MP3 sound quality?

Kim S. · « **on:** 4 Dec 2005, 03:12 pm »

I nonaudiophile friend of mine was recently in a consumer electronics store. He was told that the newer MP3 players can have sound quality superior to the traditonal CD. Is this true or is it hype? I doubt it myself as I always thought the information was too compressed on the MP3. I tried to do some research regarding signal to noise ratio, channel separation, etc but the product descriptions all seem to lack this info for the Mp3.

I have never heard an MP3 so have no opinion. Can anyone else here give their impressions and perhaps direct me to a source or "objective" stats to show my friend.

Jon L · « **Reply #1 on:** 4 Dec 2005, 04:52 pm »

Quote from: Kim S.

I nonaudiophile friend of mine was recently in a consumer electronics store. He was told that the newer MP3 players can have sound quality superior to the traditonal CD. Is this true or is it hype? I doubt it myself as I always thought the information was too compressed on the MP3. I tried to do some research regarding signal to noise ratio, channel separation, etc but the product descriptions all seem to lack this info for the Mp3.

I have never heard an MP3 so have no opinion. Can anyone else her ...

He might be referring to much-hyped "new" technology known as "24 bit Crystalizer" recently developed by Creative Labs for its X-Fi line of cards. One of it's claims is that its processing will make MP3's sound "better" than CD. Basically, it's digital processing that pumps up treble and bass, do some other processing to make certain front, main sounds more sharp and noticeable, etc. It's very sophisticated and works in 24 bit 96 kHz mode, but to me basically it's the good old "Loudness" button that old receivers used to have. Yet another alchemist claiming to make gold out of steel...

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/soundblaster-x-fi/index.x?pg=3

ScottMayo · « **Reply #2 on:** 4 Dec 2005, 05:20 pm »

Quote from: Kim S.

I nonaudiophile friend of mine was recently in a consumer electronics store. He was told that the newer MP3 players can have sound quality superior to the traditonal CD. Is this true or is it hype? I doubt it myself as I always thought the information was too compressed on the MP3. I tried to do some research regarding signal to noise ratio, channel separation, etc but the product descriptions all seem to lack this info for the Mp3....

If superior means more accurate, crrraaaap. MP3 compression loses information; the information can't be regenerated or restored. (It's lossy by definition.) Gone is gone. The only way that's going to sound better is if the original was poor to begin with; some badly mixed music does sound better over cheap car stereos and under radical EQ hacks, after all.

That said, MP3 deletes information that "has little impact" on the sound - that's the theory, anyway. What it deletes probably won't show up as channel separation problems or signal to noise, buy dynamic range and imaging take a dive. Very soft sounds sound different in MP3.

So no, it's not better. Just different.

kfr01 · « **Reply #3 on:** 4 Dec 2005, 05:32 pm »

Quote from: Kim S.

I nonaudiophile friend of mine was recently in a consumer electronics store. He was told that the newer MP3 players can have sound quality superior to the traditonal CD. Is this true or is it hype? I doubt it myself as I always thought the information was too compressed on the MP3. I tried to do some research regarding signal to noise ratio, channel separation, etc but the product descriptions all seem to lack this info for the Mp3.

I have never heard an MP3 so have no opinion. Can anyone else her ...

You seem new to the digitial music game. Your friend was sold on hype.

Mp3 is a lossy compression format. i.e., much information is lost in exchange for the small file size.

Mp3 sound is far inferior to CD sound. Now, at the highest mp3 compression level 320kbps, many mp3 advocates will tell you that they can't hear the difference between redbook CD and 320kbps mp3 on their Klipsh computer rig and onboard sound card.

Check out some of the graphs here:

http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-3.html

The resulting mp3's are VERY different from the original test CD signal.

Might some people prefer the compressed music with much less detail, I suppose.

My problem with mp3 is that it is a step backward. Instead of -more- accuracy, -truer- reproduction, and a -higher- level of detail, we get way less accuracy, a resulting wav form nothing like the original, and a much lower level of detail.

