Do you hear the difference between a 128 and 320 kbps mp3? (test yourself inside!)
Hi,
I just noticed this website with stumbleupon: http://mp3ornot.com/
It lets you test if you hear the difference between a 128 and a 320 kbps mp3 file. While I hear the difference, I have to say that the difference is very small, even on my B&W 685 speakers (using my iMac's built-in soundcard..., I think that that's the problem). What do you guys think about it?
I just noticed this website with stumbleupon: http://mp3ornot.com/
It lets you test if you hear the difference between a 128 and a 320 kbps mp3 file. While I hear the difference, I have to say that the difference is very small, even on my B&W 685 speakers (using my iMac's built-in soundcard..., I think that that's the problem). What do you guys think about it?
Comments
Hi,
I just noticed this website with stumbleupon: http://mp3ornot.com/
It lets you test if you hear the difference between a 128 and a 320 kbps mp3 file. While I hear the difference, I have to say that the difference is very small, even on my B&W 685 speakers (using my iMac's built-in soundcard..., I think that that's the problem). What do you guys think about it?
If I play these two MP3 files back on the tiny built-in speakers on a laptop, I can't tell the difference. But that's an unrealistic/unfair test. The difference becomes apparent on higher resolution playback equipment. But it's not just the speakers that... the quality of any audio system is only as good as the weakest link in the chain...most amplifiers in regular domestic playback systems are pretty nasty, and the built-in D-A conversion circuitry of computers is not designed for truly decent audio reproduction. (If that was the case, an iMac would be twice the price!).
The difference (to my ears) between these 2 MP3 formats is less than the difference between an uncompressed audio file (16bit wide or better, 44.1khz sampling rate or better) and any MP3 file, regardless of compression ratio or encoding algorithm. The higher the resolution of the playback equipment, the more apparent this difference becomes, especially with music recorded in an actual physical space, where the actual (and relative) positioning of each individual instrument in space (the soundstage) relies on the accurate recreation of the phase coherence of the original signal/s.
With a decent playback system (for my ears), orchestral music, especially larger scale work suffers severely in any MP3 format, and although I can hear an approximate impression of the overall result, each individual instrument or group of instruments is a confused mess re. the spatial image. (Even CD resolution audio (44.1/16) is a compromise in that respect). MP3 versions of music recorded using virtual or electronic instruments/synthesizers etc, and artificial spaces (virtual rooms/halls etc) is of course harder to evaluate (compared to the original sound in the studio control room), .. each configuration and piece is unique .. there is no standard reference... but electronic music, too, suffers a similar degree of degradation.
FLAC format (2:1 lossless) compression is the only compressed-data audio that "works" (for my ears). Of course, the difference in all of these comparisons becomes more apparent as the quality of the playback system improves.
All of the above is just the impression my own ears give me. I'm an audio snob anyway
In any case, my experience is that without really decent equipment, there's not a lot of difference between 128k and 320k. I am giving a powerpoint on this very thing next month, with recorded examples. I have a 48k, a 128k and a 384k in the powerpoint...all of the same clip. There is a huge difference between 48 and 128...and a nearly indistinguishable difference between 128 and 384. It's as addabox was saying a few months ago. We've reached the point where we don't need "better" sound quality...only "good enough" sound quality, for almost all uses.
It also depends on how the encoding was done. I've found that 128k AAC recordings from iTunes are fantastic compared to CDs. However, I've also downloaded 128k recordings from "other sources" (or..pardon me...my friend has) and I've noticed the quality sucks compared to either iTunes store tracks... or even 192-384k recordings I've converted.
One final point: I'd really like to know how the example clips were converted (i.e. what software? what platform? What was the source?). It seems to me that the clips may not be representative of 128 v. 320 in reality, especially if the inital goal is to confuse the listener. It's almost as if we have someone setting the "esxperiment" up so that the clips sound as close to each other aspossible.
