MP3's are taking over the world!!!

[WmAx]

Even at 320 kbs, when I play MP3s through my music/HT setup, the difference is stark.

Why don't you head on over to www.hydrogenaudio.org and learn how to conduct a proper comparison?

Your conclusion[stark difference] does not support the ones drawn by rigorous proper[scientific] testing with modern codecs at high bitrates. Actually, lower bitrates[160 average] with proper settings deliver transparency or near-transparency[very little difference] on most samples in conducted tests. Or do you think that I should accept your opinion on equal ground with the conclusions arrived at by rigorous scientific testing?

-Chris

 

[MDS]

Uncompressed PCM (CD): 2 channels * 16 bits per sample * 44.1 kHz samples per second = 1,411,200 bits per second = 1411 kbps.

What comes out of the mp3 encoder is not simply a subset of what went in. You cannot compare a 1411 kbps WAV with a 256 kpbs MP3 and conclude that it threw away 80% of the data and therefore it must sound inferior due to the lower bitrate.

I use 192 kbps constant bit rate almost exclusively and there are very few cases where there is a 'stark' difference between it and the uncompressed wav (which I also save).

 

[Jaycan]

Why don't you head on over to www.hydrogenaudio.org and learn how to conduct a proper comparison?

Really? I really can't tell you that I'm a scientist who is well aware that the truest form of meaningful comparison is a prospective, randomized, double blind multi-center cohort study that includes a sample size large enough to render the p value with enough power to be statistically significant, while accounting for variables that might bias the study, including type I and II errors, selection bias, insufficiently powered p value, etc. If I could, I would tell you that not only am I comfortable with these concepts, I have designed research protocols using this model. Did your darling little web site design a study with these features? When they do, let me know and I'll be more than happy to enjoy reading their research. I am allowed to tell you that you miss the point, my enlightened collegue. Music is more than simply AB testing. The best designed study still struggles to eliminate bias. Music is ALL ABOUT BIAS. No matter what any study says, on my system, in my house, to my ears, MP3 are crap. If that offends you, then you care too much. Like they say here, "enjoy the music". Or as I would say, "No problem, man!"

MDS, ditto on that uncompressed rate. my bad.

 

[WmAx]

Did your darling little web site design a study with these features? When they do, let me know and I'll be more than happy to enjoy reading their research.

In fact, that is the point of hydrogen audio, that forum is the international hub of open source audio perceptual codec research. It adheres so strongly to scientific principle, in fact, that you can't make a claim at the site without a minimum of double-blinded test data to back yourself up.

No matter what any study says, on my system, in my house, to my ears, MP3 are crap.

That's fine. But I[nor anyone else] have reason to believe that you conducted a proper blinded test using modern codecs at the proper high-bitrate presets and followed correct procedural set-up. Those that have bothered to do so, have not found what you claim to be true. So, it appears that are doing nothing more than offering an opinion that is based on purely subjective analysis. So far as music being about 'bias', that is irrelevant here: the issue here is not about about music, it's about a simple and provable[by controlled testing] matter[sound degradation].

-Chris

 

[Sleestack]

I keep all my music files in 320 MP3 and wav. Running through a Muscial Fidelity DAC, I'd have to say that it I can't really hear a difference, even through very sensitive equipment. There is a siginificant difference between that setup and my dedicated Redbook player (Meridian G08), but I suspect that has more to do with the output stage and factors other than the underlying data.

 

[Jaycan]

No matter what any study says, on my system, in my house, to my ears, MP3 are crap.

To put it more accurately, my mp3s sound like crap. Meaning with my 3 yr old computer patched to the BAT preamp. It is quite possible that my sound card is inferior. I have not burned them on a disc and played through the CD player. So my contribution to this discussion is based solely on my own setup. Maybe I'll explore this further by checking out afore mentioned site and by modifying my setup. Hey, if ya'll can get me to enjoy MP3s on my system that'll only make it more enjoyable, which, in the end, is the goal. Not to obsess over data, but to "enjoy the music".

 

[GettinDegreez]

I personally rip all my digital music files as lossless, either WMA, or FLAC. Lossless being a 100% exact copy of the original, but at about half the size(just like how zip files work). This way I have an exact copy of the original in case I lose or break my CDs. When I download MP3s, I try to get the highest bit rate available. I see no reason to compress my MP3's below lossless. I have a 200GB HD, and with the cheap price of HDs today, I can always get another if I run out. I absolutely refuse to buy MP3s online because the vast majority are 128kbps, and why would I pay a buck a song when I can go get the CD, rip it to lossless, and do whatever I want with it. While I don't have an iPod yet, I'd like to get one, but the 60GB one is a little too expensive now, and I'll just put lossless on there.

 

[no man]

i agree with jacan, just enjoy the music, who cares about the birite, aslong as you can understand it, its good, but you may want to aim at about 128 minimum