mp3

[PJPro]

Ordinarily I find this sort of stuff fascinating.
However, with formats I'm less interested. Why would anyone lie? If it's just their imagination, so what?
Personally, I would think that any lossless format would perform as well as any other. FLAC seems to be the favourite and is probably more to do with the fact that it isn't tied into any corporation as much as anything else.
So, why is everyone getting so heated? Beats me.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, sorry if I sounded heated. I'm also not very interested in formats. However, as Ian said it, "If we can't discern any difference but some people 'think' they can it puts into doubt their ability to discern quality differences in other tests". So, I'm just taking the mp3 lossless comparison as an example, which we can all also test for ourselves, of what reviewers refer to as better quality when comparing systems, and especially sources, which is not that easy to test for ourselves.
I agree with you that the formats we use are more of a personal matter, but as some people here say there's quality difference between them, I'm interested in them pointing me at these differences, so that then I can transfer this to the more hardware reviews.

 

[professorhat]

Ok, I'm not going to get drawn into another digital / cable discussion as I think it'll be my third this week and I'm getting a bit fed up with it all. On the error control, when data is sent from one device to another, there is always some loss, it's inevitable. In the computing world, transport protocols such as TCP/IP work by handling these errors, requesting bad data is retransmitted etc. and in this, it works as an error-free transport protocol (it was actually developed by the US Department of Defense to cope with broken links due to battle damage etc.). Now, this works on the internet as, in computing terms, the data isn't really required in a hurry - a user can be expected to wait a few extra milli-seconds whilst this is all sorted out. In the hi-fi world though, video and audio data can't just be waited for until it's received correctly - a few milli seconds pause would be seen / heard, therefore any losses have to be dealt with on the fly with error control. Sometimes this is done correctly, sometimes not and this is why the difference in quality is heard.

If you want to debate this, go for your life, as I say, I'm not going to be drawn into another discussion on this. To be fair, my original point still stands. If you can hear the difference, then use the appropriate format which suits you i.e. the sound you prefer. If you can't hear the difference, don't get yourself in a fluster about it, just use the MP3 / lossless format whichmakes the most sense to you, or buy the CD player for the sensible money which sounds best to you, don't go for the more expensive one when you can't hear an improvement. Listening to music is supposed to be enjoyable, not an exercise in science!

 

[PJPro]

I suspect that blind testing would flush this out....and that quality differences are flavoured with personal preference.
I would say that if differences do exist, then they would be marginal at best. Certainly, I cannot detect differences in lossless formats. Could be my ears, brain or kit are to blame here.
However, because reviewers claim to be able to detect differences in formats, it would not lead me to mistrust the advice given where much greater differences are evident (ie hardware)....even if it was proved beyond all doubt that all formats sounded the same.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks professorhat, good post! I'm reading about this topic now, so that I can make a more informed post next time.

 

[PJPro]

I agree with the prof. Enough said

 

[Anonymous]

Ok. Fair enough. So, a source has to read the information in a limited time, to be able to deliver it to the dac to do the conversion and generate the sound, hence, the logic goes, a compressed file takes longer to read, so it can generate a higher error rate than an uncompressed file, even if they contain the same information. Therefore, compressed lossless files like Apple Lossless or Flac, etc, should in principle be at a disadvantage against uncompressed wav or audio files. Am I right in what I'm thinking?

 

[Alec]

ian757 - thanks for the clarification.

Theres been a hell of a lot written since i last posted and most of it by people who have experimented more than me. In short, i think its probably best, assuming you're a hdd listeneer, to experiment with as many formats as you can/want, and choose one. Simple. I'm a flac user (or will be when ive finished ripping - im still using mostly 320 mp3), and itd be difficult to sway me to try another lossless format, especially one that may not play nicely with my pc - i had enough bother getting flac to work.

I've never used a "hifi level" cd player, ive been a hdd listener for years now, so i cant comment on files Vs CDs, but do know that i dont feel im missing somethiing when listening to a good lossless file. Speaking of which, there are good and bad rippers - its wise to experiment with them too. When i rip a 320kbps mp3 in media player, it sounds like im listening to a radio at the bottom of the deep blue sea, compared to the same song ripped to the same format and bitrate ripped with EAC. In fact, I'm not sure i can hear the diference between a 320 mp3 with EAC and a flac with EAC. I could, therefore, just use EAC MP3s, but one day i may get better hardware and, perhaps, the mp3s will sound worse compared to flac, so i may aswell stick with flac - it shouldnt sound worse on superior kit to mine.

