Original cd vs burned-in 320kb mp3 cd quality
- Thread starter hfvuser
- Start date
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
"less difference" than ...what? 64kb/sec fixed bit-rate MP3 and CD? Yes! Certainly!
I think it is a misnomer to call any lossy-compression file "CD quality," because it isn't. Even if 500 out of 500 people fail to tell the difference, it still isn't. And I say that even though I may well not be able to tell the difference between a CD and a 320kb/sec MP3 rip of it.
<<< EDIT: The rest of this post id probably irrelevant, as you are using CDs only, not a PC --- but if you can compare formats on a PC it could be interesting, so I won't delete what follows. Feel free to skip it!
>>>
Please try ripping your CD to FLAC, which is not a lossy format, and, theoretically should give you exactly the same (excepting the data path may be different) result.
Try ripping a track to WAV, MP3 and FLAC and comparing them. Compare them in short snatches, but also compare them in longer listening sessions, in case you can determine the lossy-compression fatigue symptom.
Do try to set up a system, or enlist help, so that you can compare blind. It would really help the test if you are not biased by knowing what format you are hearing.
Then, please post your results. That will be interesting.
If, on the other hand, you can't be bothered with too much experimenting, and just want to rip your music and then listen to it, then the best theoretical result is going to come from lossless compression. Stick with FLAC. That way, you know you are giving your on-hdd music the best possible chance.
(Or no compression, which is what I did for years, until I realised that WAV files denied me the useful features of tagging)
I think it is a misnomer to call any lossy-compression file "CD quality," because it isn't. Even if 500 out of 500 people fail to tell the difference, it still isn't. And I say that even though I may well not be able to tell the difference between a CD and a 320kb/sec MP3 rip of it.
<<< EDIT: The rest of this post id probably irrelevant, as you are using CDs only, not a PC --- but if you can compare formats on a PC it could be interesting, so I won't delete what follows. Feel free to skip it!
>>>Please try ripping your CD to FLAC, which is not a lossy format, and, theoretically should give you exactly the same (excepting the data path may be different) result.
Try ripping a track to WAV, MP3 and FLAC and comparing them. Compare them in short snatches, but also compare them in longer listening sessions, in case you can determine the lossy-compression fatigue symptom.
Do try to set up a system, or enlist help, so that you can compare blind. It would really help the test if you are not biased by knowing what format you are hearing.
Then, please post your results. That will be interesting.
If, on the other hand, you can't be bothered with too much experimenting, and just want to rip your music and then listen to it, then the best theoretical result is going to come from lossless compression. Stick with FLAC. That way, you know you are giving your on-hdd music the best possible chance.
(Or no compression, which is what I did for years, until I realised that WAV files denied me the useful features of tagging)
Last edited:
koushik
Well-Known Member
Things are often the other way. People knew there should be difference but they don't hear the difference due to lack one or both the factors- enough transparent setup, discerning ears.
In your case it is easier to explain. I will trying to explain you with whatever small knowledge I have. MP3 is a lossy format. It looses quite a "bit" of information while shrinking it to lower file size. Which is quite significant amount of information. A typical mp3 of 320 kbps is 10-15 mb in size whereas a lossless WAV is around 50-60 mb in size. The loss in sound quality is quite obvious. If you move to more revealling audio setup the difference will be much more.
In your case it is easier to explain. I will trying to explain you with whatever small knowledge I have. MP3 is a lossy format. It looses quite a "bit" of information while shrinking it to lower file size. Which is quite significant amount of information. A typical mp3 of 320 kbps is 10-15 mb in size whereas a lossless WAV is around 50-60 mb in size. The loss in sound quality is quite obvious. If you move to more revealling audio setup the difference will be much more.
ranjeetrain
New Member
For the sake of clarification and to bring missing information on the discussion table:
(1) The "original cd" was the original CD as in those commercially available one?
