Why is it that MP3s suck compared to CDs? What, you don't think so? What's your opinion?

RSI

Diamond Member
May 22, 2000
7,281
1
0
To me, on this computer, with this CDROM drive, with this sound card and these speakers, CDs sound a hell of alot better than MP3s do, usually.

Well not necessarily better sounding, maybe slightly, but if I crank up the volume when listening to a CD, I can go much higher than if I'm listening to an MP3 without losing quality (fuzzing, etc). At first I used to think it was my speakers being crappy, but then when I noticed how much higher I could go with CDs and still have it sound perfectly good, it made me think.. wtf is up with MP3s?

And another thought on MP3s.. On Crapster, why is it that 90% of what you download is either corrupted or altered in some way!? do people find pleasure and entertainment in f*cking up songs, adding crap to them, or whatever? that just pisses me off. When I want a song, I want the damn song, not the song with the musical content altered and things added in between and/or at the end!

Argh. :|
 

BiB

Banned
Jul 14, 2000
720
0
0
rsi

Perhaps you're used to radio versions of songs and the CD versions have extra music. I THINK IT IS HORRIBLE WHEN RADIO STATIONS GET CASTRATED VERSIONS OF MUSIC. Just had to get that out.

Most of the stuff I get works fine

True, CDs sound better. They also cost a lot more though, and really tapes sound fine for me. I think its good that I'm ignorant of how bad MP3s may sound, but for me they are fine. I find swapping CDs around (even if they were free) to be a pain in the butt!

BiB
 

ltk007

Banned
Feb 24, 2000
6,209
1
0
I always download 192bitrate now and I have found that it is very hard to tell the diff. You have to be smart on napster and it is best to download from someone who already has a ton of songs. Most of the ones I get are good. BTW RSI, I have something for you I'll email it.
 

Nessoldaccount

Senior member
Jun 4, 2000
483
0
0
I have a plugin for winamp called DFX 3.0 and this bridges the gap between MP3s and CDs. They sound just as good as CDs now. I strongly suggest you get this plug-in in its full featured form.

Also, when downloading MP3s I usually look for 192+ bit-rate, the highest i have is 320
 

RSI

Diamond Member
May 22, 2000
7,281
1
0
LMAO@BiB

I do download higher bitrate songs.. I download from 128 to 160 to 192 to 256 to 360kbps! Even at 360kbps, it's no good compared to CDs! I'm not sure how to describe it, but CDs are just much better.

-RSI
 

cwand

Banned
Jun 26, 2000
707
0
0
What is the latest version of winamp and where can I get it? and how about DFX 3.0?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,403
8,199
126
When I listen to my MP3's I'm usually

a)drunk
b)playing games
c)both of the above

So...a song has to sound really, really bad for me to notice it's quality differences over a CD. Plus I always rip/download at 192kps so it's really fairly high quality to begin with.

Oh, and look at all of the songs when you do a search. Compare the times, pick one that has the same time listed several times. If you pick one that varies from the others, it's either a different version, or its been cut short.
 

RSI

Diamond Member
May 22, 2000
7,281
1
0
Damnit!...

I hate it when I grab an MP3 and it has this annoying high pitch sound in it.. you ever notice that? :| :| :| :|
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0
I notice a definite loss of clarity on MP3s, especially in the bass parts and high guitar parts. Plus MP3s of the music I like are almost impossible to find. That's why I still buy CDs (150 right now).
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
I don't notice much quality difference. I mostly have 128kbps but some higher ones like 160kbps, 192kpbs, and even a 320kbps.

What is the kbps for cd quality anyway?
 

Vendetta

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
964
0
0
Here's the skinny:

MP3's are so popular because they shrink the size of music files, through data loss and compression, into a form generally 1/8th the size of the original music file.

Different codecs (small programs used to do the compression) will drop different things and will make the end result differently sounding from others. For example, the commonly used (included in AudioGrabber/Catalyst, MusicMatch, etc) Xing decoder will drop highs and lows like mad, and is optimized for lower bitrates (~128kbps) and sheer speed of decoding, so higher bitrates don't necessarily mean better sound. On the other side, the popular (and pirated) Fraunhofer/radium codec will bend over backwards to preserve the original sound, but it does take a lot longer to encode... ~1 minute with the Xing per song on my P3-866, and ~4-5 minutes with the Fraunhofer/radium on highest quality. The codec was originally released by the Fraunhofer labs, the people who invented MP3 as a format, and was optimized for higher bitrates by the Radium warez group.

Moving on past codecs, we have the individual sound capabilities of your computer. If you have bad speakers, you will get the same sound quality no matter what the original sound source is... a CD track will generally sound the same as the low-quality MP3 file. If you have high-end speakers (I have the Klipsch Promedias, so I'm talking from experience), you can tell the difference easily between a CD track and the low-end MP3 file, and you can tell the difference with a bit of effort between the CD track and the high-end MP3 file.

