[nobel]

 During Christmas i did an experiment by downloading a CD which i already owned. The download purchsed was 320 Bitrate. When i played this against the original it sound far much better with more zest and realism. I wonder how the original was produced as i was of the opinion that the original is no match for downloaded music. The music was identical with no remastering or new editon. Further i was put off from buying from the internet prieviously as the 192 bitrate sounded really awful on my Bryston.
Is there a difference between 256 and 320. If this is the sign of the times them my BRston equipment will not be shelved and i hope that most of the CDS will have the 320 Bitrate. I still cant understand why the music was better than the original.

[mhconley]

Wow...

320kbps is nowhere near CD quality.  16bit/44.1kHz CD's are 1,411kbps.

A lot of people (most?) are unable to distinguish high bit rate mp3's from CD's in blind testing.

I wonder if the mp3 is from a remaster or the same source?

Martin

[James Tanner]

Hi - some bit rates for you:

The bit rate on MP3 is from 32- to a maximum 320 kbit/s
CD bit rate is 1,411.2 kbit/s
DSD bit rate is 5,644.8 kbit/s
High Resolution 176/24  8000 kbit/s

james

[nobel]

Sorry even I am getting confused. The 320 is MP3 which i then downloaded onto a cd. At 197 my bryston was not very good. The recording sounded better in the car or portable unlike the original CD. However when the mp3 songs were downloaded onto a CD and played on the bryston the recording which is the same as my CD (not remasterd) sounded better whether it was 256 or 320. This is what i could not understand . The recording had more attack and vibrance as if i added a little more treble. It was night and day from the original recording which i cannot understand   

[dirk]

Sorry even I am getting confused. The 320 is MP3 which i then downloaded onto a cd. At 197 my bryston was not very good. The recording sounded better in the car or portable unlike the original CD. However when the mp3 songs were downloaded onto a CD and played on the bryston the recording which is the same as my CD (not remasterd) sounded better whether it was 256 or 320. This is what i could not understand . The recording had more attack and vibrance as if i added a little more treble. It was night and day from the original recording which i cannot understand

You download music, if you have it on cd ?
Or did you rip it ? (program ?, did the program process it ?)

[sfraser]

If I understand correctly the 320 kbps MP3 sounds better when burned back to a CD than the original CD pressing you have ?

I assume when you burned  the 320 kbps MP3 to disc it was changed back to a WAV file (or what ever the native format is on a commercial CD) and not just copied as a file? However either way  the original resolution was lost when the music was originally ripped to a MP3, and that resolution would obviously remain lost forever. However whoever ripped it to MP3 format  originally could of bumped up the gain (intentionally or not) which may account for the differences you are hearing?

just a thought. 

[Sasha]

What you call “better” is very subjective, you were deceived by what MP3 compression does (emphasis on upper MF and HF ranges), similar in some ways to what majority of speaker designers do when emphasizing certain frequencies (the smiley curve), this sells and it is the reason why they intentionally deviate from neutrality and produce junk that is swallowed by masses.
The truth is that it is far from “better”.

[nobel]

Thanks to all that have replied so far. It may be that there is an artificial gain which makes the older obsolete  CD's that much fresher. I have never brought fron the internet before prefering to buy the article from the shop but there stock of the older CDs which I collect are unobtainable. I certainly knew from the past that the transfer loss from an LP/ CD to tape was reduced. But my ears going with age cant tell the difference between the original and an MP3 burned onto CD at 256 let alone 320. Can the  Bryston CD player fully exploit the potential of this new way of purchasing for i would like to stick to the cd format for a long time. Also  does it make a difference as to the blank disc that you but i.e sony , verbatim logic.   

[Sasha]

It seems to me that there is some confusion in your questions.
CD player can play only audio CDs (it is not an universal player that can decode MP3 format natively from a data CD).
It appears that you are creating audio CDs from MP3 files, then playing them on CD player, and wondering why it sounds “better”. The fact is it does not. You have already destroyed resolution by using MP3 as source for your audio CD makeup. Creating audio tracks from such retarded recordings does not improve anything, or “refresh” anything, it is screwed up for good. You just happen to like the sound of low resolution screwed up recordings.

[dirk]

Less is more in his case...

[vegasdave]

Vinyl sampling rate=higher than any digital.

[geezer]

Vinyl sampling rate=higher than any digital.

Ah, but what is it sampling?

[adprom]

Hi - some bit rates for you:

The bit rate on MP3 is from 32- to a maximum 320 kbit/s
CD bit rate is 1,411.2 kbit/s
DSD bit rate is 5,644.8 kbit/s
High Resolution 176/24  8000 kbit/s

James if I might add something.... CD, DSD and High Resolution are generally uncompressed formats. Or formats such as 'lossless compression' can be used (i.e. the original 44.1/88.2/96/192 Khz signal is completely and perfectly reproduced). Formats such as Flac fall into this - or any of the latest lossless compression techniques. This lossless compression is similar to a zip file on a computer.

MP3 falls into the 'lossy compression' category where the original signal is approximated and the original signal isn't perfectly reproduced. Much like a JPEG photo. So the bitrate in itself isn't an absolute measure.