(2) The "mp3 cd" was a CD you burnt yourself after ripping the "original cd" and encoding yourself? Or was it a downloaded one? Please clarify and add the information about what software you used for ripping and encoding if that's what you did. Were there any ripping errors and what encoder settings were.
(3) What was the player used to play the media? Hardware/software details?
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Ahhh... good points. Essential points. It must be a comparison of files from the same source.
Had a bad electric shock this afternoon: yes, still alive and recovered
but brain working less well than usual perhaps
Had a bad electric shock this afternoon: yes, still alive and recovered
but brain working less well than usual perhaps ranjeetrain
New Member
Ahhh... good points. Essential points. It must be a comparison of files from the same source.
Had a bad electric shock this afternoon: yes, still alive and recovered
I am sure as the day (err I mean night) progresses, you will be feeling progressively better
It makes absolutely no sense to compare playback quality of two media procured from different source material. I have seen a lot of people falling for this trap. I have also seen FLAC files sound worse than 128 kbps MP3. After seeing that first hand I always verify the source first, before getting into any comparison of any sort, because such comparisons are meaningless.
Last edited:
^
1. yes
2. mp3 cd = cd burnt by me using roxio tool with no errors. Encoder settings? "Make a Music CD". the song in question is the internet downloaded 320kbps copy and was not ripped from original cd. (& yes it was 320kbps)
3. a cd player was used which was connected to the amp which was connected to the bookshelves.
And I am not new to the music scene. I have done a few auditions of BS/FS like Dali, PSB, etc but all of them were using shop's "original cds". Only this time i used my created cd and was surprised by the low quality.
Now since at home, i will be using my 320 mp3s and laptop to play music, i am really reconsidering my decision to buy a 60k setup after my latest unsatisfactory demo.
1. yes
2. mp3 cd = cd burnt by me using roxio tool with no errors. Encoder settings? "Make a Music CD". the song in question is the internet downloaded 320kbps copy and was not ripped from original cd. (& yes it was 320kbps)
3. a cd player was used which was connected to the amp which was connected to the bookshelves.
And I am not new to the music scene. I have done a few auditions of BS/FS like Dali, PSB, etc but all of them were using shop's "original cds". Only this time i used my created cd and was surprised by the low quality.
Now since at home, i will be using my 320 mp3s and laptop to play music, i am really reconsidering my decision to buy a 60k setup after my latest unsatisfactory demo.
ranjeetrain
New Member
This is what causes more difference than there obviously would be. A vast %age of 320 kbps mp3 doing rounds on the Internet is upsampled 128/160 kbps material.
From what I have experienced, with a properly encoded genuinely 320 kbps mp3 doesn't lose so much information that it will be obvious on an entry level system. Track which have complex passages, tons of instruments, they lose more information. Other type of tracks that lose information are the ones who have samples towards the frequency extremes.
Today's popular music is such that - the original CDs have several dBs of clipping. Engineering/mastering quality is pathetic. For such tracks, it hardly makes a difference between lossless and 320 kbps mp3. But like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, some tracks lose more information. So it really depends.
Another factor that need to be kept in mind is - that - many hardware CD players that double as MP3 player do a lot of additional processing to make the mp3 "sound better". In other words, when they see an mp3 track, they color the sound. Any experienced ear would pick it instantly.
So, it's case by case. I have many tracks that I have spent days sampling at various sampling rates and trying to hear the difference. Finally I gave up and concluded that for popular music with everyday engineering/mastering quality 320 kbps is a perfectly safe bet (specially for portable devices where the storage is at premium). However, with HDD prices crashing and storage sizes going up day by day it makes no sense to listen to mp3 anymore. Why live with a potential bottleneck when there is a better option?
Bottom line is that, if you have the space, rip to lossless. But for portable devices and wherever space is a constraint, genuine 320 kbps mp3 sourced and encoded properly won't hurt a lot.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
I am sure as the day (err I mean night) progresses, you will be feeling progressively better
It makes absolutely no sense to compare playback quality of two media procured from different source material. ...