Finally, we have play-time optimization. This takes several forms, from the simple "equalizer" panel to the "WowThing"-style "enhancers". Generally, these let you tweak the sound to your individual taste. Good quality MP3's sound better than the CD equivalent for me, generally because I have the equalizer tweaked to my preferences... higher midrange and treble to compensate for the Promedia's natural midrange deficency and its lack of treble knob, and lesser bass so I can control it from the subwoofer.

My personal preference for ripping is 192kbps Stereo using the Fraunhofer/radium codec, and I generally can't tell the difference between the CD track and the MP3 before equalizer tweaking.

Damn. That was long, wasn't it?
 

Phalkon

Banned
Aug 20, 2000
233
0
0
Its ~690Kbps for CD Audio.
I figure that by making a 1 second CD Quality audio file, which is 44.1Khz, 2 channels (stereo), and in 16-bit.
Multiply 44100*2*16 = 705600
Divide 705600 / 1024 = 689.06 or ~690Kbps

Of course, Mp3's compress the audio, so that is just for No compression, No degredation audio in MP3 format.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
RSI -- Welcome to reality. I design audio electronics, so I can answer your question.

It starts with the fact that CD's suck compared to old analog recordings, but we'll get to that at the end of this piece. As you know, CD recordings contain data -- sixteen bits @ 44 KHz x 2 channels, plus other identifying info, such as the title and location of tunes on the disk and control and formatting information. A complete CD holds about 650 MB. It's not exactly accurate, but if there are ten tunes on the disk, then about 65 MB would be enough for one tune. There simply is not enough bandwidth on a 56K line to transfer an entire CD and play it in any kind of useful time.

Enter data compression. Unlike PKZIP, which is a lossless compression scheme that alloww you to retrieve all of the original information in the file, MP-3, Dolby AC-3 and other, similar formats use lossy compression. In these schemes, a computer uses principles of psychoacoustic masking eliminates parts of the sound it &quot;thinks&quot; you can't hear under the louder parts of the sound.

Here's a clue. I belong to a couple of professional audio groups. At one meeting, we ran a CD through a Dolby encoder and digital delay that gave 100% accurate data with enough delay to match the output from the encoder in time. We then subtracted one output from the other. What remained was just the parts that the computer removed. Every person in that room who was experienced in recording was shocked. What we heard was a bunch of subtle subtextures, such as room echos and other audible cues that no experienced recordist would want left out of their carefully crafted mix. In other words, such schemes will never give you an exact copy of your CD.

As I said at the start, CD's suck, too, compared to original sounds. The sampling rate is way too low, and there just aren't enough bits. The inherant distortion in CD's is non harmonic. That means, unlike harmonic distortion (THD), the distortion products are out of tune with the music, which, in turn, means that human beings are far more sensitive to this kind of distortion. If that wasn't enough, unlike almost every musical sound generator, amplifier and speaker, the distortion gets worse as the music gets softer. Therefore, when it's full bore blowing your ears into distortion, it's as clean as it's going to get. In a moderately soft passage, where your ears are more sensitive to distortion, CD's are glad to give you lots more distortion.

44 KHz is an inadequate sample rate. This sampling rate was chosen based on Nyquist's theorem, which states that, to recover a given frequency, you must sample the information slightly more than twice the highest frequency. The problem is that, as you get closer to the high end of the audio spectrum, this theorem is only valid for a single, steady state tone. If you change the conditions to allow for a second tone, or to modulate the amplitude (volume) of the sine wave while it is being sampled, you have created a condition where there are literally an infinite number of possible outputs for a given sample.

There is hope on the horizon. The highest standard for the new audio only DVD is two channels of 24 bit data @ 192 KHz with only lossless compression. At that sampling rate, it will once again matter if the analog electronics I design can do a good job of reproducing the signal.

Don't worry. It's a multi-format standard that is compatible back to current CD's, so you'll still be able to play them. Of course, once you hear the new stuff on a good system, you may not want to, anymore. We may finally be about to come out of the Audio Dark Ages[b/].
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0
Harvey, I'm curious about whether you prefer the SACD or DVD audio standard. (Not that my old Slayer albums will be out on either one anytime soon.)
 

DirkBelig

Banned
Oct 15, 1999
536
0
0
Jeez, guys...why didn't someone explain this right? You ever wonder why MP3's are about one-eleventh the size of WAVs? Because they use &quot;lossy&quot; compression. The encoding algorhythm works on the principle that we can't hear quieter frequencies that are near louder freqs. The encoder analyzes the levels and then chucks out the stuff that we'll alledgedly not miss.