I'm fine with loading up a portable player with such music, for going on runs, commuting, etc. But for archiving and listening at home-no way.

Go lossless if you'd like to archive your music on computer. I now rip all my CDs with EAC and FLAC (a lossless format). The decoded FLAC file is bit-for-bit perfect with the .wav as ripped from the CD.

Kim S. · « **Reply #4 on:** 4 Dec 2005, 05:54 pm »

Thanks for the info. You are correct I am new to alot of todays digital formats, pretty ignorant about computer downloading, don't know what a squeezebox is, etc. My system is based on an old fashion dac and CD player as transport.

I think the salesman was telling my friend that a new "top of the line" video ipod would be a superior substitution for the traditional cd and dvd player for home entertainment.

kfr01 · « **Reply #5 on:** 4 Dec 2005, 07:51 pm »

Quote from: Kim S.

I think the salesman was telling my friend that a new "top of the line" video ipod would be a superior substitution for the traditional cd and dvd player for home entertainment.

Superior, I highly doubt it. Unless the cd / dvd player to be replaced is of very low quality and your friend uses Apple Lossless format.

The lossy and highly compressed music that most people use with ipods, especially the horrible quality music available at the itunes store, has no chance of being superior to cd sound.

Unless the listener has a thing for inaccurate, compressed, and distortion heavy music.

dogberry · « **Reply #6 on:** 5 Dec 2005, 12:08 am »

MP3 players can certainly sound good enough given the situation. For instance walking around in the city with my wrap around headphones and cranking some Iron Maiden at 320 sounds damn good to me. But there's all kinds of background noise, etc.

However, listening at home, in a controlled environment and comparing the same MP3 track to a FLAC (losslessly compressed) file then my response would be, "You have to be kidding." There's no comparison.

Every aspect of the lossy compression becomes evident. I've loaded up MP3 and FLAC files for friends who swear by ass-low (< 256) MP3 compressed files on my Squeezebox and played them back to back.

Makes a true believer out of 'em every time. 'Nuff said.

IronForge · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 03:16 am »

Also your audio system will really play a big part in this.. in being able to hear difference between MP3 and FLAC/APE files.

LightFire · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 Sep 2006, 09:35 pm »

Kim.

MP3 should be transparent for everybody just above 128 kbps. CDs have 1411 kbps just because of the scratch proof correction system they have. In a worse case scenario you may need about 192 kbps for the sound to be transparent in relation to the source (CD). Lossless format is more for archival purpose. For more information about mp3 follow the links below:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?

Rashiki · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 Sep 2006, 11:38 pm »

Quote from: LightFire on 13 Sep 2006, 09:35 pm

CDs have 1411 kbps just because of the scratch proof correction system they have.

The 1411 kbps rate does not include any sort of error correction -- it's 2 x 16 bits per sample at 44100 samples per second = 1411200 bits per second. If you factor in the encoding and error correction specified by the redbook standard (EFM, CIRC and L2 EEC), the data rate is actually much higher.

-Rob

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 03:39 am »

If you take a tenderloin, clean it, then stuff it into a grinder, don't expect to be able to make a filet mignon out of it later. MP3 will not sound better than the original wav.file. I've never heard any MP3 that sounded as good as a CD, but admittedly I'm not a CODEC monkey.

Zero · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Sep 2006, 04:10 am »

Mp3 was created to give users quantity at the expense of quality. An mp3 will always be inherently limited by nature. It doesn't get much more simple than that. However, I hear a number of original recordings that sound much worse than an mp3 extracted from a good recording. Lame encoding helps make things bearable.

Lossless takes things to the next level and is one of the only middle-ground solutions for audiophiles.

I've been hooking up rigs to the PC for years now - before it became something semi exotic and fashionable within a select group of audio nuts..

. The difference in playback can range anywhere from significant to slightly subtle. I have found the ripping process used plays a significant role in the end results....as does of course the quality of the original recording in the first place.