We've talked about some of this before, but thanks for the link. As someone that's presenting a digital audio seminar at my state in-service conference next month, I got it wrong. That said, it's not hard to do (as sammi discusses). First, we have the length of the clip, which was quite short. Secondly, I was listening on laptop speakers. Then, there is the psychological aspect. When something is labeled "A" vs. "B" the mind starts playing games. My first thought--before even listenening--was that B would be better. That's because one will often hear something lower quality contrasted with a better version. It's the "Hey..now listen to this" effect. But then I started thinking "hmm...well maybe it was A...I mean, maybe he's throwing us off." So that clouds things. It would be better to just have the name of the clips that one would click then click on...side by side.
In any case, my experience is that without really decent equipment, there's not a lot of difference between 128k and 320k. I am giving a powerpoint on this very thing next month, with recorded examples. I have a 48k, a 128k and a 384k in the powerpoint...all of the same clip. There is a huge difference between 48 and 128...and a nearly indistinguishable difference between 128 and 384. It's as addabox was saying a few months ago. We've reached the point where we don't need "better" sound quality...only "good enough" sound quality, for almost all uses.
It also depends on how the encoding was done. I've found that 128k AAC recordings from iTunes are fantastic compared to CDs. However, I've also downloaded 128k recordings from "other sources" (or..pardon me...my friend has) and I've noticed the quality sucks compared to either iTunes store tracks... or even 192-384k recordings I've converted.
One final point: I'd really like to know how the example clips were converted (i.e. what software? what platform? What was the source?). It seems to me that the clips may not be representative of 128 v. 320 in reality, especially if the inital goal is to confuse the listener. It's almost as if we have someone setting the "esxperiment" up so that the clips sound as close to each other aspossible.
Do you find that the nature of the program material affects how well or badly MP3 formats perform, relative to the original? I use an iPod, everything encoded at the highest resolution in iTunes (320kbps on this version) and I find that on the regular headset, most things sound "OK".. but with a decent set of headphones (AKG k601) in a quiet environment then the shortcomings are more apparent.
Up until a few years back, I thought that digital audio (ie CD standard) was the last word in audio reproduction... ie as good as it could get, until I (and several others) heard a comparison in a high end audio dealer's listening room between 2 identical recordings (CD and vinyl) of the same piece (Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring") played on a state of the art CD player and a precision turntable, using audio components which collectively cost as much as a mid-priced new car (ouch!). The CD went first, ( without our being told which was the first). There was no background noise of course, and the sound was spectacular, as expected. Then the next version.. it was obvious from the slight occasional tick and pop that this was the vinyl version.. and the music came alive in a way that is not quantifiable. I can't really explain.. or put it in words.. but despite the imperfections of the vinyl disk, which had obviously been played a few times, it sounded so much more "musical". Shutting my eyes and it was like I was in the concert hall where the sound was 3 dimensional... each instrument occupied a stable place in space, not just left to right, but also up and down , and front to rear, with just two speakers. Thats not to decry the CD version.. which by any standard was excellent, but something (?) was lacking.
I know this anecdote is somewhat offtopic.. but it does make me wonder that the modern technology that we are so used to hasn't really given any qualitative improvement in the listening experience, and all the advantages have been geared toward providing a convenient delivery system for the largest quantity of music in an easily portable format. I love my iPod, I use it every day.. but it could be *so* much better!
Do you find that the nature of the program material affects how well or badly MP3 formats perform, relative to the original? I use an iPod, everything encoded at the highest resolution in iTunes (320kbps on this version) and I find that on the regular headset, most things sound "OK".. but with a decent set of headphones (AKG k601) in a quiet environment then the shortcomings are more apparent.
Up until a few years back, I thought that digital audio (ie CD standard) was the last word in audio reproduction... ie as good as it could get, until I (and several others) heard a comparison in a high end audio dealer's listening room between 2 identical recordings (CD and vinyl) of the same piece (Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring") played on a state of the art CD player and a precision turntable, using audio components which collectively cost as much as a mid-priced new car (ouch!). The CD went first, ( without our being told which was the first). There was no background noise of course, and the sound was spectacular, as expected. Then the next version.. it was obvious from the slight occasional tick and pop that this was the vinyl version.. and the music came alive in a way that is not quantifiable. I can't really explain.. or put it in words.. but despite the imperfections of the vinyl disk, which had obviously been played a few times, it sounded so much more "musical". Shutting my eyes and it was like I was in the concert hall where the sound was 3 dimensional... each instrument occupied a stable place in space, not just left to right, but also up and down , and front to rear, with just two speakers. Thats not to decry the CD version.. which by any standard was excellent, but something (?) was lacking.
