Ipod users / MP3 users -- Read this

[jimbo45]

Hi all
I think anybody who like music knows this already but on a BLIND TEST 8 out of 10 people preferred the sound quality on Older gear with CD quality rtaher than the mp3 IPOD quality.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Working Lunch | Is the iPod generation missing out?

enjoy.

cheers
jimbo

 

[Warfare]

It all depends on the quality of the MP3, really..
It also depends on the quality of Speakers/headphones, a Logitech will not sound the same as a Sennheiser.

I know I would rather listen to a CD version if the MP3 is the lowest quality it could possibly be.

 

[blackroseMD1]

Well, I really appreciate the portable qualities of MP3s, and when I rip them myself they are always 320s. However, if I'm sitting at home, honestly I prefer listening to old vinyl over even CDs. Maybe it's just the hisses and pops, but it sounds more real to me.

MP3s for when I'm out and about, Vinyl/CDs when I'm at home.

 

[DarkDavil]

Pop a cd into my Bose Hi-Def Surround sound thats supposed to be for my tv. Thats nice

 

[johnwillyums]

It all depends on the quality of the MP3, really..
It also depends on the quality of Speakers/headphones, a Logitech will not sound the same as a Sennheiser.

I know I would rather listen to a CD version if the MP3 is the lowest quality it could possibly be.

Seems to me we got all this fantastic technology and the consumer always gets lumbered with the not quite so good option.
When CDs came out they were touted as indestructible high fidelity perfection.
As any hi fi buff knows there is far more bits of information on a vinyl disk than there is on a cd. Classical music guys I know all buy vinyl for their £10,000 hi fis.
Yet it didn't have to be this way. They could have made the sampling rate on cds much greater. In fact there have been various attempts to introduce hi def cds but they haven't taken off.
Like jpegs on digital cameras mp3s are horrendously compressed. That's why they sound clunky and also why they are recorded at high volume. Even the quiet bits are loud. This gives the impression of a full tonal range over the headphones but it's a con.
Come to think about it betamax was better quality than VHS.
We always get what we deserve. The cheaper alternative.

 

[Lee]

At my age and after a couple of skips in life I cannot really tell the difference anymore, so since my laptop also serves as a media center mp3's are just easier to deal with.

 

[johnwillyums]

I didn't want to sound evangelical. I use mp3s played through my pc and speakers. I do try to get high bit rate ones or other formats such ad ogg vorbis or , best of all, FLAC files.
These last sound as good as cds.
I do think it's odd though that we nearly always go for the lesser format if more than one is available and it is this one that dominates the market.
I suppose size was the reason behind the rise of MP3 but when music producers change the nature of their output because of the limitations of the format it seems a shame.

 

[jimbo45]

It all depends on the quality of the MP3, really..
It also depends on the quality of Speakers/headphones, a Logitech will not sound the same as a Sennheiser.

I know I would rather listen to a CD version if the MP3 is the lowest quality it could possibly be.

Seems to me we got all this fantastic technology and the consumer always gets lumbered with the not quite so good option.
When CDs came out they were touted as indestructible high fidelity perfection.
As any hi fi buff knows there is far more bits of information on a vinyl disk than there is on a cd. Classical music guys I know all buy vinyl for their £10,000 hi fis.
Yet it didn't have to be this way. They could have made the sampling rate on cds much greater. In fact there have been various attempts to introduce hi def cds but they haven't taken off.
Like jpegs on digital cameras mp3s are horrendously compressed. That's why they sound clunky and also why they are recorded at high volume. Even the quiet bits are loud. This gives the impression of a full tonal range over the headphones but it's a con.
Come to think about it betamax was better quality than VHS.
We always get what we deserve. The cheaper alternative.

Hi there

It's not only the compression but the encoding algorithm and don't forget the quality of the encoding / decoding hardware. All 3 pieces play a role.

Old Minidiscs using ATRAC3 at 320 / 256 sound FAR FAR better than MP3's at the same bit rate. Trouble was it's a proprietary codec still locked away in Sony's vaults.

Artifacts play a Huge part - as do the transients . Some music is deliberately played at a very high volume in an attempt to mask the artifacts.

Of course Vinyl (or any analog device) will have far more information on them since you have an INFINITE number of gradations -- for example it's almost impossible tp print a perfect black & white pic from a digital camera -- the number of gradations between White and Black (known as the Grey Scale) is infinite.

The eye is far less sensitive with colour gradations so you can get away with say a 24 bit colour representation from a DECENT digital camera (with RAW file processing - not a 14 bit jpeg).

Decent CD quality is pretty much OK especially if you rip it in FLAC (or any other lossless compression).

Of course all this also assumes the original quality of the recording is fine as well.

Cheers.

Jimbo

added -- for thouse who don't believe on the Analog Vs Digital -- just read some basic info on "Fourier Analysis and Fourier Transforms". Nice light bed time reading for you.