As for what is lost from a conversion from lossless/wav/flac etc through to mp3, using the software audacity you can get the 'difference' between both files to hear what is actually removed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmIAJeaKQys - Not a bad academic sort of experiment.

Vinyl sampling rate=higher than any digital.

Too bad about the dynamic range, accuracy and anything else though... Just because it has an analogue sampling method doesn't make it better if that is less accurate as a whole. People like vinyl for much the same reason certain people like tube amps... Because of the distortion characteristic that they are used to with those imperfections. The people who like them are used to that sort of sound and that is ok as it is personal preference. However it certainly isn't more accurate.

That personal preference is no different to the experience that some people like of getting up and putting a cd on, or putting vinyl on... They enjoy doing that as part of their music listening ritual and hence there is some discontent in high end audio with digital streaming as it takes that away. I could also be contentious and point out the average sort of person who can afford the higher end is a bit older, used to the older technology and it is what they are used to, as opposed to being technically superior too

[robb]

I find it a hassle to download anything from the computer; lots of extra steps, extra equipment, extra processing. I do understand the importance of hi rez recording, though.

A vinyl lp is so  easy. When you want to listen to music, all you have to do is pull the lp from the shelf, put it on the turntable and, presto you have music.

Its my understanding that a properly cut lp, the cutter can etch frequencies up to 40,000 cycles per second, and can be retrieved by the cartridge.  Assuming your preamp, amp, and speakers can reproduce it, 40,000 cps ( extremely faint inaudible overtones of only some instruments) will beat with the lower audible frequencies to create that glorious realistic sound of a life concert.

Alas the cd is limited to 20k, but that's pretty good for most. and its also so very, very convenient.

Rob
 

[adprom]

I find it a hassle to download anything from the computer; lots of extra steps, extra equipment, extra processing. I do understand the importance of hi rez recording, though.

A vinyl lp is so  easy. When you want to listen to music, all you have to do is pull the lp from the shelf, put it on the turntable and, presto you have music.

Granted, setting up a proper streaming library does take more work initially... In the end though it ends up easier. I can play any song (library is 1100 cds or so) with a matter of a couple of remote commands, or simply choosing the song on my pc, laptop, tablet or phone. With an interface that lets me visually queue or select. As said though - there is a significant setup stage in all of this and it requires a reasonably powerful home network.

Its my understanding that a properly cut lp, the cutter can etch frequencies up to 40,000 cycles per second, and can be retrieved by the cartridge.  Assuming your preamp, amp, and speakers can reproduce it, 40,000 cps ( extremely faint inaudible overtones of only some instruments) will beat with the lower audible frequencies to create that glorious realistic sound of a life concert.

Alas the cd is limited to 20k, but that's pretty good for most. and its also so very, very convenient.

That is the audible frequency range - not the sampling rate. A cd is sampled at 44100Hz - so provided what you have said before is true - it is higher than the practical sampling rate of vinyl. The frequency range of vinyl, due to physical limitations is much likely going to be more limited than the 20-20000Hz range of a cd (which is what you were referring to).

[vegasdave]

Here we go...the analog/digital debate...all I can say is that vinyl sounds more like real music and real instruments to me. And that's my opinion!

[adprom]

Here we go...the analog/digital debate...all I can say is that vinyl sounds more like real music and real instruments to me. And that's my opinion!

There was nothing opinion or debatable in what I wrote... You quoted what the 'effective' sampling rate of vinyl is and I quoted the actual sampling rate and frequency response of PCM 44.1 (i.e. cd). Vinyl's frequency range isn't limited in the same way 44.1 PCM is. However you lose accuracy immediately simply due to wear - i.e. a vinyl never plays exactly the same twice. The frequency range of vinyl is actually limited at lower frequencies (as per wiki) but the playback process introduces other artifacts.

Now for the opinion bit... There are two distinct cases where a consumer prefers LP IMO. Firstly when that is what they are use to, and the associated distortion characteristics. Or where the process of playing an LP contributes to the greater experience. These users I'd think are on the older side on average.

The second case is where a CD is poorly mastered and is actually an inferior recording, or due to bad post processing (i.e. dynamic compression). I think this case is more likely as so many cds are quite poorly mastered and everything is just boosted and compressed killing the dynamic range. I find this annoying, because it kills one of the best benefits of cd - the exceptional dynamic range.

[redbook]

 Yes , I agree  with the previous post . I have some" recent" well done cd records that have all the dynamics my Bryston/JBL  system can take . As for lps ( which are also very good) I don't miss the loss of high frequencies due to mechanical wear. 

[SHV]

"Firstly when that is what they are use to, and the associated distortion characteristics. Or where the process of playing an LP contributes to the greater experience. These users I'd think are on the older side on average."
******
Thoughtful "opinion" and fits me.  My wife is a product of the digital age and LPs are a curiosity.  A few weeks ago, i demonstrated the problems of "dating" in the 50s and 60s.  Put on an LP, start getting friendly on the sofa and before you know it....click.....click......click, etc.

Of course in the "old days" a Garrard changer was useful. :>)

Steve

[Crimson]

Vinyl at 40 Khz? 

No highs, no lows. Gotta be vinyl. Not Bose.

And I grew up with the medium.