Thanks, both for the health wishes, and the rest. Completely agree.
ranjeet is right. Most of the MP3s and FLACs online are upsampled.
However, for some music/genres MP3 at 320 kbps VBR will sound quite good. Today's Hindi film music would fall in this category... they are too loud (loudness war at play) and I've found this to be true for many artists/genres in English music too post the 1980s. For such music even a highly revealing system will not help much... since they are recorded with absolutely no separation of instruments, clarity will be missing, missing detail, etc.
When it comes to "personal" players like a mobile phone, iPod, etc. one would not be able to hear a difference between an MP3 and an audio CD not to mention space will be premium.
PS - I will go against the grain here... but most people will not hear the difference between a well encoded MP3 (320 kbps VBR) and an audio CD. Probably if they know what's playing they will claim to hear a difference but I'm pretty sure most will fail a DBT. I've tested with compressed content across the board (in both audio and video) and most people cannot tell the difference between compressed music and compressed video even with reasonably high end equipment i.e. music systems and Full HD TVs.
However, for some music/genres MP3 at 320 kbps VBR will sound quite good. Today's Hindi film music would fall in this category... they are too loud (loudness war at play) and I've found this to be true for many artists/genres in English music too post the 1980s. For such music even a highly revealing system will not help much... since they are recorded with absolutely no separation of instruments, clarity will be missing, missing detail, etc.
When it comes to "personal" players like a mobile phone, iPod, etc. one would not be able to hear a difference between an MP3 and an audio CD not to mention space will be premium.
PS - I will go against the grain here... but most people will not hear the difference between a well encoded MP3 (320 kbps VBR) and an audio CD. Probably if they know what's playing they will claim to hear a difference but I'm pretty sure most will fail a DBT. I've tested with compressed content across the board (in both audio and video) and most people cannot tell the difference between compressed music and compressed video even with reasonably high end equipment i.e. music systems and Full HD TVs.
Nero9
Active Member
Original cd's are always better than encoded(compressed) MP3 format. The original cd ll have a bitrate of 1411kbps (uncompressed,high quality). you encoded the cd to compressed format which is mp3 at 320kbps (low quality).
1.But most of the people on the planet prefer MP3 why ?
A.firstly due to the file size,a 6 songs movie encoded in a mp3 (lossy,320kbps VBR) format ll come around 50-60mb file size. and secondly people don't hear any difference compared to the original cd (lossless,1411kbps) unless u are having a very good expensive stereo(2.1) system.
2. i saw FLAC,wav formats what are they.?
A. FLAC, wav are uncompressed codecs which are used to encode the cd from uncompressed(1411kbps) to uncompressed format(lossless 1411kbps)) format. the size of a 6 songs movie ll come around 250 to 300mb and the xtension of the files ll be .flac are .wav formats
3. i don't want to hear any of these shit just tell me ll there be any sound quality difference b/w original cd and mp3 320kbps?
A. yes. the original(lossless,1411kbps) always sound 5 times better than MP3(lossy 320kbps).
again am repeating, unless u r having a very good 2.1 system with amp and FS speakers you won't find any difference in most of the cases.
1.But most of the people on the planet prefer MP3 why ?
A.firstly due to the file size,a 6 songs movie encoded in a mp3 (lossy,320kbps VBR) format ll come around 50-60mb file size. and secondly people don't hear any difference compared to the original cd (lossless,1411kbps) unless u are having a very good expensive stereo(2.1) system.
2. i saw FLAC,wav formats what are they.?
A. FLAC, wav are uncompressed codecs which are used to encode the cd from uncompressed(1411kbps) to uncompressed format(lossless 1411kbps)) format. the size of a 6 songs movie ll come around 250 to 300mb and the xtension of the files ll be .flac are .wav formats
3. i don't want to hear any of these shit just tell me ll there be any sound quality difference b/w original cd and mp3 320kbps?
