Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

Hi All, and thanks for any help for this newbie.

My new flat mate has a good quality stereo (~300 GBP amp, 450 GBP
speakers). I tried plugging my laptop in, and compared the one album we
both had (his on CD, mine in mp3 format). The difference was amazing,
with the CD sounding so much better I thought about getting rid of my
whole collection.

I did wonder if it may be the sound card making a difference however.
This was on a cheap dell laptop with the built in sound card. Is there
any point in getting a good sound card and using my desktop to play
them? Is there anything else I could do? It does not need to be
perfect, but somewhere close to CD quality would be good. I tried
playing the CD from the laptop, and that sounded fine.

The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec
= Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1
audio Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

I noticed one of my mp3's had a much higher sampling rate. I guess 10
times the size is going to be alot better, but I was not convinced.
Audio : 149 MB, 1411 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x1 = MS PCM,
Supported.

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

The difference was amazing,

It depends on why the difference was amazing: your mp3 may not be an
mp3 of the CD you compared against. A much better test is take the CD
and turn it into an mp3 and then compare that.

If you compare mp3 and CD on a good audio system you will hear
differences. On a typical computer audio system the difference is
usually less noticeable. Playing the CD and mp3 on your computer should
show this.

I tried playing the CD from the laptop, and that sounded fine.

This suggests the soundcard is good enough and that the major
difference lies with the mp3 encoding (but first make sure your
comparison is valid).

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

David Jones wrote:

I noticed one of my mp3's had a much higher sampling rate. I guess 10
times the size is going to be alot better, but I was not convinced.
Audio : 149 MB, 1411 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x1 = MS PCM,
Supported.

That's not an MP3. That's a PCM copy of the CD data and should sound
identical if played through the same DAC.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

andy wrote:
The difference was amazing,


It depends on why the difference was amazing: your mp3 may not be an
mp3 of the CD you compared against. A much better test is take the CD
and turn it into an mp3 and then compare that.

I shall give that a try.

If you compare mp3 and CD on a good audio system you will hear
differences. On a typical computer audio system the difference is
usually less noticeable. Playing the CD and mp3 on your computer should
show this.


I tried playing the CD from the laptop, and that sounded fine.


This suggests the soundcard is good enough and that the major
difference lies with the mp3 encoding (but first make sure your
comparison is valid).

I have just asked at work, and my boss reakoned that when you play a CD
in a computer it has very little to do with the sound card. Are you sure?

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

Mark Tranchant wrote:
David Jones wrote:

I noticed one of my mp3's had a much higher sampling rate. I guess 10
times the size is going to be alot better, but I was not convinced.
Audio : 149 MB, 1411 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x1 = MS PCM,
Supported.


That's not an MP3. That's a PCM copy of the CD data and should sound
identical if played through the same DAC.

Oh yes, .wav. I did not notice that, thanks.

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

Are you sure?

When playing a CD the soundcard will convert from digital to analogue
and provide a bit of amplification.

When playing an mp3 the soundcard will do the same plus it might decode
the mp3. If it does not then the computers main microprocessor will do
it.

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

andy wrote:
Are you sure?


When playing a CD the soundcard will convert from digital to analogue
and provide a bit of amplification.

When playing an mp3 the soundcard will do the same plus it might decode
the mp3. If it does not then the computers main microprocessor will do
it.

I see. I guess there had to be a digital to analogue converter in there
somewhere. So if the CD sounds good and the mp3 does not, then there is
not much I can do to make the mp3 sound better?

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

So if the CD sounds good and the mp3 does not, then there is
not much I can do to make the mp3 sound better?

Not starting from an mp3. However, if you have access to the original
CD then you could make a higher quality mp3.

I should add that higher quality mp3s are not a disaster. It is quite
likely that when you compared your mp3 against a CD you were not
hearing mp3 vs. CD differences but differences in the original source.

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"David Jones" wrote in message

Hi All, and thanks for any help for this newbie.

My new flat mate has a good quality stereo (~300 GBP amp,
450 GBP speakers). I tried plugging my laptop in, and
compared the one album we both had (his on CD, mine in
mp3 format). The difference was amazing, with the CD
sounding so much better I thought about getting rid of my
whole collection.

Just about everything is wrong with this comparison.

(1) No level matching
(2) Not time synched
(3) No assurance that the MP3 was well-made from the same CD
as it was being compared to
(4) No bias controls (hardly worth mentioning given how
bollixed up the rest was.)

There are the basics of doing a good comparison - manage
them well and you may learn some neat stuff.

