MP3-Is it really that bad?

Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
i'm a nut for HQ audio and have a keen ear for extremly slight audio quality issues, but with 320kbps MP3's, i can't tell any difference at all in sound quality froma CD, even when doing a blind test

what do you guys think about it?
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
i'm a nut for HQ audio and have a keen ear for extremly slight audio quality issues, but with 320kbps MP3's, i can't tell any difference at all in sound quality froma CD, even when doing a blind test

what do you guys think about it?
MP3 320kbps is very transparent for a compressed audio codec. In a blind testing "golden ears" would have a hard time telling the difference between that and a lossless audio codec such as flac.
 
6L6X4

6L6X4

Audioholic
I did a blind test with 2 of my vinyl loving friends where I played a CDR of an album track, then the actual vinyl album track, then an MP3 of the album track. My 2 pals both thought the second track (the actual vinyl) was the most "digital" sounding. :D

What's interesting, besides their misconceptions about what "digital" sounds like, is the fact that they both correctly identified the 2 digital versions as sounding most alike. This isn't surprising because both digital tracks had to pass through a lot more electronics due to the record / playback process. They erroneously assumed that tracks 1 and 3 were the album and CDR tracks and that track 2 must be the mp3.

As for me, I listen to mostly VBR mp3 and love the way my system sounds. I do play CDs too, but don't notice any increase in SQ over the VBR mp3s I have.
 
Last edited:
Serj22

Serj22

Full Audioholic
I don't know if anyone else can hear it, but any kind of MP3, regardless of the quality, I can hear a faint bell sound like an electonic hi-hat or something, and it never escapes me and it's always irritating, but no one else seems to hear it. It's during the entirety of the track, so for me there is a difference.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
i'm a nut for HQ audio and have a keen ear for extremly slight audio quality issues, but with 320kbps MP3's, i can't tell any difference at all in sound quality froma CD, even when doing a blind test

what do you guys think about it?
You can demonstrate that it is possible to detect differences between high quality 320kbps or VBR MP3 and lossless formats - on certain kinds of material, occasionally, under ideal conditions. The vast majority of the time on nearly all material, they're indistinguishable.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I don't know if anyone else can hear it, but any kind of MP3, regardless of the quality, I can hear a faint bell sound like an electonic hi-hat or something, and it never escapes me and it's always irritating, but no one else seems to hear it. It's during the entirety of the track, so for me there is a difference.
I hear it and its called twinking and is very evident in music with a lot of HF especially with ambiance.

There is an interesting white paper on the DTS site, from their chief engineer on lossy codecs, and it explains what I have noticed.

The bit shaving particularly affects the ambient envelope and so music in cathedral spaces for instance particularly suffers.

The issue I had not been able to explain, but had noticed is panning in recorded material.

Unless a solo mic is panned center, hard right or hard left lossy codecs will get into trouble. If you think about it this is self evident as a lot more bits are taken up is a solo mic is just right or left of center, especially if there are several.

This I'm sure is why opera is so disastrous when reproduced by lossy codecs. In this situation you have multiple soloists all over the place. This is well known among opera buffs, and why all opera DVDs have a loss less two channel PCM track, is there is also a Dolby digital or DTS track. All the opera magazines stress the importance of using the uncompressed two channel PCM track. As an opera buff I can conform that the AC3 codec makes an absolute dogs dinner of opera.

Now a large amount of archived classical material especially the choral repertory have vocalists and other instrumental soloists panned. Seldom are they center and just about never hard left or hard right. So there are problems.

I understand engineers are now strongly encouraged to take these limitations of lossy codecs into consideration when recording and mixing. I regard that as a raw deal.

In my view lossy codecs are an evil necessity for streaming audio over the internet at present, but otherwise are to be avoided.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
yea, amazons mp3's are really good sounding
 
C

corey

Senior Audioholic
If I understand TLS Guy and Serj22 correctly, they are stating that they can tell the difference between all, or at least most 320kbs .mp3 files and their corresponding .wav files in a blind test.

If so, this should be formally documented, as I don't think that it's been done yet.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
If I understand TLS Guy and Serj22 correctly, they are stating that they can tell the difference between all, or at least most 320kbs .mp3 files and their corresponding .wav files in a blind test.

If so, this should be formally documented, as I don't think that it's been done yet.
It depends what you are playing. If you choose the right source material it is easy to do. And my son and I have done it on wavs we have made in wave lab. If you choose your program right it is easy. There is also a lot of music where you won't tell, or be very hard.

I can tell you lossy codec are hopeless for operatic scenes, especially where the are trios, quartets, octets etc, with a lot of movement and action on stage. A huge Verdi dramatic crescendo with huge orchestra, chorus, off stage trumpets etc, really does a number on lossy codecs also. Even non technical people easily notice it. I have a number of friends who like opera, and they never listen to the Dolby Digital track.

Why to you think loss less codecs were developed for BD
 
davidtwotrees

davidtwotrees

Audioholic General
I listen to pop music, mostly. Some electronic chill and new age type stuff, jazz, rock and female folk. I can't tell the difference on my Escient Fireball SE80 between cd source material and the MP3 320kbps copies that are on the hard drive. I do have some classical on there, but haven't really done any serious comparisons. I do buy all of my classical in sacd. If I could have afforded a better server when I bought this one I would have went lossless. Meh, it sounds just fine. Where I CAN tell the difference is at 128 kbps. ANY source music sounds bad at that bit rate, imho.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
It depends what you are playing. If you choose the right source material it is easy to do. And my son and I have done it on wavs we have made in wave lab. If you choose your program right it is easy. There is also a lot of music where you won't tell, or be very hard.