A. yes. the original(lossless,1411kbps) always sound 5 times better than MP3(lossy 320kbps).
again am repeating, unless u r having a very good 2.1 system with amp and FS speakers you won't find any difference in most of the cases.
Last edited:
koushik
Well-Known Member
Agreed to all the points excluding the FS part. Bookshelves cant be equally detailed and transparent as a very good floor stander, if paired well and setup correctly.
ranjeetrain
New Member
:lol: I wonder how did that magic number 5 was arrived at.
Yet, sir, I suspect, you will fail to tell the 320 kbps mp3 from the lossless, in a DBT 7-8 out of the 10 times on a system up to USD 2k, INR 100k.
Last edited:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Lossy Compression is not some sort of random removal of information. It is based on sound (no pun intended) principles that a lot of the information in uncompressed digital or analogue music cannot actually be heard anyway. There is the obvious stuff like that which is beyond our normal-hearing range. There is the fact that loud sounds mask quiet sounds. It's obvious that if someone murmurs to you from across the room while you are listening to loud music, you will not hear them. If that murmur had been part of the recording, it might as well not be there, because it will not be heard, right? So removing it won't change what you hear!
It takes some genius ability to work out the methods, algorithms and code to do this stuff. This is the same area of science as cryptology, even the basic principles of which make my brain hurt. The mental effort ought to be appreciated even if we decry some of the results!
Why do we decry the results? I guess that there are levels of genius, and the results are not always perfect! On top of that, the thing has been taken to extremes by those who believe that how many songs you can get on a CD or a portable device with small storage is the only specification that matters, and by those who stream music/speech on the internet or digital radio with severe limitations on bandwidth.
Mind you, even 64kbsec MP3 fixed-bit-rate is probably better than a third or forth-generation cassette->cassette copy, which may be one of the reasons that the technology has been such a hit with music-sharing youth. It may not be good, but it gets no worse. Perhaps nothing can destroy music more effectively than a cheap, portable, twin-deck, fast-copy cassette machine.
It takes some genius ability to work out the methods, algorithms and code to do this stuff. This is the same area of science as cryptology, even the basic principles of which make my brain hurt. The mental effort ought to be appreciated even if we decry some of the results!
Why do we decry the results? I guess that there are levels of genius, and the results are not always perfect! On top of that, the thing has been taken to extremes by those who believe that how many songs you can get on a CD or a portable device with small storage is the only specification that matters, and by those who stream music/speech on the internet or digital radio with severe limitations on bandwidth.
Mind you, even 64kbsec MP3 fixed-bit-rate is probably better than a third or forth-generation cassette->cassette copy, which may be one of the reasons that the technology has been such a hit with music-sharing youth. It may not be good, but it gets no worse. Perhaps nothing can destroy music more effectively than a cheap, portable, twin-deck, fast-copy cassette machine.
ranjeetrain
New Member
Very well expressed Thad. Unfortunately, on forums like these people go blowing their trumpet based on some theory they read somewhere on net written by a self-proclaimed geek. Wish people spent their time into researching the matters and spoke out of their personal experience based on the experiments they have done.
But that won't happen. Threads like these become playground of people doing "internet reading". Very very few of them will be able to back up what they write.
But that won't happen. Threads like these become playground of people doing "internet reading". Very very few of them will be able to back up what they write.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Sure. And I follow the path I mentioned above. Although I have spent some time comparing formats, and I'm always interested in theory at least, I don't have the time or the enthusiasm to undertake a great deal of proper testing and comparison. I'd rather listen to music --- or have peace and quiet. So I follow the precept give the music the best chance: use uncompressed or lossless-compression formats. There is no need for proof, either way; it doesn't cost any more or take any more effort so it is not a difficult decision to take.