I know this anecdote is somewhat offtopic.. but it does make me wonder that the modern technology that we are so used to hasn't really given any qualitative improvement in the listening experience, and all the advantages have been geared toward providing a convenient delivery system for the largest quantity of music in an easily portable format. I love my iPod, I use it every day.. but it could be *so* much better!
To answer your question, if I have it right...the type of music makes a large difference. Classical is hardest to reproduce...especially wind instruments for some reason. Or, did you mean something else?
And ahh..the CD vs. vinyl debate! Yes! There are those that claim vinyl is better despite the noise. Others say it's a sort of nostalgia for the imperfections in the disc. In my opinion it's both.
As you may be aware, all digital recording is sampled. So, the sound wave is only estimated, whereas with vinyl you're getting the actual reproduction of the sound wave. This is potentially what the pro-vinyl crowd hears.
How well it's estimated is another question. The biggest factor in these digital recordings is the sampling rate (Hz) and the bit depth. CDs are 44,100 Hz and 16 bits in depth. DVD-Audio is 96,000-120,000 Hz. SuperAudio CDs are 2.8Mhz.. Clearly those formats can retain more information per second than can CDs, presumably resulting in better quality. In addition, some formats are 24 bits in depth.
Whether or not one can hear the difference between a "super" digital format with an extremely high sampling rate (vs. vinyl) is questionable. However, I'm pretty sure I can hear the difference between a great vinyl recording and a regular CD. For example, I recall being in a CD/record store about 20 years ago. I was listening to whatever they were playing in the store, and thinking what an awesome CD recording it was! But guess what...I saw it was actually vinyl. I was stunned. It was so clear and crisp, and had an amazing depth and space to it. I never forgot that experience.
As an aside, keep in mind that almost all recording now is digital at the source. So you have a possible reduction in accuracy/quality right from the start. Then you're invariably going to be listening to something compressed on top of that. I call this the digital double whammy...and it's something I'll be addressing in my presentation.
I've got some pretty good Harmon Kardon speakers though, and that plays an important role.
It would be hard to tell with built in speakers...
To answer your question, if I have it right...the type of music makes a large difference. Classical is hardest to reproduce...especially wind instruments for some reason. Or, did you mean something else?
No, thats what I was meaning. Large ensembles in a real space (such as a 70 piece orchestra in a concert hall) suffer the most in MP3 format, for my ears.. and similarly with that "vinyl vs CD" demonstration I heard a few years back. I have no clue as to why wind instruments are so difficult, as firstly wind instruments are (almost always) solo or monophonic instruments, ie one pitch at a time, and the time-domain waveforms are relatively simple and periodic in comparison to a polyphonic instrument such as a piano, where multiple and interactive pitches are often sounded together.. or to a greater extent material played by a full symphony orchestra with dense voicing, and especially percussion instruments such as cymbals which have extremely complex harmonic information and an less than easily identified fundamental pitch.
.
And ahh..the CD vs. vinyl debate! Yes! There are those that claim vinyl is better despite the noise. Others say it's a sort of nostalgia for the imperfections in the disc. In my opinion it's both.
In my case, I only have a CD or digital collection, so there was no nostalgia element for me. But the difference in listening experience between the CD and the vinyl was quite marked, both for me and the others in the listening room. (But there may have been some nostalgia element as all the other parties had vinyl collections as well as CDs!).
As you may be aware, all digital recording is sampled. So, the sound wave is only estimated, whereas with vinyl you're getting the actual reproduction of the sound wave. This is potentially what the pro-vinyl crowd hears.
How well it's estimated is another question. The biggest factor in these digital recordings is the sampling rate (Hz) and the bit depth. CDs are 44,100 Hz and 16 bits in depth. DVD-Audio is 96,000-120,000 Hz. SuperAudio CDs are 2.8Mhz.. Clearly those formats can retain more information per second than can CDs, presumably resulting in better quality. In addition, some formats are 24 bits in depth.