 

[professorhat]

[quote user="bf2008"]the logic goes, a compressed file takes longer to read, so it can generate a higher error rate than an uncompressed file, even if they contain the same information.[/quote]

Yup, could be something like that introducing errors as well.

[quote user="al7478"] When i rip a 320kbps mp3 in media player, it sounds like im listening to a radio at the bottom of the deep blue sea, compared to the same song ripped to the same format and bitrate ripped with EAC.[/quote]

This actually illustrates my point quite well, as, although I've never used it, my understanding of EAC is that it uses thorough error control to ensure a perfect bit copy of a CD (assuming the CD itself is perfect of course, which it probably isn't!). However, Media Player doesn't use the same level of error control when creating the MP3 / lossless copy, thus introduces errors which must be corrected by whatever is playing the file. The EAC process takes longer though, due to this thorough error checking process. Again therefore, the player's ability to correct these errors will determine why these two files, both encoded at 320kbs, can sound different.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="al7478"]ian757 - thanks for the clarification.
When i rip a 320kbps mp3 in media player, it sounds like im listening to a radio at the bottom of the deep blue sea, compared to the same song ripped to the same format and bitrate ripped with EAC.
[/quote]

What's going on in here? I've just done this conversion myself, and compared it to the original file using my Sennheiser headphones, and I couldn't hear any difference at all! And you say it sounds like being at the bottom of the sea!
First things first, which equipment are you using? And then, are you sure you can tell them apart, I mean ABX them? If it's as you say, then you could even be able to tell if a file is in 320 windows media player mp3 or lossless even if it's music you've never listened to (I can do this with the radio and a cd, let alone if they're playing the radio at the bottom of the sea!). Are you keen to do this challenge with me? I send you a well recorded song and you tell me whether it's that mp3 or lossless.

 

[Anonymous]

I have the 320kbps MP3 and 4.6Mbps WAV Lossless copies of NIN - The four of us are Dying, and they do sound different.

 

[Anonymous]

Haha everyone seems to feel quite passionate about this topic! Not strictly 'on topic' but I'm surprised some people have said they can't hear the difference between an Mp3 at 128kbps and an original cd source. When played on my separates (which are not ultimate hi-end...simply Sony and B&W) the mp3 version lacks atmosphere, space, definition and involvement. A brief listen does not reveal these characteristics but when listening to an album carefully the mp3 version appears slightly 'soft' or 'smudged' and can actually seem a little boring. Perfectly acceptable to save space on a portable player but definitely different. It's not used much now but I actually prefer atrac to all the other codecs I've used so far (mp3, WMA and AAC)...I know a lot of you will disagree but it manages to produce a slight treble 'lift' that I enjoy. If you can't hear any difference between a compressed version and the original that's great...but that doesn't mean that others must be 'deceiving' themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="richardjlarby"]I have the 320kbps MP3 and 4.6Mbps WAV Lossless copies of NIN - The four of us are Dying, and they do sound different.[/quote]

Hi. I know there's a difference, and although I still can't hear it, I wouldn't argue it, but I can't refer to this difference as the difference between listening to radio and listening to a cd! (let alone the sea bit, which was probably a way of speaking). Which equipment are you using to tell these formats apart?
Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="oeurf"]Haha everyone seems to feel quite passionate about this topic! Not strictly 'on topic' but I'm surprised some people have said they can't hear the difference between an Mp3 at 128kbps and an original cd source. When played on my separates (which are not ultimate hi-end...simply Sony and B&W) the mp3 version lacks atmosphere, space, definition and involvement. [/quote]

Hi. Could you tell us more details about your system? Both Sony and BW have a huge range of products.

 

[Anonymous]

Sure its on my profile...quite run of the mill Sony QS standard cd,amp and 601 S3 B&W's

 

[Anonymous]

Hi! Thanks for your post! I was waiting for some clear post like this. So, although your system is discontinued, it seems to be very similar to an entry level amp cd player, with relatively good bookshelf speakers, maybe like the new BW 685?
Which new system do you think would perform like something like yours?
Have you got an ipod, so that you can compare your cd player with it?
Thanks!