Similarly, although I've convinced myself that I cannot hear the difference between 44.1 and 96khz, someone might, and if I am digitising, all it costs is a little disk space.
My experience with lossy compressed music is that I do believe that low bit rates cause listening fatigue. Even with speech, where the compression may not be at all obvious in a few seconds, after a few minutes one can feel it: the material becomes less enjoyable, the comedy less funny, the interesting documentary mildly irritating.
But I have listened to many hours of such material, quite happily, on trains and planes and will continue to do so. Who knows: one day some super-quality earphones might change my mind on that!
Similarly, although I've convinced myself that I cannot hear the difference between 44.1 and 96khz, someone might, and if I am digitising, all it costs is a little disk space.
My experience with lossy compressed music is that I do believe that low bit rates cause listening fatigue. Even with speech, where the compression may not be at all obvious in a few seconds, after a few minutes one can feel it: the material becomes less enjoyable, the comedy less funny, the interesting documentary mildly irritating.
But I have listened to many hours of such material, quite happily, on trains and planes and will continue to do so. Who knows: one day some super-quality earphones might change my mind on that!
Unlike Europe (specifically England) professional electricians are cheap here and available dime a dozen. Please make use of them.Had a bad electric shock this afternoon: yes, still alive and recovered
hyeah:+1
Last edited:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Oddly, they'd done the wiring job and left! I was just fixing some steel net over holes in the EB-board cupboard to keep rats out. Not even electrical work! Although it's true that I do do my own trivial electrics.
Apart from sheer stupidity like chopping through a wire I should have isolated and didn't, my experience is that shocks come when you're not expecting them, from something you never expected to be live. This was the casing of the main EB meter, and I touched it with my head. 450 volts; I measured it*. Bad enough that I went to see a doc and get an ecg done. Not bad enough that they had to blow the smoke off me, or pick me up from the floor. Yes, we'll get the meter replaced. But the appropriate EB officer is away until 1st Dec.
It's a good thing I don't don't do musical compression coding: I might do something really dangerous!
*But not while my head was still in the circuit.
Last edited:
mp3 Vs lossless is matter of on-going debate and there are people who will show you tens of graphs on their blogs demonstrating that Lossless is better than the mp3, and there will be people who will show experimental A/B test results to show that mp3 sound same as CD for test subjects.
But it should be noted here that mp3 was designed to compress music to smaller volumes in a lossy manner whereas FLAC compresses music in lossless manner. mp3's algorithm loses mostly those cues and details from the sound that are 'apparently' not audible/noticed by human ear but in this process, it does loses out on certain details. When I encode a file in different bitrates and compared.
mp3 Vs Mp3
64kbps vs 128 kbps > huge difference in quality
128kbps vs 256 kbps > difference in quality
256kbps vs 320 kbps > lesser difference in quality
mp3 Vs FLAC
320kbps mp3 vs FLAC > lesser difference in quality
As far as personal hearing is concerned, I do hear aural differences in mp3 and FLAC in a double blind test both on PMP as well as DAC. FLAC is slightly louder and clearer to me but can't comment on other people's perception.
But it should be noted here that mp3 was designed to compress music to smaller volumes in a lossy manner whereas FLAC compresses music in lossless manner. mp3's algorithm loses mostly those cues and details from the sound that are 'apparently' not audible/noticed by human ear but in this process, it does loses out on certain details. When I encode a file in different bitrates and compared.
mp3 Vs Mp3
64kbps vs 128 kbps > huge difference in quality
128kbps vs 256 kbps > difference in quality
256kbps vs 320 kbps > lesser difference in quality
mp3 Vs FLAC
320kbps mp3 vs FLAC > lesser difference in quality
As far as personal hearing is concerned, I do hear aural differences in mp3 and FLAC in a double blind test both on PMP as well as DAC. FLAC is slightly louder and clearer to me but can't comment on other people's perception.
Last edited:
Buy from India's official online dealer!
Similar threads