I can tell you lossy codec are hopeless for operatic scenes, especially where the are trios, quartets, octets etc, with a lot of movement and action on stage. A huge Verdi dramatic crescendo with huge orchestra, chorus, off stage trumpets etc, really does a number on lossy codecs also. Even non technical people easily notice it. I have a number of friends who like opera, and they never listen to the Dolby Digital track.

Why to you think loss less codecs were developed for BD
That's interesting I've never even tried it on those types of pieces. Still I think as storage capacity increases using lossy codecs will be unneeded in critical operations. For rock music I find it a waste of space to put them in loss-less format. Still as nand continues to drop in price we will see a lot larger portable music players. This is why I've yet to purchase a newer portable media player especially since the phone/media player integration is in full swing.
 
M

MDS

Audioholic Spartan
I can tell you lossy codec are hopeless for operatic scenes, especially where the are trios, quartets, octets etc, with a lot of movement and action on stage. A huge Verdi dramatic crescendo with huge orchestra, chorus, off stage trumpets etc, really does a number on lossy codecs also. Even non technical people easily notice it. I have a number of friends who like opera, and they never listen to the Dolby Digital track.
A lot of blind tests I've seen over the years would back that up, but you have to remember MP3 is a generic 'one size fits all' encoding algorithm so naturally there will be some instances where it is not up to snuff.

128 kbps discards all frequencies above 16 kHz, 160 kbps discards all frequencies above 18 kHz, and 192 kbps discards frequencies above 19 kHz, which most people can't hear anyway. The new 'music enhancer' modes on receivers artificially recreate the missing highs in a vain attempt to improve lower bit rate encoded tracks. 256 kbps preserves nearly the entire frequency range and 320 kbps is almost identical.

I don't personally like opera, classical, or jazz and those are the types of music where MP3 can fall short. For rock, pop, dance, disco, etc it is nearly impossible to tell the difference if the MP3 is encoded with at least 192 kbps. If you really want to be sure it is as good as possible, use 256 kbps but 320 kbps is a waste of disk space.
 
ChrisFox

ChrisFox

Audioholic Intern
This was just me but a few years ago I participated in a listening test of different encoders ate 128kps. MP3, Vorbis, AAC. I was surprised on how well the encoders had come from just a few years earlier. It got really hard to tell one from the other. My average was just over 60%. It was only a few clips that were put in the test that were know problems for the encoders where I could tell most of the time

It's really a not a problem for me anymore anyway. With storage so cheap I've just switched to flac. Don't have to think about it anymore :)
 
L

ljaggers

Junior Audioholic
Supposedly AAC is superior to MP3 at similar bit rates. This may be because there are generally more sampling frequencies in AAC files than MP3. This is especially evident at low bit-rates. I'd say if you are building your digital music collection, encode in AAC rather than MP3.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
I'd say if you are building your digital music collection, encode in AAC rather than MP3.
The appeal of MP3 is that it is universal and non-proprietary (for example, my portable player support AAC.)

That's also the (potential) appeal of FLAC, although it isn't really universal.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
The appeal of MP3 is that it is universal and non-proprietary (for example, my portable player support AAC.)

That's also the (potential) appeal of FLAC, although it isn't really universal.
I meant to say - my portable player DOES NOT support AAC.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
That's interesting I've never even tried it on those types of pieces. Still I think as storage capacity increases using lossy codecs will be unneeded in critical operations. For rock music I find it a waste of space to put them in loss-less format. Still as nand continues to drop in price we will see a lot larger portable music players. This is why I've yet to purchase a newer portable media player especially since the phone/media player integration is in full swing.
Sorry about my tardy reply, but until this evening I have largely had a diet of two cylinder music.

I had a very elderly patient who had been a JD dealer many years ago back in the two cylinder era. He tried to get a farmer who was a long time IH customer interested in John Deere. The customer said "he didn't like the sound of John Deere tractors. My patient said, " If it's music you want I'll buy you a radio!"

We had an ice storm start on Friday night which has made a real mess and everything is covered in close to an inch of ice. Of course it turned to snow and we had close to half a foot last night as the wind northerned and the mercury nose dived.

Handling the Model A with the big 8' snow bucket is a handful on ice as is any piece of heavy equipment. After I got done clearing my place the half mile road and a couple of neighbors it was 3.30 PM. As soon as I got in I fell asleep, I think from the mental exhaustion as much as any thing else. On like that you need to tune into every sensory receptor in backside.

Its below zero this evening with wind chills of 30 below. So I had a wee dram by the fire warmed up and even got into a good sweat, oblivious to the wind chill outside

Now down to business. These lossy codecs are pop music geared, pure and simple.

I think on the whole classical music lovers and especially opera lovers tend to invest a lot more in equipment especially speakers.

There is a huge range of resolution between speakers.

What I have noticed, especially with opera, is a big change in voice character. This is especially true of Placido Domingo's voice that looses the roundness and projection in the voice. The female voices suffer badly with change in the balance of head and chest voice. The result is an unpleasant caricature that people way too often associate with that art form. I have to say that it is widespread defects in sound reproducing equipment, especially speakers, that is largely responsible for that impression. Anyhow with lossy codecs you get the caricature. Switch them off and you get Renee Flemming's glorious sound back with her lovely velvet voice.

The other thing that really strikes you is that the brass has a pinched quality and looses its lusty roar and roundness of tone

Its fine if lossy codecs work well for pop music, but the rest of us need to stay with a high definition format, of which a CD is a bench mark of the minimal acceptable standard.
 
D

Duff man

Audioholic Intern
Its fine if lossy codecs work well for pop music, but the rest of us need to stay with a high definition format, of which a CD is a bench mark of the minimal acceptable standard.
So...you can tell the difference between FLAC and WAV?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top