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"David Jones" wrote in message


Hi All, and thanks for any help for this newbie.

My new flat mate has a good quality stereo (~300 GBP amp,
450 GBP speakers). I tried plugging my laptop in, and
compared the one album we both had (his on CD, mine in
mp3 format). The difference was amazing, with the CD
sounding so much better I thought about getting rid of my
whole collection.


Just about everything is wrong with this comparison.

(1) No level matching
(2) Not time synched
(3) No assurance that the MP3 was well-made from the same CD
as it was being compared to
(4) No bias controls (hardly worth mentioning given how
bollixed up the rest was.)

There are the basics of doing a good comparison - manage
them well and you may learn some neat stuff.

I had a bit more of a play last night, though I came up with much less
clear cut answers. I got the CD and riped the music to mp3 at 192 and
320 kbps, and also micro$ofts lossless format. My mate could not tell
the difference between any of the compressed formats when he did not
know which was which. He did get that the CD was better, but was not
sure. The CD in the CD player was deffinatly better. I have decided I
shall have to splash out on a new sound card (see my other thread,
Choosing a sound card).

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when
the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

If that is true, why does Lame code at much higher bitrates when the best
quality setting is chosen? For typical 1980's music it uses about 260 kbps
VBR.

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:05:19 +0200, hwh wrote:

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when
the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

If that is true, why does Lame code at much higher bitrates when the best
quality setting is chosen? For typical 1980's music it uses about 260 kbps
VBR.

gr, hwh

The higher the rate, the fewer occasions when something *might* be audible.
You can make your own choice based on your own hearing acuity. Be aware
that you can easily fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there,
though.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
The higher the rate, the fewer occasions when something *might* be
audible.
You can make your own choice based on your own hearing acuity. Be aware
that you can easily fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there,
though.

Yes. Using the "extreme" setting will however get me the best possible
quality at bitrates that Lame judges to be sufficient (in most cases).

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:05:19 +0200, hwh wrote:

"Don Pearce" schreef in bericht
...
It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and
a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when
the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

If that is true, why does Lame code at much higher bitrates when the best
quality setting is chosen? For typical 1980's music it uses about 260
kbps
VBR.

gr, hwh

The higher the rate, the fewer occasions when something *might* be
audible.
You can make your own choice based on your own hearing acuity. Be aware
that you can easily fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there,
though.



My *experience* is that people do not dislike MP3s as MP3s until they *know*
they are MP3s....

I don't say they will sound necessarily as good (strange word in this
context...) as CDs on a direct comparison, but I've lost count of the number
of times various people here didn't know I was playing MP3s at times.

The playback equipment that's used helps of course, I still say that a
valve amp will bring out the 'musicality' in them (or plaster over the
cracks - you choose :-) and make MP3s (128 and up - the 'upper' the better)
sound very acceptable. Interestingly, playing them from a laptop via an
external USB soundcard is much better IMO than from a disk in a DVDP - less
*squinks* and zero stutter, as well as being a good, bone idle way of
throwing a nice, long 'playlist' together!

Replaying them on a tiny portable gadget might be useful for music on the
move, but it ain't gonna bring the best out of them....

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , hwh
writes

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
. ..
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh



Being a Minidisc enthusiast, it's only in the past month that I've
bought a little 1Gb MP3 player. I am using 192kbps for the MP3s but
they are not as good as standard-play Minidisc recordings and noticeably
worse than the original CD. Perhaps I ought to try using 256k for the
MP3s.

What bitrates do others use for MP3?
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:17:41 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).

Interesting. What is your blind discernment rate? And what do you find to
be the audible shortcomings?

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:15:56 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , hwh
writes

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
.. .
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh



Being a Minidisc enthusiast, it's only in the past month that I've
bought a little 1Gb MP3 player. I am using 192kbps for the MP3s but
they are not as good as standard-play Minidisc recordings and noticeably
worse than the original CD. Perhaps I ought to try using 256k for the
MP3s.

What bitrates do others use for MP3?

I use 256, but not for any other good reason than because I can. I have a
huge hard drive, and I'm never going to run it out of space with my current
usage.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:17:41 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).

Interesting. What is your blind discernment rate? And what do you find to
be the audible shortcomings?

d

I've never tried to deliberately do a controlled comparison test. I
noticed it when I first coded some tracks I already have on SP Minidisc,
initially at 160kbps (thinking it would be OK). As this proved to be
very poor, I re-recorded them at 192k which was a noticeable
improvement, but still poorer than the Minidisc. In reality I find 192
to be adequate for purpose when played back using the MP3 portable
player. It's just that the standard ATRAC Minidisc codec in my Sony
MDS-JB940 seems to be so good. (What's the bit rate for ATRAC in SP mode
I wonder?).

