News Kids increasingly prefer MP3 to superior formats

So many people lump all MP3 in the same boat, whatever the bitrate, usually with a snobby comment added ("i shudder to think").

There's a world of difference between iTunes' 112kbps and a home-ripped 192VBR or higher. For me, the biggest difference in sound is headphones v speakers, not MP3 v CD.

 

I think your missing the prefer, mp3 is fine but not better even to my luddite ears. Yes even high bit rate is still inferior though the difference becomes less noticeable.

 

I think my lowest quality MP3 is 192 kbps. And I don't really hear a difference when I compare them to my FLAC or SACD stuff. Maybe it's bad hardware, maybe my ears, maybe ignorance. I don't care. I'd go for FLAC only because I KNOW it's better [though I can't hear it] but without support [from Apple that is... my Touch just won't play it] and the possibility to convert from FLAC to ALAC easily on a PC I'll stick to my MP3s. Although I might give Foobar a try...

 

I prefer .mp3 because it is universal. After 160 kbps, I can't really tell a difference.

 

I have an Ipod for the car, so I have to use Mp3s to play music on it. I use Magic Video Converter to convert CD or Wav. files to MP3. It does video and music despite the name. It has different option quality's I choose "Studio Quality" my Mp3s are the size of 7mb or larger but sound much better. I defiantly can hear the difference and at least try to obtain the highest quality Mp3 if it must be in that format.

 

Kids like mp3 because they can fit a few thousand songs on a few gig stick. Besides most kids are partly deaf anyway so they do not hear any 'subtle' differences in quality anyway. And audiogoofs with 40.000 euro speakers and a 20.000 euro sacd player are stupid people who are thinking they hear the difference but in the end they are just as def as the rest of us by the time they reach 40 because our hearing degrades over time, and this effect is speed up if you listen to music, watch tv, driving your car, sounds at work and all other things that make sound louder the whispering. There goes their 70.000 euro subtile hearing aid audio system...

 

When ripping from CD's i always use FLAC. Its not as if storage is much of an issue nowdays. On my setup you can notice a difference between then two (but less so with high rate mp3).

But it is a pain that no PMP's that i know of support it and converting is a hassle. If apple were to support it on the ipod rather then thier own fomat (again) i could see it taking of. Again, it would be more for the sake of conveniance then the quality as would you care sitting on a train?

 

I do find audiophiles rather amusing, especially when I refer them to this classic: read the last couple of paragraphs

I listen to 320kbps MP3s through my E-MU 1616m audio interface (which has pro-tools D/A converters) and Samson resolv65a studio monitors (near flat frequency response), and balanced cabling throughout. Can I hear a difference between the MP3's and CD's? Hell no, and I have pretty good ears, even if I do say so myself.

Granted, 96kbps MP3s will have some noticeable artefacts, but most of the difference is in peoples heads.

I also think it has a lot to do with the over-production of today's music, while I'm writing this I'm listening to Muse's Exo-Politics from CD (simply cause I haven't got round to ripping it yet) and I can hear the bass drum is clipping from over compression. When the original CD's have artefacts its no wonder people notice them on the MP3s.

 

I like my MP3's in well.. .mp3, why? - because i like listening to my music or podcasts (ehm.. why bit-tech doesn't have one? i'd like to listen to it) on my mp3 player (yes, not ipod, i know i'm weird), also it's a lot smaller, if you have a big collection of your music in mp3, i can just imagine how big it would be on flac.

 

Ind the en many of these kids run araund using some crap speakers anyway, that is where they should focus at first, you can use the bedst formats, but if you are using some 5£ speakers. I used to use my labtop until I got a logitech 230 2,1 and since then I have asked myself why I let my beloved music be played on a labtop.

 

... I'd say that another point some people are missing is what kind of music do you listen too? what's it's freq range?
Music that is heavily produced/layered would sound nasty at 192... but a simple Pop song would be fine.

 

I don't prefer MP3 over other formats, but I prefer a song to be @ least 128kb/s. Also, sometimes I need to burn CD's in WMA, because certain older stereos won't play MP3's.

 

I never really thought there was a big difference until I got some DT-990s now I am trying to get everything I can in FLAC or the highest bitrate possible.

An issue with asking people about what sounds better is also how the changes effect the particular song. When I played a song for my sister she loved the crap version on the 30 eyar old $2 headphones over the flac version on the DT-990s with an upgraded little dot micro MK1. When I pressed to find out how this could be so it was actually the fact that it did sound better on the HI-FI setup as why she did not like it. In the high end setup the trumpets were much more crisp and noticeable, my sister did not like that and preferred the low quality one where it was harder to hear the sounds she did not like.

If you asked a class every year what the best game ever made was do you think they would provide a realistic view of gaming. NO, they would all say halo and you would cry yourself to sleep that night...

 

QFT!

 

I read the article and that ABX method is terribly flawed. A group hearing unfamiliar music on an unfamiliar system has no memory base line to compare good and bad. Listening is a skill learned through comparing familiar sounds stored in our memory and like athletes some are better at it than others. The same can be said for kids. MP3s flaws and lossy/heavily compressed audio in general, regardless of format, is through omission of detail. This is hard to pin down because if you haven’t heard the original how do you know what’s missing. Vinyl’s biggest flaw is additive noise. Most, not all, pop music is over processed and mixed to sound best on radio and is lacking detail to begin with. I have been working with my kids on how to listen. Sounds weird but you learn to read, write, etc… you must learn how to listen effectively too. I can hear the difference between cd’s and mp3’s on modestly priced equipment because I know what’s missing, I have a base line to work from. Another problem with kids is many have be using ear buds at excessive volume which has fried their ears. Unfortunately hearing loss is permanent and hearing aids are not like glasses they only amplify frequencies in which the wearer is deficient in. When the whole body is in a loud noise area for a while it fatigues quickly with or with hearing protection, headphones do their damage fairly quick and don’t impact the rest of the body so dramatically. At least where I have lived neighbors tend to keep loudspeaker volumes down but won’t hear overly loud headphones unless sitting next to them.

 

Anyone who says mp3 isn't worth using is talking crock. Now, you may have to use a higher bit rate for the same quality as some of the newer fancy pants codecs, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

MP3 has one thing none of the other formats have. Portability. It'll play just about anywhere. PC, DVD player, all consoles, iPods, car stereos etc. Something which can't be said of FLAC, AAC, Apple lossless etc.

 

Cowon players support FLAC, I have a Cowon D2, really sweet little player that supports a ton of formats. I think their newer PMP O2 or something supports it too.

 

It's not flawed, that's the entire point of the experiment, the listeners hear the piece of music through different wires (or coat hangers) having never previously heard it and they say which they think sounded better, how is that flawed?

The point I was trying to make is ears cannot be as good as audiophiles like to think, like human ears cannot differentiate between tones that are different by less than 5 cents.

You said it yourself, you know what's missing, isn't possible you're noticing these differences simply because you expect them to be there.

I know that mathematically there is a difference between a 320kbps MP3 and CD, but that doesn't mean human ears can actually hear the difference.

Have you ever listened to music at 24bit 96khz uncompressed? Nine Inch Nails released The Slip in this format as well as the standard 16bit 44.1khz, and again, I really couldn't tell the difference between the two using all my pro studio equipment.

 

I think it's good enough for the stock speakers in my car/office so I'll settle for MP3

 

Whoo! I'll be on the hunt for one of them then. Thanks!