I was wondering if there is any deterioration in sound quality if i burn an MP3 cd versus the original file? How bout if I then transfer the MP3s from that cd onto another computer? Thanks.
The more I listen to music in mp3 format, im finding that sounds terrible compared to the original CD uncompressed sound, with the sound being all "muddled up", the bass is all "muddy" and the stereo soundstage is "confused", specially with acoustic instruments that you know what they should sound like. I can hear the difference between mp3 and original CD through the tiny little speakers in my powerbook, and on decent speakers, the difference is really apparent. I cant enjoy music in mp3 format at all anymore.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>The more I listen to music in mp3 format, im finding that sounds terrible compared to the original CD uncompressed sound, with the sound being all "muddled up", the bass is all "muddy" and the stereo soundstage is "confused", specially with acoustic instruments that you know what they should sound like. I can hear the difference between mp3 and original CD through the tiny little speakers in my powerbook, and on decent speakers, the difference is really apparent. I cant enjoy music in mp3 format at all anymore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahh the curse of the "Golden Ears". MP3's on the average sound pretty crappy..but they're so damn convenient.
Just curious, hmurchinson and Samantha Joanne Ollendale, what encoders do you use?
I have acute hearing as well, and using the --alt-presets extreme option in LAME, I really cannot tell a difference unless the source is very complex. But then again, if the source is complex...like static, I can't tell the difference anyway.
The bitrates for these mp3s average between 220-260 kbits most of the time.
If your contempt for mp3 quality is based on listening to AudioCatalyst, iTunes, BladeEnc, or whatever encoders, then yes those particular mp3s sound crappy. But that's overgeneralizing...like saying cars suck because you test drove a Hyundai, Daewoo and Chevy Cavalier and nothing else. Of course those cars suck...but does a Jaguar XKR suck?
I know that when you copy an audio cd to a computer and then burn it's contents onto a blank CDR there is some deterioration in the sound, little blips and fuzziness etc. I was wondering if the same thing happens when I burn some MP3 files from my computer to a CDR and then copy them from the CD to another computer, will there be any deterioration in the sound from the original files.
why i'm asking is I'm going to make some CDRs with MP3 tracks for my friend's computer, and i want to know whether the sound quality will get worse for him than it will for the original tracks on my computer.
It depends on what bit rate the MP3s were ripped at, and the quality of the encoder that will burn them to CD.
If we are talking your average MP3s downloaded from the internet (128-160) burned onto a CD using Toast (or the PC equivalent), then yes - there is a loss in sound quality (at least that's what I found). However, it still sounds decent. I am not sure of a better program to use, but I am sure someone here does.
When it comes to music I prefer to buy the CD and record from CD to CD to make a mixed CD (not on my computer, but on my audio CD recorder which is hooked up to my home audio system). I enjoy my downloaded of ripped MP3s either just on my computers, or from my MP3 player.
If all you're talking about is copying mp3 files from your HD to a CD-R to your friend's HD, why would there be any degradation in quality? That's the beauty of a digital format like mp3 - infinite copies with no loss of quality at all. That's why P2P sharing services work.
If you were talking about converting those mp3's to regular CD-audio tracks, there would be a loss. Any conversion from one format to another is almost inevitably lossy. But you can copy an mp3 file as many times and to as many digital mediums as you like without loss.
Yeah, the question was pretty unclear. I think what you just want to do is copy the mp3's off your computer to a disk, and then copy those files to another computer. Let me ask this: When you make backups of your documents, do letters often go missing? No? I didn't think so. Same with copying mp3s. They're just data so it's all the same.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>The more I listen to music in mp3 format, im finding that sounds terrible compared to the original CD uncompressed sound...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know the bit rates and the encoders used?
I've certainly heard some bad-sounding MP3s, but my personal collection of MP3s sounds quite good to me. Not being into downloading stuff from the internet, the entire collection has been ripped from my own CDs at 192 kbps. Listening on headphones, computer speakers, or in my car, I can't say I've ever noticed a difference from the originals. Maybe a side-by-side critical comparison between the originals and the MP3s would reveal something, but I haven't tried that yet.
<strong>I know that when you copy an audio cd to a computer and then burn it's contents onto a blank CDR there is some deterioration in the sound, little blips and fuzziness etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure what you mean by "blips", but any outright clicks or pops means that there was an outright I/O error reading or writing a track.
It's important to remember that MP3 is a "lossy" form of compression, meaning that it throws away audio information it deems less critical in order to pack audio data into smaller files. The lower the bit rate you use, the more distortion you get.
One of the worst things you can do is compress a track with MP3, expand it, and then compress it again. This causes generational loss, similar to what happens in the analog world when you copy a CD to a cassette, then copy that cassette to another cassette.