Now of course it may not be the fault of MP3 at all, but the freeware
codec on my PC. I'm using Freerip, and have nothing else to compare it
with.
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:21:43 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:17:41 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).

Interesting. What is your blind discernment rate? And what do you find to
be the audible shortcomings?

d

I've never tried to deliberately do a controlled comparison test. I
noticed it when I first coded some tracks I already have on SP Minidisc,
initially at 160kbps (thinking it would be OK). As this proved to be
very poor, I re-recorded them at 192k which was a noticeable
improvement, but still poorer than the Minidisc. In reality I find 192
to be adequate for purpose when played back using the MP3 portable
player. It's just that the standard ATRAC Minidisc codec in my Sony
MDS-JB940 seems to be so good. (What's the bit rate for ATRAC in SP mode
I wonder?).

Now of course it may not be the fault of MP3 at all, but the freeware
codec on my PC. I'm using Freerip, and have nothing else to compare it
with.

I tried an experiment once with both Lame and Fraunhofer at 192. Listening
to both, I was convinced I could hear nasty bits just occasionally. I noted
them down carefully and could identify them every time - MP3 artifacts for
sure. Then I listened to the original CDs, and damn it - they were still
there.

Maybe Freerip does have shortcomings; I'm not familiar with it, but
although I believe I have a good ear, I really can't hear a difference
between a CD and an MP3 at 192. 128 is a totally differnt matter, though,
and for many records I can hear the difference quite easily. Not all
though.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:21:43 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:17:41 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to
AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 =
Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).

Interesting. What is your blind discernment rate? And what do you find to
be the audible shortcomings?

d

I've never tried to deliberately do a controlled comparison test. I
noticed it when I first coded some tracks I already have on SP Minidisc,
initially at 160kbps (thinking it would be OK). As this proved to be
very poor, I re-recorded them at 192k which was a noticeable
improvement, but still poorer than the Minidisc. In reality I find 192
to be adequate for purpose when played back using the MP3 portable
player. It's just that the standard ATRAC Minidisc codec in my Sony
MDS-JB940 seems to be so good. (What's the bit rate for ATRAC in SP mode
I wonder?).

Now of course it may not be the fault of MP3 at all, but the freeware
codec on my PC. I'm using Freerip, and have nothing else to compare it
with.

I tried an experiment once with both Lame and Fraunhofer at 192. Listening
to both, I was convinced I could hear nasty bits just occasionally. I noted
them down carefully and could identify them every time - MP3 artifacts for
sure. Then I listened to the original CDs, and damn it - they were still
there.

Maybe Freerip does have shortcomings; I'm not familiar with it, but
although I believe I have a good ear, I really can't hear a difference
between a CD and an MP3 at 192. 128 is a totally differnt matter, though,
and for many records I can hear the difference quite easily. Not all
though.

d

It's not the HF that's the problem, although at 53 years old my HF is
totally useless, perhaps even worse than most 53 year olds, with my
effective limit at about 10kHz.

The places where I hear the significant differences are where there's a
single clearly recorded female solo vocal which also has a
high-amplitude low-bass note at the same time. The vocal gets very
degraded when the bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no degradation of the
vocal during the bass note. It's almost like an intermodulation effect.
It's not perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral music,
probably due to the significant masking that this provides, the
small-scale female folk-ish material I like seems to be the easiest to
notice the effect on.
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Chris Morriss" schreef in bericht
...
What bitrates do others use for MP3?

I use VBR with the high quality setting. Lame encodes the tracks at about
170 kbps for old 1960's tracks up to about 260 kbps for more difficult to
encode tracks from Oasis for example.
This method reduces the number of tracks on my 6 GB. iPod to about 680, but
I think this is enough.
By the way, if you have the possibility, try to use AAC, as that can sound
good at lower bitrates than MP3.
(I'd say slightly more than half the bitrate in comparison).

gr, hwh

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:43:31 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:21:43 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:17:41 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:22 +0200, hwh wrote:

"David Jones" schreef in bericht
...
The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to
AVICodec =
Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 =
Mpeg-1 audio
Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

It is normal that a 192 kbps MP3 does not sound as good as a CD on
reasonable equipment.

gr, hwh

It should be very hard to tell the difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a
CD. There will probably only be a very points during a complete CD when the
differences will become audible, and they will be very brief, during
complex noise-like bits - particularly protracted sibilants - where the
perceptual coding fails. For most music you should hear no differnce.

d

If only! If Stewart were to offer £1000 to blind detect 192k MP3 and
original CDs I'd take him up on this one like a shot!
(If I could use my HD580s to listen to the recordings though, not
speakers).

