Can you get reasonable quality with mp3s?

[samson]

Hi All, and thanks for any help for this newbie.

My new flat mate has a good quality stereo (~300 GBP amp, 450 GBP speakers). I tried plugging my laptop in, and compared the one album we both had (his on CD, mine in mp3 format). The difference was amazing, with the CD sounding so much better I thought about getting rid of my whole collection.

I did wonder if it may be the sound card making a difference however. This was on a cheap dell laptop with the built in sound card. Is there any point in getting a good sound card and using my desktop to play them? Is there anything else I could do? It does not need to be perfect, but somewhere close to CD quality would be good. I tried playing the CD from the laptop, and that sounded fine.

The mp3 I used was Pink Floyd, Speak to me. Stats according to AVICodec = Audio : 1.68 MB, 192 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x55 = Mpeg-1 audio Layer 3 (MP3), Supported

I noticed one of my mp3's had a much higher sampling rate. I guess 10 times the size is going to be alot better, but I was not convinced. Audio : 149 MB, 1411 Kbps, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 0x1 = MS PCM, Supported.

 

[corysmith01]

You can get reasonable quality, but judging by the file size you just mentioned (1.68 mb), I'd say that's where the problem is. MP3's by their nature are meant to be small and portable, not necessarily of the highest quality. You can, however, make them better by upping the sample rate...which, of course, ups the file size. For instance (i'm on a mac btw), I can import at your sample rate (192), but can also import at 320 kbps, which siginificantly increases the size. There's also the "lossless" importer, which sounds best to me, but each song takes up about 40-50 megs, sometimes more depending on the length of the song. A 50 mb file compared to a 1.68 meg file is pretty significant...it's all bits and digital info, so to compress it down that small, somethings gonna be compromised.

I'd look at experimenting with your importing rates and find something that sounds right to you. Good luck and hope that helps.

 

[samson]

Thanks for the reply. I cannot up the sampling rate, as I have (legally) downloaded these files.

Concerning the file size, this is the first song on Dark side of the moon, and is very short. The longer tracks on that album are up to 10MB at the same sampling rate.

You seem to think it is the file rather than the sound card. I was really close to going out and buying one today. Is it going to make any difference?

 

[Votrax]

The problem is the built in sound on the Dell laptop is junk. I've also tried playing mp3's from a Dell laptop and it sounded horrible. If I play it from my desktop PC to the stereo it sounds great. Supposedly a sampling rate of 128kbps is equivalent to CD quality, but I've found 192kbps to sound closer. The sound quality should sound pretty close if it's sampled at 192kbps; though I prefer to rip my personal music to 320kbps.

 

[samson]

The problem is the built in sound on the Dell laptop is junk. I've also tried playing mp3's from a Dell laptop and it sounded horrible. If I play it from my desktop PC to the stereo it sounds great. Supposedly a sampling rate of 128kbps is equivalent to CD quality, but I've found 192kbps to sound closer. The sound quality should sound pretty close if it's sampled at 192kbps; though I prefer to rip my personal music to 320kbps.

So you think it could be the sound card, even though when you play the CD in the computer (ie. going through at least some of the sound card) it sounds OK?

And looking at sound cards, there seems to be quite a jump from ~ 20 GBP (eg. Terratec Aureon 5.1 Fun 6Ch Sound Card) to ~ 100 GBP (eg. Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Music Sound Card). Will I have to spend 100 pounds, or could I get away with ~ 20?

 

[anamorphic96]

Im thinking it is more the bit rates your using. Why dont you try and import the Pink Floyd album at 320 or try using Apple Lossless if possible and compare the
two. This will tell you everything you need to know without spending any money.

 

[Sleestack]

Your sound card is a big reason. Get a piece like the M-audio Audiophile USB or Transit (if you don't have an external DAC) and it should improve things quite a bit. .

As for MP3s. I have a hard time distinguishing between my 320kbps mp3s and my CDs, however if you listen to the 2 side by side under the microscope of a headphone amp, you can hear differences.

 

[corey]

I suspect your audio card too. I use Exact Audio Copy & the Lame encoder to make my own VBR mp3's & play them thru a Linksys Wireless-B Media Adapter.

 

[j_garcia]

IMO, you've got to go 192k or better to get a decent sounding MP3, and it also depends on the gear in question - the better your gear, the more easily you will hear the flaws of the compression. Obviously, 256k or 320k would be better, but depending on the recording, you can usually still pick it out.

I'd have to agree with the guys that are saying the problem is the soundcard. You plugged your laptop into what to listen? How was it connected? That can make a big difference too.

 

[jaxvon]

The big part of the problem is the laptop. I myself have a Dell laptop that I often listen to MP3s on (for convenience sake) through my Studio headphones (Sony MDR-7506). There is a ton of background noise, as well a very audible distortion of soft sounds, even when listening to CDs or WAV files. I've also hooked up my laptop to a professional mixer and the result was NOT pretty. There was so much noise I had to unplug it. The best option is to either get a quality external sound card or a USB to optical converter and connect one of those sources to the stereo setup.

