MP3's are taking over the world!!!

[JohnA]

It looks like the demise of good quality sound is coming soon (it has been an on going process). MP3's are infesting the young generation of listeners and they are compromising quality for convenience.

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2005-07-18&id=17132

 

[Spiffyfast]

It looks like the demise of good quality sound is coming soon (it has been an on going process). MP3's are infesting the young generation of listeners and they are compromising quality for convenience.

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2005-07-18&id=17132

Yeah sound quality is great, but on a good encoded mp3, I find a hard time telling it apart from a cd. I do own some cd's and I have a bunch of old records from the 70's in a closet somewhere, but I love the fact that I have about 7,000 songs on my computer, can make custom play lists, and listen to pretty much whatever I want for hours and not have to worry about changing cd's. With my Audigy 2 Platinum I can use the fiber optic out and take it straight to my receiver and nobody even notices that its an mp3 and not a cd.

 

[hifiman]

This has been my soapbox for quite some time now. The general public does not care one bit about sound quality, in fact most of these people mistakenly confuse sound quality with volume. As I'm writing this I have decided to edit my response to remove my opinions about the failures of DCC and MiniDisc, but for so many reasons I absolutely love how MP3s have sneaked up on us and completely taken over. I also think audio has taken another extremely hard hit from the new TV technology on the market. The general public (read as the majority of the money spent) will think nothing of spending 5 grand on a TV, yet dismiss an accompanying audio purchase as something secondary that should be as cheap as possible. I think we can all agree about the changes we've seen at just about any large electronics store: More and more space is devoted to TVs, while audio selections are constantly diminishing. This really stinks.

 

[Spiffyfast]

The general public (read as the majority of the money spent) will think nothing of spending 5 grand on a TV, yet dismiss an accompanying audio purchase as something secondary that should be as cheap as possible. I think we can all agree about the changes we've seen at just about any large electronics store: More and more space is devoted to TVs, while audio selections are constantly diminishing. This really stinks.

I completely agree, the circuit city in my town just built a new location across the street so I have a direct comparis on the setups. The old store had about a 1/4th of the entire area devoted soley to Home Audio and a space about half that for TV's. The new store is about 4 times larger in overall size, looks kind of empty now, but anyway, about a third of it is all tv's they are everywhere. The home audio is now just set up quickly as a few demos on the floor with TV's or along the walls on shelves, before they had an entire auditioning room with floor displays and shelving. It's as though home audio is just an after thought now, which I understand b/c thats the trend with the market. For instance, my dad just recently upgraded from a 25" RCA tv to a 30" widescreen Samsung HDTV ($900), was sold like $400 in cables (he never listens to me), and then only $500 on a Yamaha HTIB, all be it its a pretty good htib, he shoulda spent more the equivalent of the price of the tv.

 

[Cygnus]

I agree

Home audio equipment quality is going lower and lower. I mean, look at HTIB's. You have a DVD player and a receiver all in one. And "cube", bad sounding speakers too boot! I would prefer a receiver, a DVD player and an awesome set of towers, surrounds a center and sub , over HTIB any day of the week!!

Musical recordings are getting more and more compressed, which saddens me. Record companies are trying to make their albums sound AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE! You can do this with your audio system anyways! So what's the freaking point?!

 

[GettinDegreez]

I was thinking about this whole MP3 thing, and how they are encoded. Majority of the ones are about 128kbps, at least iTunes is anyways. The encoding process removes a lot of stuff that is supposedly "unheard". This is pretty much all stuff about 14-15kHz, right? While we are raising a generation on MP3's, are we also somewhat helping their hearing since they aren't exposed to much loud music above 15kHz? Will they not lose that much, or am I totally off on how hearing loss works?

 

[furrycute]

Interesting. Hearing damage is permanent. But I never knew if it is frequency dependent.

 

[kay]

For the majority of these people, their hardware is far below the worst MP3 has to offer. Like that girl that's quoted near the end of the article who says she is willing to trade quality for convenience. I'd bet money she's never even heard quality audio.

 

[Cygnus]

Yeah, kay your probably right. She probably doesnt know anything about quality audio. In 10 years I dont want my music to sound terrible. I want it to sound like it does now, great, but, following this pattern, i'm very worried.

 

[kay]

Do you realise that this is a repeat of the LP situation? Probably people worried about CDs 20 years ago the same way we worry about MP3 and newer digital formats today. Guess what, quality recordings are still the norm, and with higher capacity DVDs (hopefully one of these days...) it can only get better.

Yes, there are rubbish MP3s today, but the potential is there for some wonderful things to be done with the format. Much the same way as there are well engineered CDs and badly engineered CDs today.

 

[hifiman]

I disagree with the statement that our MP3-loving society have never heard quality audio and the subsequent assumption if they do they will convert. Take my wife and her family for example: They love music and singing and have made it an important part of their lives, some have been paid for their performances. Given that information it seems to me that sound reproduction should be very important to them. It's not. Absolutely none of them see any difference between an aging cassette played on a clock radio and listening to a CD on my system, other than an increase in volume. I think most people have had the opportunity to hear sound reproduction of better better quality than their boombox at home. Theaters rarely excite me for sound reproduction, my system at home does it much better, but regardless of what I think about it the sound at these theaters is leaps and bounds better than what most people have at home, but this sound quality doesn't excite the masses to the point that it motivates them to recreate this sound at home, it's just louder sound. Many people will visit an electronics store like Good Guys or Tweeters looking for a TV or something and will more than likely overhear an audio demo taking place for someone else. Regardless of the equipment and many related varibles associated with that demo the sound will be superior to what the masses have at home, yet that does not motivate most to recreate this experience at home, it's just louder sound. And finally, how many people upgrade the sound in their car? Quite a few. I know this because I can hear them blaring their music in the car next to me with loads of disortion mixed with some obcenely bloated bass at insane volume. Is that quality? No, just louder sound. Overall the majority of people don't care about audio. And why should they? There are too many electronic items competing for our dollars. People covet the latest cell phone, ipod, and plasma TV. There's not much money left over just to get louder sound .