Thats what I was referring to re. CDs being a severe compromise to start with (that is before they are reduced yet further by one of compression algorithms to Mpeg3 formats!). Considering that the human audio frequency range is (approx.) 20hz - 20khz -- for music on regular CDs, being sampled at 44.1kHz, this means that at the higher end of the the frequency range, each cycle is only represented by very few data values (for example 10khz, thats only 4.41 samples per cycle).. such a small amount of data clearly cannot accurately represent the complex material at the top end of the frequency spectrum. Then there's the problem of aliasing as a result of using inadequate sample rates... see Nyquist Theorem.. To counter the (nasty) effects of aliasing, as well as smoothing out the spiky waveforms formed as a result of "not enough data", designers of digital audio equipment have included anti-aliasing digital filters into the DA conversion circuits of equipment. This is obviously far less of an issue with SuperAudioCDs since 2.8 MHz sample rates are high enough to avoid both the aliasing and "not enough data" problems and artifacts. But with ordinary CDs and (to a lesser extent) DVD audio, this is still an issue.. and the effects of digital filters on the program material, especially in cheap massproduced equipment, can be severe, especially regarding the capability of the equipment to reproduce the phase angle of the waveform, over the entire audio frequency range. Considering that we perceive directional information of a sound via the higher frequency components of sound, and these digital filters are tuned to the higher end of the frequency spectrum, then it would follow that the spatial information contained in a stereo audio recording would be an element to suffer. Just speculating here, but maybe thats why on that vinyl vs. CD demo I heard, the stereo image was so much better defined on the analog rather than the digital version.
Whether or not one can hear the difference between a "super" digital format with an extremely high sampling rate (vs. vinyl) is questionable. However, I'm pretty sure I can hear the difference between a great vinyl recording and a regular CD. For example, I recall being in a CD/record store about 20 years ago. I was listening to whatever they were playing in the store, and thinking what an awesome CD recording it was! But guess what...I saw it was actually vinyl. I was stunned. It was so clear and crisp, and had an amazing depth and space to it. I never forgot that experience.
It sounds like you had a similar experience to me.
As an aside, keep in mind that almost all recording now is digital at the source. So you have a possible reduction in accuracy/quality right from the start. Then you're invariably going to be listening to something compressed on top of that. I call this the digital double whammy...and it's something I'll be addressing in my presentation.
So very true.... so much contemporary music uses computers as sound sources, (and hardware sampling devices) which sample at 44.1 or 48KHz. Even the latest greatest state of-the-art ProTools system, ubiquitous in commercial studios, samples at a (paltry?) 192Khz (24 bits). Probably one of the greatest reductions in audio quality in both the studio and domestic situation is via the conversion circuits, and the standard of the analog electronics in any given device. Most modern digital synthesizers and electronic music equipment have truly horrible analog output design... as if that section of the device is an afterthought... ask any serious audio designer. Unless one is paying top dollar, one can guarantee that the analog audio components and circuit design is as cheap as the manufacturer can get away with. Even some "top end" digital studio consoles use opamps and associated circuitry with could never be honestly described as truly "high fidelity". So, when it comes to the "weakest link in the chain" which determines the audio quality for the listener, there are so many places where the signal is compromised. "SuperAudioCDs" will only reproduce what is there in the first place, and if the program material is sonically compromised, then that compromise (error) will be more accurately reproduced as well!
'Scuse the length of this reply!
As you may be aware, all digital recording is sampled. So, the sound wave is only estimated, whereas with vinyl you're getting the actual reproduction of the sound wave. This is potentially what the pro-vinyl crowd hears.
Yes, but the sampling rate is above the Nyquist rate for human hearing. A good way to think about this is that a CD waveform is just a perfect signal plus some predictive noise. Since it's predictive, anti-alias filtering can knock out most of it. The remainder does go through, but it's orders of magnitude less than the amount of non-removable noise from a vinyl record. Records are also subject to phase noise (jitter), which is impossible to remove from audio. In other words, you're not getting an actual reproduction of the waveform from a record. You're getting the waveform + noise. Note that this is the same as with the CD, except there's a lot less noise on the CD.
If you like records, it just means that you like noise. This is a fine opinion, but it's an incorrect assessment of sound quality. Sound quality on a CD is much better than that on vinyl.