 

[samson]

So, how do I choose a sound card? I have a desktop, without a sound card at the moment, so I could get an internal one for that. I would rather not go to the over the hundred pound mark.

As I said, scan have nothing between 22.67 (Terratec Aureon 5.1 Fun 6Ch Sound Card) and 90.39 (Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Music Sound Card). Is there a big jump in technology between these 2?

dabs have plenty inbetween. How does something like the Creative Audigy 2 ZS 7.1 OEM (42.61) compare?

What should I be looking for? Any good sites for reviews?

[EDIT] I also noticed someone mentioned the M-audio Audiophile USB. I guess you said "USB" because I was using a laptop. If I was going to use a desktop, would the M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 soundcard (57.99 from the site that sponsors this forum) be a good choice?

 

[jaxvon]

Does the stereo setup have a digital optical input? If so, then I think you'd do best to get one of these. That way you can use the low-noise, high quality DACs in your stereo system. If not, I think the M-Audio Audiophile internal card is a great choice. M-Audio has great sound quality, without all the software garbage that Creative bundles with their cards.

 

[BostonMark]

there is a difference

I have my CD collection on a computer harddrive, all as 128 kbs mp3 files. I use a soundblaster external soundcard that is pretty good quality, it runs out of the USB port, and it has optical digital outputs, which I use to put the audio signal directly into my Yamaha 5280 receiver. Before I upgraded my speakers and added a Rotel Amplifier to my front speakers, I never noticed the difference between my mp3s and the original CD. Now that I have Polk Monitor 70s powered by the Rotel 200 w/ch stereo amp, I can clearly hear the difference between 128 kbs mp3s and the original CD. I tried redoing it at 190 kbs MP3s, same difference. The only computer digital format that I could NOT tell the difference between was uncompressed WAV files, which use up a lot of space. (about 700 MBs per album). It is not a huge difference, but it is definitely there, and the better your equipment is, the more noticable it is. The sound is fuller and there is better low frequency sounds in the original CD than the MP3. I spent one afternoon, switching back and forth between a number of CDs and their MP3 equivalents. Sigh, for the convenience, I live with it for the most part, but for critical listening, I will pop in the orignal CD. On the other hand, I can also say that the MP3s do sound better (just as every other format) with each upgrade. My Mp3 collection sounds much sweeter on my system than the original CD on a HTIB or a 3000 dollar Bose system (LOL).

 

[Rob Babcock]

I agree that for decent sound you have to go with higher bitrates. There are many links in the sound chain that can compromise the quality, that's true, too. With a good sound card, a good encoder and decent bitrates (around 256 mbps or so) you can get very acceptable SQ.

 

[rumble]

If you are ripping your own cds to your computer and playing them back from the computer why limit yourself to using the mp3 format? I personally like the ogg vorbis format. You can set the recording quality to ten different levels. Level 10 is the highest quality and will result in a file about 1/3 the size of the uncompressed wav. I can't tell any difference between these and the original cd. For more information on ogg goto www.vorbis.com.

I use Exact Audio Copy configured to externally call the ogg encoder to rip the files and play them back with foobar2000.

 

[MDS]

By the same logic, why limit yourself to ANY lossy compression format? Rip the raw pcm from a cd and save it as a wav file. To save a little space (about 40%) you can use a lossless compression algorithm like FLAC, Shorten, or Monkeys Audio.

Or...don't bother. MP3 at 256 kbps is indistinguishable from the wav file. Encoders like wma, aac, and ogg may achieve that same level of transparency at slightly lower bitrates and hence smaller file sizes but are not as universally supported as mp3.

 

[jaxvon]

Or...don't bother. MP3 at 256 kbps is indistinguishable from the wav file. Encoders like wma, aac, and ogg may achieve that same level of transparency at slightly lower bitrates and hence smaller file sizes but are not as universally supported as mp3.

BS. That's clearly audible. 320 not so much. Lossless, not at all (duh).

 

[MDS]

I say BS to your claim...Jaxvon. MP3 is going on 20 years old now and has been studied and tested extensively. Certainly there are 'codec buster' types of samples that don't encode well, but that is the exception, not the rule, and is true for ALL lossy compression formats.

It's funny that you never hear claims that Dolby Digital compression artifacts are audible compared to raw pcm when the algorithm uses some techniques that are quite similar to mp3.

 

[Rob Babcock]

The problem is that most of those "codec busters" I've heard are songs I like.

 

[jaxvon]

I tend to listen to high quality recordings (Steely Dan, jazz, etc). These recordings have the level of detail that makes them distinguishable between mp3 and WAV. Granted, most pop music is fine at 192kbps, but for my purposes, and my listening tools (MDR-7506 headphones), the difference is audible.