Well, I can hear the difference between CD and 128kb/s MP3s. I tend to rip at 192 kb/s and at that point it doesn't have the &quot;fur&quot; that 128s have. I wish that MP3.com allowed that rate, cuz my band's stuff suffers there. Oh well...

WinAmp reports CDs as 14H kb/s. WTF is that?
 

RSI

Diamond Member
May 22, 2000
7,281
1
0
I know that CD &quot;quality&quot; isn't the best, but it's the best I can have here, and it is good enough
 

DirkBelig

Banned
Oct 15, 1999
536
0
0
Whoops! While I was busy watching TV, everyone else was posting the same answer.

Harvey: While the CD sample rate may be too low, at least you didn't pull the audio snobs &quot;Vinyl is better&quot; bullshiznit. No way in hell can a mechanical device (i.e. the needle) handle the acceleration and dynamic levels of a good recording accurately.

As to new standards, what is audio DVD gonna cost? CDs are a gouge as it is. My 900+ CD collection was built over 13 years by buying almost exclusively used or promo copies for $4-$8/ea. I'm not replacing the whole lot for $30 a pop.

Also, how many listeners are critical enough to notice the difference? People do whacky stuff to their EQ, buy crap gear, etc. These bobos aren't gonna notice the improvement.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
sharkeeper -- I used to say that &quot;CD quality&quot; is an oxymoron. It's not. It's a pejorative (uncomplimentary statement). CD's have a quality, it's just not very musical. :Q

Napalm381 -- <<I'm curious about whether you prefer the SACD or DVD audio standard.>>

I don't know what SACD is. Basically, the answer is that I believe the minium sampling rate for really good audio is around 200 KHz. I have heard 24 bit, 96 KHz recordings, and they're pretty good, but a bit less than I would want to be sure of a good recording of any and every possible sound source. When it comes to sampling rate and bits, more is better. Lossy compression is a fraud.

I design analog studio gear. When people ask me how many bits I want, I always answer, All of them! No matter how many they have, I have more.

DirkBelig -- Read my post. Been there. Said that. Got the T-shirt!

RSI -- <<I know that CD &quot;quality&quot; isn't the best, but it's the best I can have here, and it is good enough>>

En-n-n-n-n!!! [Game show buzzer sound] Wrong answer!

I used to be a professional musician, too. Music (and any art form, for that matter) transcends the medium. It isn't just counting to four and getting the notes in the right place. The subtle undertextures of a musical performance are part of the &quot;magic&quot; that moves your soul. When I turn off the scopes and meters and just kick back to play or listen, CD's don't cut it. I have CDR's in my machines, but I don't own a CD player.

If you want to hear the difference, get ahold of an old LP in good condition of something that was recorded analog, and a CD re-issue of the same thing. Cue them up so they are in sync, and switch between them. LP's win every time. Good examples would be Eagles, James Taylor, older Steely Dan and anything else with good air space in the recording.

DirkBelig -- <<...at least you didn't pull the audio snobs &quot;Vinyl is better&quot; bullshiznit. No way in hell can a mechanical device (i.e. the needle) handle the acceleration and dynamic levels of a good recording accurately.>>

En-n-n-n-n!!! [Game show buzzer sound] Wrong answer!

A good phono cartridge can resolve out beyond 40 KHz. The noise floor is dependent on the groove amplitude, so to get high dynamic range, you need to spread the grooves further apart, which eats up more disk space. Basically, the human ear does a great job of masking typical analog noise, so once there is sufficient recorded information, the brain ignores the familiar noise sound. This is true psychoacoustic masking, quite unlike the ooga-booga mystry oil thrown around by the digital idiots.

A fine example of a recording that has dynamic range that will knock your dirk in the dirt in the dit is the Scheffield Track Record. It's a direct to disk recording that is a beautiful piece of exposition produced by Bill Schnee, and played by former members of Toto and others, on what constitues a &quot;track.&quot; It's seven minutes on one side and eight on the other. The CD copy sucks wind, big time.

Thge biggest problem with phono records is that they are fragile, and the playback system has (tone arm, cartridge, etc.) have to be pretty good to get really fantastic results. For the last twenty years, we could have used CD media to record analog FM, which would have dumped all over 44 kHz, 16 bit PCM. I've seen internal Sony documents that support the same idea.

 

Toolman

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
989
0
0
I am extremely pleased with the sound quality of my MP3s. I'm listening to them thru a Sound Blaster Live and Klipsch ProMedias and I think they sound awesome! Couldn't be happier!
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Yep, once I found LAME and EAC I was in mp3 heaven! The overall quality isn't as good as a CD but it's close enough for my purposes.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |