1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Kids increasingly prefer MP3 to superior formats

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 9 Mar 2009.

  1. itazura

    itazura PAWAA GURABU DAISUKI, YABAI DESU YO

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2008
    Posts:
    814
    Likes Received:
    9
    i've never gotten this. as long as it's a decent quality rip (192 or over) i'm not too fussed, as i really can't tell the difference.
     
  2. notatoad

    notatoad pretty fing wonderful

    Joined:
    25 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    3,213
    Likes Received:
    60
    a 500GB drive costs the same as a couple of CDs, if your collection gets too big just buy another hard drive. it's worth it to have proper backups of something that comes in a format as easily destroyable as a CD.

    i rip (and download) in flac wherever possible, but that is more about having a lossless copy than it is about sound quality. i can't hear a difference between ogg Q8 or mp3 V0 or flac, but i can hear the pain in lossy->lossy transcodes. if i have a flac copy, i can transcode to whatever format i need it to be in without screwing up the sound.

    also, i like that flac is an open format. i don't like to keep data in closed formats.
     
    Last edited: 10 Mar 2009
  3. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,577
    Likes Received:
    193
    The lowest I could have is 192, granted some of it's 128 only because I lack the Original Source.

    I think It's Absurd that people even accept anything below 192, I mean I like having a lot of music but if there's a huge compromise in quality forget it.
     
  4. ZERO <ibis>

    ZERO <ibis> Minimodder

    Joined:
    22 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    454
    Likes Received:
    8
    Actually the human ear is as good as they think, it is the human mind that is the issue. A sometimes simplistic device that is easily fooled and distracted, it also has the flaw of poor memory. The mind learns only though repetitions and has problems remembering things in detail, even things that just took place. Ever play that child game where you try to tell a story from one person to the next, what a joke our simplistic minds are! If the mind can not remember what just occurred it is an unreliable base for comparing raw data, because of this flaw the human mind can only competently compare things of which it has extraordinary familiarity with.

    That is what is wrong with the method, the human brain...
     
  5. Neogumbercules

    Neogumbercules What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    14 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    2,464
    Likes Received:
    29
    I use MP3's mainly as a matter of convenience. Lossless audio formats are great if you're crazy about having the utmost quality and spent large amounts of money on your gear, but like bauul said, 99% of the people out there aren't gonna notice or care about the difference between MP3 and FLAC.

    MP3 is compatible with my toaster, can be found anywhere, have a moderate file size (I prefer high quality MP3 when I can find them), easily recognized and transferred from anything to anything and works on my Zune.

    FLAC or other lossless formats are obviously superior in terms of quality but they won't work on my Zune and my shitty car speakers won't do them justice anyway.

    This is like comparing a Ferrari to a Honda.
     
  6. leexgx

    leexgx CPC hang out zone (i Fix pcs i do )

    Joined:
    28 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    1,356
    Likes Received:
    8
    every one knows that mp3s just work on any thing, FLAC does not

    192 bit rate should be good for any one but expert audio setup (not an music buff or have many songs my self)
     
  7. ZERO <ibis>

    ZERO <ibis> Minimodder

    Joined:
    22 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    454
    Likes Received:
    8
    Yes except that in this case the Ferrari costs the same to a bit more instead of 10-100 times as much money....

    25% of people think that the gov has its own money.... so yes in reality it is pretty easy to say that most will never know or care what is going onto there ears.
     
  8. notatoad

    notatoad pretty fing wonderful

    Joined:
    25 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    3,213
    Likes Received:
    60
    my flac files play on ubuntu, my mp3s do not (until i download the ugly codecs).
     
  9. Aragon Speed

    Aragon Speed Busily modding X3: Terran Conflict

    Joined:
    12 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    168
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm going to buck the trend here, I use neither FLAC or MP3, I use WMA.

    I use the WMA Pro codec, and transcoding from CD I use 44.1 KHz, 24-bit (A little pointless from a 16-bit source I know, but there isn't a 16-bit option with the pro codec), at a bit rate of 440kbs. Using the pro codec I can also use a 2 pass encode.

    At these settings I can't hear a difference between the transcode and the original source, where with certain pieces of music (not all, and usually classical is the most noticeable here) I can at 320kbs in MP3.

    I like the idea of FLAC, but the file size is just a little to much for my tastes, so by encoding using WMA Pro I get a good balance of both sound quality and file size.

    The down side of this for many people is the fact that WMA Pro is relatively unsupported outside of the PC world, but as I only listen to music on the PC (Using an Audigy2 ZS and a set of Sennheiser HD 515 headphones plugged straight in the back) this isn't a problem for me personally.
     
  10. IanW

    IanW Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    7,349
    Likes Received:
    934
    Personally, I believe the kiddies like MP3 due to its lack of support for DRM crippling.
    ie. If I buy a track online, I want to be able to play it on ALL the PC's in my house AND my MP3 player AND in my car!
     
  11. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,865
    Likes Received:
    470
    I've never had a problem with MP3. It's all down to how it's been encoded.

    I've always used CDEX to rip CDs, which uses the LAME encoder. Set correctly it's absolutely fine.

    Set as below, I can't tell the difference in blind tests.... however, the file size it produces is quite large... but who cares about that? It's still smaller than most lossless formats.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. knutjb

    knutjb What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.[/QUOTE]


    You missed my point the ears are just like the eyes, they are transducers it's the brain that sees and listens so it can be trained. MP3s are a practical compression tool but when you start cutting out bits you remove detail. If you know what instruments are in a song on a cd and it's not there on your MP3. I expect them to be there because I know they are there on the original recording.
    I have listened to 24/96 and I was blown away. I thought I had a string quartet playing in front of me and I could tell where each instrument was placed. What happens when you compress the music you remove data to shrink it. You also remove the spatial cues which the brain uses to compare with what and where it knows to be there. Try using a well recorded acoustic piece and listen to it for a week and then compress it. You should notice the difference. If you use your computer to listen, typically not the best source for careful listening, turn the digital volume all the way up since most crudely truncate the data stream to lower volume.

    What you listen for on compressed music is what is missing, not what is there. Usually the music goes flat and lifeless. My kid noticed it when playing a zune and the original cd on the stereo. It matters to me but...

    In the end what is important is that you are ejoying the music be it a silly money system or a boom box. What makes you happy...
     
  13. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Um.... it *IS* identical in quality - by definition both FLAC and Apple Lossless (and WMA lossless and APE etc. for that matter) compress the original audio file into a format that decompresses into an output stream that is mathematically identical to the original. Only differences are (a) compression efficiency, and (b) hardware / software player support.

    The one caveat to this is that it relies on you having an accurate rip of the CD in the first place. iTunes and WMP are NOT good at this - they rip very quickly, but often erroneously. To guarantee perfect rips you need to use something like Exact Audio Copy (which double reads every sector and does some clever error detection), combined with the AccurateRip plugin that creates a checksum of your ripped file and cross-checks it against the checksums created by other users ripping the same track.
     
  14. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Absolutely. 99.999% of "audiophiles" genuinely would be unable to tell a well compressed MP3 from the original CD or a lossless encode using top quality hi-fi kit, but they see "lossy" and automatically assume it must mean audible quality degradation, which simply isn't true, though they may very well "hear" it by placebo effect if they know they are listening to a lossy encode.

    Don't get me wrong, for archival or for listening in the home, storage is now so cheap that you may as well rip new CDs to FLAC or another lossless codec, but there is really no case for taking the time to re-rip old CDs that are already on your PC as high quality VBR MP3s (i.e. LAME --alt-preset standard or --v2 or higher, or OGG Vorbis -q 6 or higher, or the equivalent in another respectable codec), and even with the ever increasing storage capacity of portable media players, you're still going to be better off with a larger collection of high quality lossy music than a smaller collection of lossless, as even using high quality cans there is not a dog in hell's chance you're going to hear the difference.
     
  15. devdevil85

    devdevil85 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    I rip 128Kbps Windows Pro v10 48Khz WMA's with 2-pass encoding. I have a decent Sony 5.1 surround sound system and I can't tell the difference between 320Kbps MP3's. Of course I do this because I wouldn't be able to fit all of my favorites onto my 40GB Zen Touch. I've been saving my MP3's lately just in case I want to play them on a nicer stereo (where I may be able to tell a difference) later down the road.