Yes, but the sampling rate is above the Nyquist rate for human hearing. A good way to think about this is that a CD waveform is just a perfect signal plus some predictive noise. Since it's predictive, anti-alias filtering can knock out most of it. The remainder does go through, but it's orders of magnitude less than the amount of non-removable noise from a vinyl record. Records are also subject to phase noise (jitter), which is impossible to remove from audio. In other words, you're not getting an actual reproduction of the waveform from a record. You're getting the waveform + noise. Note that this is the same as with the CD, except there's a lot less noise on the CD.
If you like records, it just means that you like noise. This is a fine opinion, but it's an incorrect assessment of sound quality. Sound quality on a CD is much better than that on vinyl.
You're raising an entirely different issue. If we take noise into the equation, then it changes things considerably. Part of the problem is we're using "quality" and "accuracy" interchangeably.
If we're looking at the overall listening experience on relatively normal to good equipment, CDs win over vinyl hands down. But if we're talking about excellent hi-fi equipment, a great vinyl recording with no scratches, classical music, etc...vs. a digitally recorded CD? I think you'd be surprised. There is little to no audible noise on a truly superior vinyl recording.
Keep in mind, in this debate I come down squarely in favor of digital. Any disadvantages it has are more than made up for by the lack of noise, durability, flexibility, etc.
No, thats what I was meaning. Large ensembles in a real space (such as a 70 piece orchestra in a concert hall) suffer the most in MP3 format, for my ears.. and similarly with that "vinyl vs CD" demonstration I heard a few years back. I have no clue as to why wind instruments are so difficult, as firstly wind instruments are (almost always) solo or monophonic instruments, ie one pitch at a time, and the time-domain waveforms are relatively simple and periodic in comparison to a polyphonic instrument such as a piano, where multiple and interactive pitches are often sounded together.. or to a greater extent material played by a full symphony orchestra with dense voicing, and especially percussion instruments such as cymbals which have extremely complex harmonic information and an less than easily identified fundamental pitch.
Well, I notice it far more with wind instruments in sectional/ensemble settings (as opposed to solo settings). My feeling is that it has to do with the way they produce the overtone series, and possiblly the tuning systems employed. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but realize that voices or wind instruments are capable of playing far more in tune than a piano. This is due to the piano's use of Equal Tone Temperament (i.e., based on intervals that are equal, but out of tune). This contrasts with Just Intonation possible with wind instruments. Here's a little about it, though I don't like the examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
In my case, I only have a CD or digital collection, so there was no nostalgia element for me. But the difference in listening experience between the CD and the vinyl was quite marked, both for me and the others in the listening room. (But there may have been some nostalgia element as all the other parties had vinyl collections as well as CDs!).
Gotcha. But did you ever have a vinyl collection?
Thats what I was referring to re. CDs being a severe compromise to start with (that is before they are reduced yet further by one of compression algorithms to Mpeg3 formats!). Considering that the human audio frequency range is (approx.) 20hz - 20khz -- for music on regular CDs, being sampled at 44.1kHz, this means that at the higher end of the the frequency range, each cycle is only represented by very few data values (for example 10khz, thats only 4.41 samples per cycle).. such a small amount of data clearly cannot accurately represent the complex material at the top end of the frequency spectrum. Then there's the problem of aliasing as a result of using inadequate sample rates... see Nyquist Theorem.. To counter the (nasty) effects of aliasing, as well as smoothing out the spiky waveforms formed as a result of "not enough data", designers of digital audio equipment have included anti-aliasing digital filters into the DA conversion circuits of equipment. This is obviously far less of an issue with SuperAudioCDs since 2.8 MHz sample rates are high enough to avoid both the aliasing and "not enough data" problems and artifacts. But with ordinary CDs and (to a lesser extent) DVD audio, this is still an issue.. and the effects of digital filters on the program material, especially in cheap massproduced equipment, can be severe, especially regarding the capability of the equipment to reproduce the phase angle of the waveform, over the entire audio frequency range. Considering that we perceive directional information of a sound via the higher frequency components of sound, and these digital filters are tuned to the higher end of the frequency spectrum, then it would follow that the spatial information contained in a stereo audio recording would be an element to suffer. Just speculating here, but maybe thats why on that vinyl vs. CD demo I heard, the stereo image was so much better defined on the analog rather than the digital version.
