[Jabroni]

Here's a hypothetical question that you may, or may not, find challenging:
Which of the following 2 options do you think (or know) would result in better overall sound quality?


Option 1

Replace your present system with a $3000 CAD budget system comprised of a second hand, 'bottom of the line' Bryston B60SST Integrated Amp with the DAC option (I sold mine for $1400 CAD) and Axiom's top of the line M80v3 floor standing speakers ($1300 CAD new). $300 is budgeted for cables and the source of your choice. If you use a computer as your source then the $300 is for cables and an SPDIF sound card (the B60 doesn't have a USB input). Everyone obviously has a computer so no need to include it in the cost. Plus...

Replace your entire CD collection with state of the art, rerecorded, remixed, remastered, 16 bit, 44.1KHz PCM audio, ripped and converted to 128kbps mp3s using the best engineers, equipments, techniques and protocols on earth to create recordings which are as perfect as humanly possible given the constraints.


Option 2

Replace your entire CD collection with state of the art, hi rez (24bit / 192Khz) versions of the original mixes used to create your collection. Plus...

You get $500 000 to spend on gear, room treatments, Mpingo discs, Shakti stones, 99.9999999999% solid silver core wire, acousticians, expert advice or anything else you think you need to build the best sounding system that $500K can build in 3 months (it can be a 2 channel system or a surround sound system extracted from the 2 channel mix - whatever you want).

Any unused money ascends back into the trees and cannot be used to buy more music, hookers, sports cars, vacations or home improvements.


Working Assumptions - For Both Options
1. You have at least 1000 CDs in your collection (all 16 bit, 44.1KHz)
2. CDs were all bought solely for love of the music not for recording quality
3. Your musical tastes cover the entire spectrum from classical to hard rock &
4. A real world distribution of typical CD recording quality from crap to amazing.


The Question
If the sole criteria is maximum sound quality at an enjoyably loud level, from song to song, in an average sized living room, from one listening position of your choice, which option would you choose and why?


Hint
I have chosen my words carefully but there's no need to micro analyze the options or assumptions. The answer is fairly straightforward.


modification - added 'For Both Options' to Working Assumptions

[neekomax]

Replace your entire CD collection with state of the art, rerecorded, remixed, remastered, 16 bit, 44.1KHz PCM audio, ripped and converted to 128kbps mp3s using the best engineers, equipments, techniques and protocols on earth to create recordings which are as perfect as humanly possible given the constraints.

This is sorta baffling. Re-recorded? What if it's a Hendrix album? 

[Laundrew]

Interesting question. 

As I am somewhat of a non-conforming conformist whom spends as much time as possible in a dark, secluded basement, I will select Option 3 "keep my existing gear" and be most content.

 

Be well....

[Jabroni]

This is sorta baffling. Re-recorded? What if it's a Hendrix album? 

I thought that might come up! Since it's hypothetical, they're all raised from the dead for one last recording session... Hendrix, Joplin, Bonham, Scott, Garcia, Lennon, Sinatra - EEEVVVERYOOOOONE - for those likeminded fans of Gary Oldman in The Professional. 

[neekomax]

I don't know, man, 128kbps is a mighty crappy sounding bitrate no matter how you slice it.

I go B, the half a mil system and the standard recordings.

Pretty out there question, I gotta say...

[WGH]

Option 1: (music) ripped and converted to 128kbps mp3s = garbage in, garbage out

I'll pick Option 2, hypothetically speaking.

Wayne

[ted_b]

128k MP3 is very very lossy (and they use the word lossy for a reason; you'll never get it back) and a poor, smeared, broken choice when you went to the trouble of raising the dead and getting them back in studio...so I'd clearly go with the 24 bit master tapes and option b.  By the way, the room is 75% of anyone's hurdles, so use lots of time and money there. 

[*Scotty*]

As I see it this is a loaded question,

16 bit, 44.1KHz PCM audio, ripped and converted to 128kbps mp3s

with the addition of this caveat it has gone off.
Even the least expensive Bryston gear should reveal the magnitude of an error this big.
 I would take the second option,I can buy a system that would fit my definition of good enough,
and also be able to buy a Lamborghini Gallardo  LP570-4 Superleggera. This is a good twofer. You may ask yourself how I can justify the Lambo given the pre-existing conditions placed on the money.
  The sound made by the Lambo in my garage is necessary to meet my definition of enjoyable sound quality from older pop music. A lot of this music is ROAD MUSIC,and for maximum enjoyment must be heard with the accompaniment of a cars' running engine.
 If we are concerned with the best sound quality possible from this music genre then the sound made by a Chevy Chevette won't cut it.
 The three month time frame bites as it precludes getting any custom electronics or loudspeakers designed and built so I will stick with the amp and preamp I have and thoroughly investigate bigger/better loudspeakers and computer software manipulation of the speaker/room interface as well as custom EQ curves for each Artist,Album,song as required. Most old pop music requires tone controls for best enjoyment and equalization via the computer has brought this capability back without the penalty exacted by active electronics.
 Plenty of money should be left for the purchase of RPG diffusors. Diffusion is the most expensive part of successful room treatment and is virtually always skimped on or not used at all because of the cost. Think about how many pictures of dedicated audio man-caves you have seen that have no furniture and bare walls. A chair in the sweet-spot and the system in an empty room. DUH OH! Gymnasium anyone?
 With a little bit of lead time I could probably get a dedicated room for audio to put the RPGs in built on to the house for about fifty thou and still meet the three month deadline. I would also spend some of the money to go off the grid to solve the power problem as well.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
Scotty

[frankg]

It's kind of backwards. I would expect lower cost system - high quality files vs expensive system - MP3 files.
I would take lossless files any day.