    IMO, most kids download music in MP3 format and don't care what they do with it afterward. They don't understand or want to understand what other formats are out there.
     
    Last edited: 10 Mar 2009
  16. Shuriken

    Shuriken same christmas AV for a whole year

    Joined:
    1 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    22
    Now that IS flawed, the positioning in the stereo field is determined by having separate audio tracks for left and right channels, so no matter weather its a 64kbps MP3, CD or 24/96, everything is still gonna be separated in the stereo field (although the 64kbps MP3 will still sound shite)

    Something no one has mentioned yet is dithering algorithms, and that does make a difference, just compare a 2 colour gif with and without dithering, you'll see how important it is, it's the reason a sound can be compressed with out a noticeable loss of quality.

    Again, this isn't the point, they weren't trying to remember the exact piece of music each time, just the over all impression the music gave through the different wires. And those impressions can be remembered and compared.
     
  17. DbD

    DbD Minimodder

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    513
    Likes Received:
    12
    I did a few tests - variable 128-320 lame encoded MP3 vs the original .WAV using my fairly good hifi setup. The mp3 sounded slightly more airy as sounds died away, other then that I couldn't really tell. It certainly didn't sound worse.

    As for the future - it's MP3 downloads - that's all I buy now.

    Interestingly that's not all bad for audiophiles who hate MP3. If the companies want to introduce some *higher* audio format then they just need to provide a download alternative to MP3 - this is much simpler for them to do then trying to introduce a whole new CD format such as SACD. They just re-rip everything to the new format and the majority of their target audience can probably already play it (e.g. anyone using a PC, or some sort of music server will just need an update to decode the new format).
     
  18. knutjb

    knutjb What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    The stereo field i.e. spatial location is because the brain calculates positions through triangulation and it uses subtle details to do that. The stereo field is recreated from subtle clues reflecting off surfaces around the instruments be it a small room or large hall. Yes the brain can be fooled but not all the time. When you compress music no matter how good your algorithm YOU WILL LOSE DATA the more you compress the more you lose, i.e. spatial information since it is low in level takes the biggest hit. Algorithms, regardless of dithering, removes data then attempts to recalculate what it thinks was there when it un-compresses to regain dynamic range. Lossless systems and high bit rate compression work because they don’t remove too much and the brain can be fooled a bit. Dolby and DTS have produced higher bit-rate compression systems because the lower bit-rate systems don’t sound as good be it stereo, 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 systems.

    As for not trying to remember the exact piece of music just the overall impressions how can you compare the differences if you’re not trying to remember all of it? That is ludicrous you must remember what you are listening to in order to compare, kind of goes with the definition of “compare”. Your conclusion is a faulty syllogism. The difference is in the details, music is far more complex than a 2 colour gif, similar process, not the same. Figuring out what is missing is hard to do for most people because it’s a learned skill and learning takes time. Yes there are audioholics who hallucinate improvements purely from hype, more money than sense. Not all improvements are hype and good sound doesn’t have to be expensive, though you usually get what you pay for.
     
  19. knutjb

    knutjb What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    For Pop music that can work because it is so heavily processed however acoustic music suffers. A pro recording magazine, I forget the name, took original recordings heavily processed pop, lightly processed rock, acoustic jazz and small and large classical pieces. They started with a cd and used the analog out to a DAT recorder then DAT to DAT through analog connections. The more heavily processed pieces tended to sound better on the 5th generation copy and the acoustic pieces sounded worse on all copies getting progressively worse with each generation. The listeners were able to take as much time as they needed to grade each generation.

    So it all depends on what you listen to.
     
  20. MiNiMaL_FuSS

    MiNiMaL_FuSS ƬӇЄƦЄ ƁЄ ƇƠƜƧ ӇЄƦЄ.

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    130
    most illegeal torrents come in mp3 rather than something better, so there's not alot of choice...i mean er. rather what i ment ot say is.....who said torrents...*runs*
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page