silverline" rubbish, too.

I know, I heard! Kept my hands off it for that very reason. Lots of bad-sounding Gary Moore stuff out there :-(

 

[fredblue]

I know, I heard! Kept my hands off it for that very reason. Lots of bad-sounding Gary Moore stuff out there :-(

I was mortified when I first bought it! I love Gary (God rest him) and the album itself is nice (if a bit "one-note") but dear lordy lord the surround and sound quality.. bleurgh! Maybe I was fatigued more by the sound than by the slightly repetitive/uninspired content!?

it's a bit like the Rory Gallagher situation. the one golden opportunity they had to showcase a stunning guitarist, just as with Gary Moore, was Rory's Big Guns SACD set.. and oh did they screw up!

though there are one or two ok sounding albums of Rory's on CD at least, so maybe shouldn't really grumble. ultimately though Rory was a stronger live performer than studio artist, imho, so perhaps I was expecting too much from his "Hits" SACD!?

 

[CPR]

My nephew made me an MP3 of Jerry Garcia's solo work; 89 songs, on ONE CD!
Sound quality is phenomenal; not 5.1, but DAMN good!

 

[barfle]

I've done a bit of experimentation digitizing some of my vinyl to MP3s, as well as packing the heck out of podcasts that I was only going to listen to in the car on my way to and from work. The podcasts needed to be both dynamic-range compressed (the noise floor in the car was about 75db with the windows up, but I like them down if the weather's good), and to fit on a 2GB player. But I treated the music much more gently, and, at least to my aging ears, sound about the same as the 45s they came from.

MP3s can sound quite nice. And they can sound like crap. The format isn't the culprit as much as its users.

 

[ar surround]

I ripped a pop song (The Grass Roots Midnight Confessions) from a CD onto a hard drive using ACC (320 kbps), ALAC (Apple Lossless) and AIFF. With this type of material I could not tell the difference among the three codecs even on a relatively sophisticated audio system. All three of them revealed the good and the ugly of this particular recording. What I don't understand is why Dolby Digital has that "grizzle" sound virtually all of the time.

 

[Perp]

I recently switched from Tidal’s CD quality to iTunes and cannot tell the difference between Redbook quality I was getting and Apple’s AAC format. If I listen to an mp3, it has to be a minimum of 320, but it’s only passable.

 

[MagnumX]

I'd love to see some people prove they can tell 256kbps AAC from CD quality with something like ABX double blind testing. I used to know one of the engineers that worked on AAC and they did a ton of work and double blind testing to ensure it was quality stuff only to have a load of "LP is more real sounding" and "24/96 is hires!" types trash their work based on the lower bit-rates initially used when storage was a premium. Yes, 128kbps MP3s suck. 320+bps is another matter. Sure lossless is nice to have from a "don't worry about it" or "It's the same as the master files!" psychological perspective, but the notion it's audible is mostly psychological wishful thinking, IMO.

Certainly, hard drive storage on home systems is such that compression isn't really needed, but I don't know I can say the same for many phones and notebooks that still come with smallish storage these days. But it bothers me to think that when something like the new iTunes "hires" Music Store and Apple Music streaming opens (very soon) that everyone that thought music sucked will magically think it's all better when 99% of the problems are the fault of the mastering engineers cranking the compression and what not (often ordered to do it by the record label management who have always thought loudness sells).

Then there's the 24/96 24/192 type crowds that think digital has "stair steps" or some other ignorant nonsense (that's NOT how "digital" works and yet it was a cliche throughout the '80s and '90s, especially in "high-end" circles). Show me a rock album that has >16-bits dynamic range or a single human being that can reliably hear over 20kHz (let alone as they get older). Too many "audiophile" myths are based on snake oil as it is. It's kind of sad to see so many still buying into it in the 21st century. Much of the first page of this thread strikes me a bit like Stereophile authors slapping each other on the butts with wet towels....

So many SACDs sounded better because they used a good remaster mix, but Sony actually had their players play the SACD 2-channel mixes slightly louder than the CD side of the hybrid discs so if nothing else you'd THINK the SACD mix was better even when they were ultimately the same (multi-channel mixes excluded). It's dirty Psyche 101 warfare (as in they actually taught some of these tricks in that class when I was in college with the Pepsi Vs Coke challenge being an example given on Day 1 in the class where Pepsi would always give you Pepsi first because it was sweeter knowing that Coke wouldn't taste right after and no way to rinse your palette either. That slanted the results squarely in their favor and they knew it would).

Some might say if SACD gets us better releases, who cares about the format, except that it's one of the worst "locked down" formats in terms of copying/backup ever made. I'm long past the point of using physical media and the ability to dump/store my media library on a server hard drive is important to me. It's far easier to dump a brand new Dolby Atmos music blu-ray than a 5.1 SACD title (fortunately some have done the work for us out there).

The other problem is once you believe some of these things and worse yet, spend a lot of money on it (Stereophile's speciality), you don't want to admit you were had. No one wants to admit their beliefs are wrong, let alone that some magazine or group snookered them into wasting a ton of cash on a $10k DAC and a bunch of Shakti stones. I certainly won't shy away from listening to say Alan Parson's ON AIR album just because it's in "lossy" DTS 5.1. The sound quality is well above average on it for any type of rock album and the mix is excellent.

 

[scifi]

You need tubes.
http://antiquesci.50webs.com/VirginCommies.htm

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Cope harder, I'll never use MP3 and give up my FLACs. So what if it stimulates my barin differently? Its pretty much useless in every other aspect!

EDIT: As an audio engineer, anything above 24 bits and 50 KHz is pretty much useless, for the time being. 24/96 I guess is fine, but 24/192 and higher is a scam .