Interesting. What is your blind discernment rate? And what do you find to
be the audible shortcomings?

d

I've never tried to deliberately do a controlled comparison test. I
noticed it when I first coded some tracks I already have on SP Minidisc,
initially at 160kbps (thinking it would be OK). As this proved to be
very poor, I re-recorded them at 192k which was a noticeable
improvement, but still poorer than the Minidisc. In reality I find 192
to be adequate for purpose when played back using the MP3 portable
player. It's just that the standard ATRAC Minidisc codec in my Sony
MDS-JB940 seems to be so good. (What's the bit rate for ATRAC in SP mode
I wonder?).

Now of course it may not be the fault of MP3 at all, but the freeware
codec on my PC. I'm using Freerip, and have nothing else to compare it
with.

I tried an experiment once with both Lame and Fraunhofer at 192. Listening
to both, I was convinced I could hear nasty bits just occasionally. I noted
them down carefully and could identify them every time - MP3 artifacts for
sure. Then I listened to the original CDs, and damn it - they were still
there.

Maybe Freerip does have shortcomings; I'm not familiar with it, but
although I believe I have a good ear, I really can't hear a difference
between a CD and an MP3 at 192. 128 is a totally differnt matter, though,
and for many records I can hear the difference quite easily. Not all
though.

d

It's not the HF that's the problem, although at 53 years old my HF is
totally useless, perhaps even worse than most 53 year olds, with my
effective limit at about 10kHz.

The places where I hear the significant differences are where there's a
single clearly recorded female solo vocal which also has a
high-amplitude low-bass note at the same time. The vocal gets very
degraded when the bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no degradation of the
vocal during the bass note. It's almost like an intermodulation effect.
It's not perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral music,
probably due to the significant masking that this provides, the
small-scale female folk-ish material I like seems to be the easiest to
notice the effect on.

Well, that most certainly isn't a normal MP3 artifact - it just doesn't do
that. So I don't know exactly what is going on for you, but I would suggest
you find yourself an alternative MP3 codec; there are plenty out there.

As for hearing, at 55 I can still hear comfortably to about 16kHz, which
may be better than average for my age - I will have to check.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Don Pearce
writes
Well, that most certainly isn't a normal MP3 artifact - it just doesn't do
that. So I don't know exactly what is going on for you, but I would suggest
you find yourself an alternative MP3 codec; there are plenty out there.

As for hearing, at 55 I can still hear comfortably to about 16kHz, which
may be better than average for my age - I will have to check.

d

I doubt if I could hear 16kHz even as a child, but I had various ENT
problems at around the age of 5 so I guess that didn't help.

I'll try a few other codecs and also check carefully by comparing the
sound card output of the pc with the MP3 player, although I don't think
it's the player's analogue output because the effect got much less when
I went from 160 to 192kbps.
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

The places where I hear the significant differences are where there's a
single clearly recorded female solo vocal which also has a
high-amplitude low-bass note at the same time. The vocal gets very
degraded when the bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no degradation of the
vocal during the bass note. It's almost like an intermodulation effect.
It's not perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral music,
probably due to the significant masking that this provides, the
small-scale female folk-ish material I like seems to be the easiest to
notice the effect on.

I can't see, or hear!, how any system that throws info away can be
totally transparent unless it can code the original info in the same
space....
--
Tony Sayer

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:15:48 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

The places where I hear the significant differences are where there's a
single clearly recorded female solo vocal which also has a
high-amplitude low-bass note at the same time. The vocal gets very
degraded when the bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no degradation of the
vocal during the bass note. It's almost like an intermodulation effect.
It's not perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral music,
probably due to the significant masking that this provides, the
small-scale female folk-ish material I like seems to be the easiest to
notice the effect on.

I can't see, or hear!, how any system that throws info away can be
totally transparent unless it can code the original info in the same
space....

Then you probably need to do some reading.

d

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:43:31 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:


The places where I hear the significant differences are
where there's a single clearly recorded female solo
vocal which also has a high-amplitude low-bass note at
the same time. The vocal gets very degraded when the
bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no
degradation of the vocal during the bass note. It's
almost like an intermodulation effect. It's not
perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral
music, probably due to the significant masking that this
provides, the small-scale female folk-ish material I
like seems to be the easiest to notice the effect on.