[Anonamemouse]

Interesting question...

If it were possible to measure quality in absolute units the first option would be the winner when it comes to price/quality units.
If one goes for quality cost no object, then option 2 wins.

[ted_b]

Interesting question...

If it were possible to measure quality in absolute units the first option would be the winner when it comes to price/quality units.
If one goes for quality cost no object, then option 2 wins.

It is NOT a cost-no-object option...he GAVE you $500k to spend.  Cost is not an issue.  Quality is all that matters, so how in the world would a 128k MP3 highly lossy output (even from a direct feed of Jimi playing in the room next to you) come close?  AM radio, now matter how well received, is still AM radio.

[eclein]

Option Two for me, I have a fledgling hi-rez thing going on and I think they sound like where I wanna go with my system, I'm pretty damn close right now though...I'm very pleased with everything I have and a piece of Schiit DAC hasn't even arrived yet. 

[vegasdave]

Option 2, but I can do a system for less than $500,000 US and be very musically satisfying.

[AvidHiker]

Replace your entire CD collection with state of the art, rerecorded, remixed, remastered, 16 bit, 44.1KHz PCM audio, ripped and converted to 128kbps mp3s using the best engineers, equipments, techniques and protocols on earth to create recordings which are as perfect as humanly possible given the constraints.

Occasionally, I have found 128kbps to produce "acceptable" sound (i.e., not great), but I seriously doubt that the absolute "best" encoding/compression algorithm (if such a thing exists) would consistently produce a file of reasonable quality. It doesn't take a $3000 system to discern the flaws in mp3 compression, imo. To me, this is a silly question - why not just ask for people's opinions on mp3 sound. I'll take a pepsi challenge any day.

[Mag]

My opinion on MP3.
Back in the day, oh 10-12 years ago my friend and I were trying to decide which compression to use, 192 WMA or 256 mp3. System was entry level stuff. With this equipment we could not discern any significant difference at 192 WMA and a cd. So we used this format to save stuff.

I found WMA to be inconvenient and switched to 320 mp3.

As my stereo has improved since then I can definitely tell the difference between 320 mp3 and cd when compared. 320 mp3 can sound pretty darn good on a good player but still lacks music info particularly in bass freq. compared to cd.

[ted_b]

My opinion on MP3.
Back in the day, oh 10-12 years ago my friend and I were trying to decide which compression to use, 192 WMA or 256 mp3. System was entry level stuff. With this equipment we could not discern any significant difference at 192 WMA and a cd. So we used this format to save stuff.

I found WMA to be inconvenient and switched to 320 mp3.

As my stereo has improved since then I can definitely tell the difference between 320 mp3 and cd when compared. 320 mp3 can sound pretty darn good on a good player but still lacks music info particularly in bass freq. compared to cd.

And 128 MP3 (the subject here) is nowhere near 320 MP3.

[Pez]

Ummm... I'm sorry could the OP repeat the question?

[Jabroni]

So the question was, ‘If the sole criteria is maximum sound quality at an enjoyably loud level, from song to song …which option would you choose?

The correct answer is Option 1, by a country mile. The baby Bryston and Axiom system would sound so staggeringly good on every single recording it would make you long for bigger amps so you could listen even louder for hours on end without fatigue. Try doing that with run of the mill recordings.

The mp3 and hi rez conversions were thrown in as red herrings. They would have minimal to no affect whatsoever on the overall sound. These two links mirror my personal experience:

My Take On MP3s & Other Stuff

Redbook vs. Hi-Rez

Assuming you spent the $500K wisely, Option 2 would obviously blow away Option 1 on the <5% of discs that were truly great recordings but mostly, it would just show you how badly recorded the vast majority of CDs are. Why would you want a half million dollar system to do that when any good $3K system has more than enough resolution to accomplish the same thing?


More on mp3s since they were the subject of most of the comments:

Even if there are differences between properly ripped and converted 128 kbps mp3s and regular CDs – and after dozens of hours of testing over the course of a decade, I highly doubt there are – they are absolutely dwarfed by the importance of recording quality.

The Number One Determinant Of Sound Quality In An Audio System

Anyone can easily prove this to themselves in less than an hour: Grab your best recorded CD and any one of your average recordings, no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel with horrendously recorded CDs to prove this point. Rip the great recording using Plextor Tools, EAC or DBPoweramp. Convert it to 128kpbs using the Fraunhofer encoding.

There is not a chance in hell that you will prefer the average recording over the 128 mp3 version of the great recording. If you think you do, just ask friends and family members which they prefer without telling them anything. Then, if you’re still up for a challenge, you can burn the PCM and mp3 versions of the great recording to a CDR for easy comparison and try and tell the difference between the two. If you think you can tell any differences, ask a friend or family member to do the switching.

[Pez]

This all seems (and is) very subjective. You like Bryston/Axiom, great, but hi rez great recording is better than any MP3 rip assuming both are the same recording and the source is worth a damn.

You are entitled to your opinion, but this reads like 'Proof' which it isn't.

[Jabroni]

From both your comments it's plainly obvious that you didn't read the question carefully. It's laid out pretty clearly. Replace Bryston & Axiom with the well designed components of your choice, it wouldn't change anything. That's the whole point, it's not about the gear, it's about the recording.