Printable View
There is a difference obviously, but what about MP3s encoded at 320 kbps? I have heard about an open source method, called OGG, and I have never heard it for myself.
I find that there is a big difference in the quality of MP3s, and CDs that I owb. Which is why I buy CDs.
What is your preference and why?
I like not paying for things, this is especially true when I can receive the same quality for free as I could for paying for it.
I say 320 kbps is equal to CD. I can't tell the difference, I think the only person that could would be Waz.
I VOTE MP3, even if there is some tiny difference between 320 and CD quality I still wouldn't care because I'm a cheap bastard.
A lot of people can tell the difference, certain CDs have things printed on to the actual disc that can't be emulated into information. I would hate to listen to Kid A on MP3s :ph34r:
I voted CDs.
Yeah, I suppose some people could tell the difference, luckily I am not one of them.
I just don't see how MP3's at 320 kbps (CD Quality) is any different from CD's, perhaps someone more learned on the subject can clarify.
Normal Audio CD's are encoded at 128 kbps, but as things chnage. The concept of much clear and transparent.
MP3s encoded at 320 kbps are same as listening to an audio CD. Can't really tell the difference.
I say, if you got money go for a smooth analog sound i.e. CDs they are great to listen to.
And if not get a nice MP3 encoded at atleast 128 kbps.
Not exactly. MP3 works by stripping 'inaudible' (that's a lie) frequencies from the final file. 320kbps is okay, really. It's hard to tell the difference on most speaker or headphone setups, and you'd really have to be looking for faults very much.Quote:
Originally posted by Pornography@Nov 23 2003, 06:56 AM
A lot of people can tell the difference, certain CDs have things printed on to the actual disc that can't be emulated into information.
OGG is much better than MP3.
I like CDs, but I can't afford any.
I prefer CDs, as I like the tactile and visual experience of opening up the case, looking through the booklet, reading the lyrics, etc. In fact, If I'm at the store trying to decide between two CDs I want to buy, one of the most important features for me is how thick the CD booklet seems to be (by looking at it through the bottom edge of the case).
As far as mp3s go, I tend to think that under the right circumstances, they can sound as good as CDs if you're just passively listening to it. I wouldn't want to listen to more atmospheric music as mp3s (things that require a more active listen for me would be post-rock [Mogwai, Sigur Ros, Godspeed You Black Emperor], certain electronic artists [Boards Of Canada and Brian Eno especially], and other artists that incorporate higher than hi-fi elements in their music [Radiohead's the only band I can think of right now]). I don't mind mp3s for lo-fi stuff (Pavement, The Microphones, Heavy Vegetable) from an aural standpoint, but I do prefer CDs, as I said above, because of the whole experience, and also because I feel a need to own the things I like and support the people who create them.
I recently started the fairly large project of ripping all my CDs into mp3s so that when I do get a hardware mp3 player I will be able to fill it with music as soon as I open the box. I'm using EAC (alot of my CDs are incredibly scratched) to rip them, and LAME to encode the WAVs as mp3s (using the r3mix settings for 192kbps VBR quality). I am planning on testing ogg against mp3 once I get to my Kid A CD.
I don't really know why everybody is using Kid A as a reference point. I remember most of the songs being quite lo-fi.
Fatboy Slim - California is a great reference track, and also Aphex Twin - 4.
cds
i like the covers and stuff
having the official release
yeah
I made several Audio CDs myself. I had Sonic Foundry Sound Forge 7.0, and 100s of mp3s and CDRs and 100s of minutes of free time...
So I burned them and made my own Audio CDs, got the covers off the net and voila...A complete collection of songs...with not much of a difference from original CDs. As my Mp3s were 320 kbps transparent CD audio quality.
MP3s are never CD quality. Just look at them in a spectrum analyser and you'll see.
"Treefingers" is an ambient piece. "Kid A" (the song) sounds like crap on mp3.....and I don't have Motion Picture Soundtrack on mp3, but I imagine that a lot of them butcher the ending.Quote:
Originally posted by Waz@Nov 23 2003, 06:07 PM
I don't really know why everybody is using Kid A as a reference point. I remember most of the songs being quite lo-fi.
...what makes you think that ambient music automatically needs to be encoded at a high quality? Often that's not the case, as there are no sharp sounds.
Why does it need to have sharp sounds? I hate listening to ambient on mp3s. HATE IT. Thats why.
No, I'm just saying, there's no technical reason that Kid A should be a special case regarding MP3s. It's all mostly lo-fi stuff and will do just fine at a decent bitrate.
I guess it really depends what you are listening to your music from.
If you have a high end HiFi System, you will see a considerable difference between MP3's encoded at any bitrate and CD's.
Ironically the major quality difference will come from the actual circuitry of the MP3 playback device rather than the raw data stream itself. There is a clear audible difference between a high end CD player and one you can get for a few bucks, so there is a clear difference between MP3 playback devices (the actual hardware and filtering) and a High quality CD player. Unofrtunately, HiFi producers will not touch high quality MP3 players with a ten foot pole. They think that high quality MP3 is an oxymoron.
As far as encoding goes, you could spak up a HUGE discussion on what bitrate, ABR, VBR, CBR what command line switches for LAME, what encoder version, what encoder compile, etc etc etc. HA forums is a clear sign of how everyone has a different taste and belief when it comes to encoding their music.