 

[kay]

I disagree. My girlfriend is a convert since hearing stuff in her favourite music she never knew was there before.

 

[BMXTRIX]

There are paint enthusiasts, photo enthusiasts, car enthusiasts, and a billion other enthusiasts and they all have their own MP3s to deal with.

MP3 is a product for the masses. It is easy to work with and a step up in convenience compared to CDs and other audio formats. Some people are willing to give up convenience, for better audio and higher performance quality. These are the enthusiasts.

It is not that most people can't hear the difference. It is that they simply don't care. MP3 doesn't sound bad. Remember, we used to listen to cassette tapes. MP3 just sonds bad compared to CD played on good speakers. On cheap earbuds an MP3 will likely sound identical to most people as a CD does.

It isn't the enemy, it is a tool, and it is a very good tool. Just because a photographer sneers at digital photography, it doesn't change the fact that more and more magazine covers are being shot with digital cameras instead of film cameras. Just because audiophiles sneer at MP3, doesn't mean that MP3 isn't perfect for 90%+ of the population that wants a variety of music available to them on the road and right at their fingertips.

I praise MP3 for the convenience and for putting music on the minds of more and more people. Very good!

 

[hifiman]

I very much agree that MP3s aren't bad at all. In fact I'm very glad the format is available for my personal use. And as to my statements regarding the majority, they should be taken as just that - applying to the majority, not everyone. Some of us can really appreciate good sound, but don't really know what it is until we hear it. That's exactly what happened to me around 15 years ago.

 

[brian32672]

I mean, look at HTIB's. You have a DVD player and a receiver all in one. And "cube", bad sounding speakers too boot!

UHMMM, are you talking about spiffyfast?????
He will be uprgrading sometime....

 

[WmAx]

On cheap earbuds an MP3 will likely sound identical to most people as a CD does.

LOL. According to the current state of perceptual research[by codec developers], a properly encoded MP3 at high bitrate will sound identcial to the CD on the overwhelming vast majority of music samples, regardless if the user has OEM earbuds or audiophile headphones. I use MP3 for my portable audio. BTW, if I had a valid reason to believe that this degraded the music in an audible manner in real-world use, I would not use it.

-Chris

 

[Rob Babcock]

Sound & Vision Magazines tests didn't show MP3 to be particularly transparent at all. Perhaps they chose "coded busters," but frankly there's plenty of it out there. My own A/B single blind tests show that you need very high rates to approach transparency- high enough in fact that it's hardly worth the bother. I may not be using the best encoder, though.

At any rate, the whole issue is a red herring. Everyone knows that high rate VBRs is NOT what's in vogue. Your average "Joe Sixpack" and college kid is using 128 kbps and getting crap results, but they simply don't care since most of them have never been exposed to anything better.

 

[WmAx]

Sound & Vision Magazines tests didn't show MP3 to be particularly transparent at all. Perhaps they chose "coded busters," but frankly there's plenty of it out there.

Sorry...what? What rate? Which encoders? Which samples? What conditions? Specific methodology? The sources of which I refer to are from Hydrogen Audio ABX tests using modern encoders and rigorous methodology to ensure accurate results.

What is a rediculous bitrate? I consider 256kbps average perfectly reasonable. About 3/4 smaller than the uncompressed file.

Don't blame 'MP3' because the person encoding is not competant to do so, or because the person is not competant to conduct a proper comparison. Blame the person.

-Chris

 

[Steve1000]

I recall reading Sound & Vision's blind tests. They were conducted years ago with versions of encoders of lower quality than what is availabe today, and the bitrates tested were in 128 kbps range.

In May 2005 Ken Pohlman (who is very picky) recommended 192 kbps. At page 23 of the July/August 2005 Sound & Vision magazine, Ian G. Masters writes in the expert advice column that with MP3 "you'd need a bitrate of 160 kbps to approach sonic transparency with a wide varitey of music."

I get good results encoding with vbr between 160 and 225 kbps, depending on several factors, such as the music, the endcoder I am using, and how much I care about the recording. I usually try to use a bit rate about one notch (about 32 kbps) higher than what I feel is needed for transparency to my ears, just for peace of mind.

Sound & Vision Magazines tests didn't show MP3 to be particularly transparent at all. Perhaps they chose "coded busters," but frankly there's plenty of it out there. My own A/B single blind tests show that you need very high rates to approach transparency- high enough in fact that it's hardly worth the bother. I may not be using the best encoder, though.

 

[Jaycan]

[QUOTE]I consider 256kbps average perfectly reasonable. About 3/4 smaller than the uncompressed file.

How do you figure that? An uncompressed wav file or commercial CD plays at 1100 Kbs. When I burn Cds for MP3 playback, I only use 320 kbs compression, and play more compressed files only when I can't snag higher rates off the net. Even at 320 kbs, when I play MP3s through my music/HT setup, the difference is stark. Granted, my system is very revealing, but thats just the point- the format exploits convenience at the expense of fidelity. While the world's majority are happy with MP3s, a very small minority will use it only for mobile applications because they want to wring every last vestige of performance from their home based systems, not supply it with the lowest available codec. It is the extremely convenient portability that makes the format so popular.