Well, that most certainly isn't a normal MP3 artifact -
it just doesn't do that. So I don't know exactly what is
going on for you, but I would suggest you find yourself
an alternative MP3 codec; there are plenty out there.


Sounds like clipping in the headphone amp - tubed? ;-)

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:15:48 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

The places where I hear the significant differences are
where there's a single clearly recorded female solo
vocal which also has a high-amplitude low-bass note at
the same time. The vocal gets very degraded when the
bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no
degradation of the vocal during the bass note. It's
almost like an intermodulation effect. It's not
perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral
music, probably due to the significant masking that
this provides, the small-scale female folk-ish material
I like seems to be the easiest to notice the effect on.

I can't see, or hear!, how any system that throws info
away can be totally transparent unless it can code the
original info in the same space....

Then you probably need to do some reading.

Agreed. The fact that MP3 works at all is proof that masking
is a very powerful effect.

The irony of audiophools doing so much listening via
perceptual coders should not be lost on us of the more
rational persuasion.

They seem to still claim to hear that which can not be
measured, but now they are not hearing the loss of that
which can be clearly measured.

Note:

http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/4345?noc=true

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Arny Krueger
writes
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:43:31 +0100, Chris Morriss wrote:


The places where I hear the significant differences are
where there's a single clearly recorded female solo
vocal which also has a high-amplitude low-bass note at
the same time. The vocal gets very degraded when the
bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no
degradation of the vocal during the bass note. It's
almost like an intermodulation effect. It's not
perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral
music, probably due to the significant masking that this
provides, the small-scale female folk-ish material I
like seems to be the easiest to notice the effect on.

Well, that most certainly isn't a normal MP3 artifact -
it just doesn't do that. So I don't know exactly what is
going on for you, but I would suggest you find yourself
an alternative MP3 codec; there are plenty out there.


Sounds like clipping in the headphone amp - tubed? ;-)


Hello Arny.

No, not a tubed headphone amp, although it's exactly that sort of
effect!

I've been monitoring the output from an M-audio Transit USB sound card.
I've not tried other codecs yet, but so far it's still the case that
192k MP3 is worse than the ATRAC-SP output from my (full size) Minidisc
deck. I've tried a comparison with the Ogg codec in Freerip and that
seems to be a fair bit better.

When I get another codec loaded on the pc I'll give it a better
comparison.

Just for info, (though I doubt if anyone else here has the CD), the
track the effect is most noticeable on is 'Euchari' by the Swedish band
'Garmarna'
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

In message , Arny Krueger
writes
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:15:48 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

The places where I hear the significant differences are
where there's a single clearly recorded female solo
vocal which also has a high-amplitude low-bass note at
the same time. The vocal gets very degraded when the
bass note is present, although listening on the
Sennheiser HD580s to the original CD, there is no
degradation of the vocal during the bass note. It's
almost like an intermodulation effect. It's not
perceivable (to me)) in complex music or in orchestral
music, probably due to the significant masking that
this provides, the small-scale female folk-ish material
I like seems to be the easiest to notice the effect on.

I can't see, or hear!, how any system that throws info
away can be totally transparent unless it can code the
original info in the same space....

Then you probably need to do some reading.

Agreed. The fact that MP3 works at all is proof that masking
is a very powerful effect.

The irony of audiophools doing so much listening via
perceptual coders should not be lost on us of the more
rational persuasion.

They seem to still claim to hear that which can not be
measured, but now they are not hearing the loss of that
which can be clearly measured.

Note:

http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/4345?noc=true


I don't have any problem separating an MP3 from a Wave file using my
measuring kit. Even with a simple 1/24th octave pink noise analysis.
It's my ears that can't tell the difference. They certainly need a
visit to the gold-platers!
--
Chris Morriss

Newbie question, mp3 quality
 

Have any of you pro-mp3 bods got a cd with a swept frequency tone on it ?
rip that to an mp3 and then play it back, the higher frequency end of the
sweep will be a dead giveaway ( anti-aliasing ? ). NB same happens on
portable cd players playing a cd eg Sony CDman ( which you'd think was a
good make ) because of the antijog feature the cd is spun faster than normal
and sampled into a buffer to give the laser time to recover if it gets
knocked, play a cd with a swept tone with/without the jog protection the
differance is amazing................

Pete