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="bf2008"]Hi! Thanks for your post! I was waiting for some clear post like this. So, although your system is discontinued, it seems to be very similar to an entry level amp cd player, with relatively good bookshelf speakers, maybe like the new BW 685? Which new system do you think would perform like something like yours? Have you got an ipod, so that you can compare your cd player with it? Thanks![/quote]

Mmm thats tricky...as you say my separates have been discontinued. The cd player would be equivalent to an entry level Marantz or Denon I guess (at the time it was about £230 I think). The amp was one of WHS&V's 'Recommended' for some time at the £300 price point and similarly the B&W's.

I don't have an iPod but a Sony Atrac Walkman NWZ 806 and a Windows Media based Walkman NWZ 816 (both on the website http://www.sony.co.uk) which can play mp3, atrac,wma and aac files. Usually however I burn mp3 files to cd rather than listen to them directly from the WM.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, thanks! Very useful comment.
As regards the comparison between an ipod or an mp3 player vs cd player, I guess by what you say that you think that from your cd player upwards, cd players outperform ipods. Otherwise I don't see why you'd go into the trouble of burning the mp3s to cds. Thanks!

 

[Alec]

bf2008 - my gear is in my sig. id be willing to take a test in theory, but am not really willing to post me email address, so would have to get a hotmail or somesuch. By the by, i may have used rather dramatic language to express the diference, but it is a very clear diference to me. I would also say that a WAV in wmp is inferior to one encoded by EAC, and ive been tested on that, and tested a couple othe people too, who didnt know whay thet were being asked to listen to the same song twice in the first place.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok. Thanks for your post. Your gear is quite reasonable as well, not some esoteric stuff, so I'd be very surprised if you can tell whether a file is lossless or 320mp3 from media player without having the two versions of it. I'd look into posting the file in youtube or some other online system. (I have to make sure it doesn't change the quality at all). I'll try to choose some classical music stuff, so that it's not that difficult for you, and also because classical music is usually well recorded.

 

[Alec]

[quote user="bf2008"]Ok. Thanks for your post. Your gear is quite reasonable as well, not some esoteric stuff, so I'd be very surprised if you can tell whether a file is lossless or 320mp3 from media player without having the two versions of it. I'd look into posting the file in youtube or some other online system. (I have to make sure it doesn't change the quality at all). I'll try to choose some classical music stuff, so that it's not that difficult for you, and also because classical music is usually well recorded.[/quote]

somewhere like yousendit might work, but ive only got files from it, rather than put stuff on, so am not sure how.

 

[Alec]

bf2008 - or if you have a myspace? By the by, im often really impressed with the sound quality of music on myspace! Maybe thats not the best idea actually. Meh. sorry, if i think of owt else ill let you know.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="al7478"]bf2008 - or if you have a myspace? By the by, im often really impressed with the sound quality of music on myspace! Maybe thats not the best idea actually. Meh. sorry, if i think of owt else ill let you know.[/quote]

Are you sure you'll be able to tell which compression I'm using in the file I'll send you just by listening to it through your equipment? I can't believe it, really! I struggle to tell 128 mp3 from lossless in my equipment, having both sources, so I can't really see how you'll be able to tell with only one of them! Remember I will send only one, not both files!
Anyway, looking forward to this test!

 

[Alec]

Just to hedge my bets, im fairly sure. Not 100%, but close. What will the files be and how will they be encoded...?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi. I've uploaded in to www.megaupload.com. Sorry the site is not very serious, at least better than rapidshare. I'm sending you quite a nice piece I think too! It was imported in Windows Media Player at 320kbps, or in iTunes as lossless, that's what you have to guess, and then finally obviously converted to apple lossless, so that it gives the same output. It'd be great if you could listen to it now. Also, for copyright reasons, can I ask you to delete the file once the test is over? I believe sharing the file only for this test is legal since it's just for "research purposes on the effect of different compression levels in music".
Also, it'd be great if anyone else who sees this post does the test too, and posts their conclusion here. When we get many replies I'll say which format it was originally. Hope you'll play fair and not use any "tricks". Looking forward to the results!

The link is http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RZQQVFO0.