I agree. In short, the higher frequencies are the problem.
It sounds like you had a similar experience to me.
So very true.... so much contemporary music uses computers as sound sources, (and hardware sampling devices) which sample at 44.1 or 48KHz. Even the latest greatest state of-the-art ProTools system, ubiquitous in commercial studios, samples at a (paltry?) 192Khz (24 bits). Probably one of the greatest reductions in audio quality in both the studio and domestic situation is via the conversion circuits, and the standard of the analog electronics in any given device. Most modern digital synthesizers and electronic music equipment have truly horrible analog output design... as if that section of the device is an afterthought... ask any serious audio designer. Unless one is paying top dollar, one can guarantee that the analog audio components and circuit design is as cheap as the manufacturer can get away with. Even some "top end" digital studio consoles use opamps and associated circuitry with could never be honestly described as truly "high fidelity". So, when it comes to the "weakest link in the chain" which determines the audio quality for the listener, there are so many places where the signal is compromised. "SuperAudioCDs" will only reproduce what is there in the first place, and if the program material is sonically compromised, then that compromise (error) will be more accurately reproduced as well!
'Scuse the length of this reply!
And so it comes down to the "good enough" factor. Most people cannot even hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed audio, much less digital vs. analog. Part of it is that when listening to "Ridin' Dirty" while working out or jogging, no one cares. I know I don't. It's the same reason people buy $200 surround sound systems at Wal-Mart....they honestly can't hear the difference.
Let's add up the average consumer experience:
1) Digital pop, rock, rap or other recording on standard CD
2) That recording is compressed to a lossy format, like 128K MP3.
3) That recording is played back on a an ipod with shitty earbuds, or a $300 amplifier with $100 speakers and $6 speaker wire. But they've got a subwoofer! Feel the bass in that thing? Awwww yeaah!
And there you have it.
I myself am going to be in the market for a system soon. Given my budget, I'm going to go with nice Denon AVR (about $1500) and a set of decent surrounds (say, $1000). That's pretty much the minimum one has to spend to get something fairly good as far as I can tell. It still isn't considered "hi-fi" by any stretch. It seems to me that "hi-fi" starts at around $4-5K for the receiver alone ( if one even goes with an integrated solution). Then you'll spend $5K on speakers. That won't even begin to take equalizers and other equipment into consideration.
I'm hearing it on $120 active speakers, analog sound from Macbook internal sound chip. Someone I know claimed they could hear it from 12" PB speakers but I'm slightly sceptical about that.
it's really a depth issue...
Out of general interest, what do you guys think is the poorest equipment this difference is audible on?
I'm hearing it on $120 active speakers, analog sound from Macbook internal sound chip. Someone I know claimed they could hear it from 12" PB speakers but I'm slightly sceptical about that.
i could hear the difference on my laptop speakers...
it's really a depth issue...
I listened to it again on my MBP (instead of my work issued Dell) and I do think there is a small difference, particularly with the ensemble playing at the end.
You're raising an entirely different issue. ... If we're looking at the overall listening experience on relatively normal to good equipment, CDs win over vinyl hands down. But if we're talking about excellent hi-fi equipment, a great vinyl recording with no scratches, classical music, etc...vs. a digitally recorded CD? I think you'd be surprised. There is little to no audible noise on a truly superior vinyl recording.
I'm not trying to be adversarial. I am, however, trying to clear up a matter that is often misunderstood. Your posts demonstrate a misunderstanding of the math at work. A reproduction of a signal can be broken down into a simple equation: reproduction = original signal + noise. Noise is a loose term. It just means "unwanted signal." Vinyl recording equipment is noise prone. It is subject to EM noise, temperature, material variance, gravity variance, and just about everything else. Digital recording isn't.
It's very difficult to reference audio reproductions to the original source, since ultimately some noise-prone delay feature is required to compare the source to the reproduction. However, it's easy to run a spectrogram of a record and a CD. The CD has much less discernible noise. This means quantitatively that the CD is a better, more accurate reproduction of the original signal.