For me VBR is a no-brainer. I can hear the difference on my external sound card's output and on my portable mp3 player. I can clearly see the differnece in filesize too. I would like to see the iPod use OGG... he'll I'll even settle for the iPod using mp3cue so I can stop having that second long gap between songs or split the continiously mixed cd's I rip into segmented tracks... but that's not going to happen for a while.
If you're truly a lossless enthusiast you can FLAC'it but I hope you are willing to spend some moolah on a RAID then (and cut down on your portable music library size in your pocket players).
Hardware is certainly important. But really, with a normal sound card, a fairly decent pair of headphones and a headphone amp, MP3s really bite the skank's kneepads.
Unfortunately even if I could afford CDs, I wouldn't be able to find half of the releases I wanted, and I'd never discover new artists and songs, so MP3s clearly have the advantage there - but that's not an explicit MP3 advantage, it's a file sharing advantage. If only more people would wise up to lossless formats. They're not THAT big...
I think my old Yamaha sound card gives me a fair advantage, with a pair of nice headphones and using DFX with Winamp.Quote:
Hardware is certainly important. But really, with a normal sound card, a fairly decent pair of headphones and a headphone amp, MP3s really bite the skank's kneepads.
Especially since broadband is becoming the norm nowadays.Quote:
Originally posted by Waz@Nov 24 2003, 04:20 PM
If only more people would wise up to lossless formats. They're not THAT big...
I would have to choose MP3"s for i get the song that i want without having to buy all the other songs that I didn't need.
In Greece cd piracy is a super huge illegal industry,so most greeks buy cds almost for free.Personally I prefer being illegal than being ripped off by the music industry.
On a cheap midi system, with limited equaliser functions, I really don't notice that much difference (if any) between Mp3 (even 128kbs) and CD.
On my own amp and speaker set up, I notice a large difference between mp3 and cd.
However for most lo-fi music I prefer vinyl. But don't have a decent record player, so it sounds a bit poo. My friend however does have a top notch record player and I just think music sounds so much better on it.
Vinyl is much warmer, but too much of an inconvenience.
With some music, even sub-standard bitrates sound fine. I've got a 96kbps mp3 of Nico's "These Days" from the Royal Tenenbaums soundtrack that sounds absolutely wonderful.
MP3s have roughly the same effect as a low pass filter. If the music is already dulled enough (common with crunchy synth/organ stuff - "Everything in its Right Place" for example) then low bitrate MP3 is gonna be just fine, and only noticeable on infinite frequency sounds such as cymbal crashes.
I hate low bit rates, you cannot get a nice quality sound out of them.
My old Kumar Sanu songs are encoded at 56kbps and they just don't appear to play at all. No sound, I mean I hate the sound quality.
I download a Phish song yesterday and it turned out to be encoded at 64kbps. Nasty.
You like VBR. I hate that too.
Why would you hate VBR? It only makes sense, at least in theory. Why encode at a constant bit rate while some portions of the music might be much simpler and cover a much narrower frequency band?
Simply because I hate it.
'cos he heard the term somewhere and decided to drop it in.
I have alot of MP3s encoded at variable bit rates and whenever i listen to them, there is a lack of something. I don't know what but its awful to hear.
Surrrrre, Mr. Google.
Anyways, I can't really tell THAT much of a difference if I'm playing a C.D on my speakers and an mp3 that are the exact same, because, my speakers are shite. And I am not playing them on my C.D player, they're even worse since the wires are all fucked up and they don't work sometimes. I need a great new sound system for my room, and conviently, Christmas is juust around the corner B)
That doesn't mean much about the encoding type. It could be the codec you are using, and/or the settings for VBR. VBR is a sensitive thing you know... it's like making love to a beautiful badger. First you got to make sure you have the right tools and then you have to 'turn and twist and bite' the right nipples.. uh... knobs, to make sure you got everything set up just the way you want it. Ice cubes: check; hot wax: check; ben was balls: check; Lame encoder, with VBR --aps settings: ceck; Donna Summer's 'I love to love you' check...Quote:
Originally posted by M.H.A.Q.S.@Dec 3 2003, 10:38 PM
I have alot of MP3s encoded at variable bit rates and whenever i listen to them, there is a lack of something. I don't know what but its awful to hear.
OK thanks.
I vote MP3s..
Why pay when u can get same quality for free?..MP3s at 320kbps are same quality as CDs that u buy from stores, I don't see the point. But then again maybe that's because I'm such a cheapsk8 lol..
No they're fucking not.
You'd better start being less stupid, and start typing properly, or you'll be laughed out of here.
I voted for MP3's because there free. As far as ripping CD's and burning MP3's to CD goes, I don't know a lot about it. I just know that it works.
And the one to laugh most at you will be none other than....Who Was it?Quote:
and start typing properly, or you'll be laughed out of here.
Hey WazWaz, wtf is ur problem?! I've only been here a short while and I already can see dat u r a jerk. U have been pissin off da admins n shit. If u hate it so much, leave! If u dun wanna hear my opinion, don't fuckin participate in a forum then. And it aint ur fukin business how i type stupid.
