[Pez]

It's about both. Trust me. 

Also my original comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry I do get what you have laid out here and I disagree.

[ted_b]

Sorry, but your conclusions about a new recording in 128k MP3 sounding better than an original first print master tape transcribed to 24/192k is just plain incorrect.   

You called this a test of audio and sound quality know how, so we took this as more than your personal preferences.  But it isn't.

[rbbert]

I'm guessing (to be charitable) that the original poster was pointing out how badly mastered are most current recordings.  Regardless, his choice of 128k MP3 as the lossy vehicle for better mastering sort of killed his POV.

I personally have found some 256k MP3's with good mastering to sound better than poorly mastered 16/44.11 of the same source material, on the same system, but that's really a different ballgame.

[ted_b]

Not all our recordings are Stadium Arcadium!!  ?  Many of them are very very good, and to have them, classics in their own right, remastered in hirez (to our specs) is wayyyyyy better than new John Lennon via the telephone.

Overall, this is somewhat silly in that there's a plethora of trade offs in any system.  It's clear that the OP (based on other threads) has a system that makes most of his collection unlistenable...that's too bad. 

[AvidHiker]

I agree, this reads like a kind of "proof" - the confidence with which this is written is borderline irresponsible, imo, and the somewhat dismissive attitude toward other members' responses (here and in the other thread) is quite off-putting (from what I've had a chance to read).

If your only referenced sources are from Audio Critic, I think you might want to do a little more research. I enjoy reading their stuff from time to time, but they suffer from a significant degree of radicalization, imo. No suprise there. I also hope you realize that Akzel, while I respect his position on some issues, is in his mid-80s.

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.

I must say, I'm quite underwhelmed...

You won't get an argument on the importance of recording quality, but I've spent much of my life collecting music that WAS well recorded. I think most people I know had recognized this as an important aspect well before they began upgrading their hardware - I just don't think you're blowing people's minds with such statements.

[Pez]

Agreed. Here is visual PROOF that 128 and all other compression style formats are very lossy.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=311789

This is a very intelligent experiment done by one of the eggheads over at macforum. One sample of music is WAV i.e. not compressed at all, the other sample is your pick of MP3 128, 320, flac and apple lossless. The files are then compared to each other by inverting phase on one of the files and then matching them up. If they were truly lossless the net result would have been a flat line i.e. no difference at all between the two formats. Flac and Apple lossless accomplish this goal admirably. 128 and the like... Not so much. In fact 128 is the absolute bottom of the barrel WORST of all the formats tried.

here's how bad it looks, remember ideal would be a flat line at 0


Now whether this translates into better or worse sound is dependent on the listener, equipment and of course the recording quality but suffice it to say one who truly wants the best fidelity would probably err on the side of caution and use flac or some other lossless. Using WAV is likely unnecessary. But using any MP3 format WILL lead to loss PERIOD.

[srb]

First I will say that my extensive comparisons have revealed to my ears that 128K MP3s are audibly inferior to less compressed and uncompressed formats.
 
One interesting thing is how much worse they are seems to differ by the amount and type of content.  I am always amazed at how decent (not great) some Alison Krauss 128K files I have sound, the reason being that they are very simple voice and strings with a lot of space between individual sounds.  On the other end of the spectrum are multi-instrument classical and jazz big band recordings with a lot of instrumentation and a lot of dynamics, which sound quite awful.  The more that is going on, the worse they sound.
 
I have a thumb drive with demo tracks on it in uncompressed, 320K MP3 and 128K MP3 formats that if given the opportunity, I play on other systems I come in contact with.  Technical comparisons aside, on every system I have played them on, whether a modest cheap and cheerful stereo or an audiophiles dream, the 128Ks do not sound as good as the uncompressed files.  The only exception that I couldn't really tell the difference was on a laptop listening to the built-in speakers.
 
Steve

[barkerpj]

I hate to say it but your take on MP3 appears to be way off the mark. Comparing 128k MP3's to WAV/upsampled 24/192 files and saying that MP3's are better means either your ears need a good cleaning or you need a better system.

Rarely have I seen such bad conclusions on this or any other website.

[Pez]

I say get in on some of this action. http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-gramophonechoice.aspx

Free 24/192 true hi rez from Linn, a company who is well know for their recordings.
Then downsample it to 128 and see if you can tell a difference.