Sammi is also very misled. Nyquist theorem states that a discrete waveform sampled at twice the maximum frequency of a continuous waveform can be converted perfectly into the continuous waveform via an ideal lowpass filter at half the Nyquist rate. So 44.1kHz sampling is sufficient to perfectly reproduce 20kHz tones. Unfortunately, there are no ideal low pass filters, but oversampling DSPs can do a damn-near-ideal job.
The other problem is that CDs are not merely sampled signals. They are quantized as well, so there's sowe rounding error from that process. Nonetheless, this error is less than the error [noise] introduced by analog mastering and recording. That's a mathematic fact.
Let me say that I am not an audiophile, THANK GOD! The last thing I would want would be to have a stick up my ass about sound quality all the time when all I want to do is appreciate the music for how it is composed and performed, not how it is reproduced. 50-Cent still sucks whether it's analog, lossless, played through vacuum tubes or whatever. Meanwhile, Elbow is brilliant even if it's a mono internet radio stream
You could say the same thing about anything.. sound, video, photography, etc etc... any means of capturing the real world for later viewing/listening etc etc. If all you want to do is "appreciate the music for how it is composed and performed, then why would a "mono internet stream" be acceptable, when it cannot deliver "what the composer intended to be heard"? Does this mean you're equally happy to watch the latest movie on a 15 inch 1950s black and white television, rather than a state of the art theater with full 360º hifi sound and a 5 story IMax screen, and on a 1950s black and white TV set with 405 scan lines?
I agree that great music on a shitty system is always more fulfilling than pabulum on an audiophile standard set up... but thats not really the point.
Sammi is also very misled. Nyquist theorem states that a discrete waveform sampled at twice the maximum frequency of a continuous waveform can be converted perfectly into the continuous waveform via an ideal lowpass filter at half the Nyquist rate. So 44.1kHz sampling is sufficient to perfectly reproduce 20kHz tones. Unfortunately, there are no ideal low pass filters, but oversampling DSPs can do a damn-near-ideal job
.
Have a look at this article. This reinforces your case, re. the Nyquist theory, brickwall filters, and phase coherence. If you can't see phase errors on the scope, then there must be other factor(s), other than bit resolution and sampling frequency that affect the reproduction of audio signals.
Musical instruments reproduce harmonics way above the limit of human hearing .. see the frequency-domain analysis of a trumpet where there is harmonic content 50 to 60 dB down at 102Khz and presumably beyond. Sampling at 44.1Khz with a brickwall filter will remove this information. We can't hear material above c. 20Khz directly, but to what (if any) extent does audio content above 20khz affect the overall impression of what we physically hear?
Does the Nyquist principle translate 100% onto every parameter of real-life audio content/reproduction? Why does 44.1khz/16bit not sound (anywhere near) as great as theory would dictate? I listen to music with my ears, not an oscilloscope.
Musical instruments reproduce harmonics way above the limit of human hearing .. see the frequency-domain analysis of a trumpet where there is harmonic content 50 to 60 dB down at 102Khz and presumably beyond. Sampling at 44.1Khz with a brickwall filter will remove this information. We can't hear material above c. 20Khz directly, but to what (if any) extent does audio content above 20khz affect the overall impression of what we physically hear?
Does the Nyquist principle translate 100% onto every parameter of real-life audio content/reproduction? Why does 44.1khz/16bit not sound (anywhere near) as great as theory would dictate? I listen to music with my ears, not an oscilloscope.
I'm not an expert in audio reproduction, but the "mastering" phase is supposed to handle the cases where transaural frequency content impacts the <20kHz band. Even with a CD as the destination format, mastering may be done in analog or digital domain, and in either case it is intended to account for the transaural harmonics.
I also have no interest in telling you what you should or should not like. If you like tube amps, buy tube amps. If you like vinyl, buy vinyl. Without doubt, these formats have some characteristics that people find appealing, and I'm not about to say that personal preference in this matter is without merit. What I am interesting in doing is illustrating that a digitized recording can often be a more accurate reproduction of the original waveform that an can be an analog recording, and that in practice this is almost always the case. To this extent I think we can all go home happy, because as far as I can tell no one is any longer in disagreement.