If you start with tracks ripped as MP3 files, and create a standard CD from those files, it won't be as good as the original CD -- it will have a level of quality related to the bit rate and quality of the MP3 encoder.
Simply moving MP3 files from your computer onto a CD data disc retains the same quality as the original MP3s.
Converting MP3 files from one bit rate to another before writing them on CD will cause increased distortion due to generational loss.
<strong>Is there a commonly held lower limit on bit rate after which there is no way you will still have decent sound on a good stereo system?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The key to this question is that for mp3s bitrates tell you exactly as much(or as little) about quality as MHz or GHz do about processor speed.
If you take two chips made by the same company, to the same design and keep all other factors equal (l1 cache, l2 cache, l3 cache, pipeline length, compiler, application code etc.) then, yes, an increase in Hz will mean an increase in speed. If you look at comparing systems (an iMac versus a dell) then you'll know that there is more to it and comparing Hz alone makes no sense.
For mp3s the main factors are;
the encoder used: simple, lame is the best.
CBR, ABR, VBR: if you have specific need for a certain bitrate (streaming perhaps) then use CBR or ABR, otherwise use VBR. Note that unless you use CBR (_constant_ bit rate) then the bit rate varies throughout the song. I think that some mp3 players can display the current rate as a song plays.
other settings: lame has a myriad of settings for when you really want intimate control of your mp3s.
musical complexity: some things are harder to encode like heavy metal or white noise.
I hear it too. I know a couple of MP3 fiends (mostly they have weird downloaded dance music crap) I think MP3 is fine for that. Probably it's not fine, but since I don't care and it's all synthetic anyway, I don't have a frame of reference for what the sounds are supposed to be like and it doesn't bother me too much.
But you can definitely hear a difference with any music with 'gasp' instruments and voices. 320Kbps gets acceptable. When you think of how far storage has come, 1/4th the space is small enough, you can put 6 CD's to a GB of storage, you may want to go smaller on an iPod but for a home MP3 server 6CD's to a GB is good enough.
Maybe AAC (MPEG4) will be the answer we're looking for. It improves the resolution up to 96Khz, and that should help 'natural' sounds quite a bit.
Some questions though. Where does one get this LAME for Mac? And why is it better than other MP3 encoders? Also, some people who've been trying MPEG4 say that the quality leaves much to be desired vis-a-vis Divx, mostly audio-video sync on large files. That's wierd cause the MPEG4 content on Apple's page seems to be by far the best compressed video out there. Will AAC/MPEG4 be another case of Apple's own encoder being only so-so and the best encoder coming from a 3rd party?
A Get the source from lame.sourceforge.net, get precompiled packages from versiontracker, get it built into Audion 3 from panic.com and get an applescript for iTunes integration from blacktree.com
Q And why is it better than other MP3 encoders?
A Compared with other encoders it has more options, less bugs and a better psychoacoustic model. It is under constant development and is open source (though it has patent restrictions). Bascially, lame mp3s sound better.
Q Will AAC/MPEG4 be another case of Apple's own encoder being only so-so and the best encoder coming from a 3rd party?
A Apple's QT6 documentation says that both the AAC and MP4 codecs are not yet complete and better codecs are forthcoming. Think of them as beta quality.
<strong>so the short answer is: it depends.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even at a paltry 18 kb/s? What about 10-ish? Surely, there has to be some lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get good sound quality out of it, LAME algorithm or not.
To clarify, I was referring to whatever is used in iTunes and I have VBR enabled.
Even at a paltry 18 kb/s? What about 10-ish? Surely, there has to be some lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get good sound quality out of it, LAME algorithm or not.
To clarify, I was referring to whatever is used in iTunes and I have VBR enabled.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said: it depends.
If you search the audio forums you will find many references to the 'fatboy' sample. This is a clip from a digitally produced song that, because of its peculiarly non-musical nature, is very tricky for mp3 to encode at any bitrate.
If you knew enough about the mp3 encoding process then you could find (or create) the opposite kind of track i.e. one that mp3 can encode very easily. To be stupid about it, digital silence would probably encode very well at those rates and be indistinguishable from the CD original.
Slightly more plausibly I would guess pure sine waves from an old skool synth playing a solo would be 'easy' to encode though at what bitrate the encoding would be transparent, I have no idea.
So to recap: it depends. Finding a "lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get good sound quality" is impossible until you pin down a great many variables. Even if you took the time to do that I am still at a loss for what utility this agreed limit would have.
Note that if you change it to "lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get transparent encoding for 99% of people with 99% of general pop music" then lame with --alt-preset standard probably fits the bill. For iTunes you would have to go for a minimum of 256 CBR (not recommended).
btw: tranparent encoding means you can't tell the differnce between the mp3 and the CD.
Comments
<strong>The more I listen to music in mp3 format, im finding that sounds terrible compared to the original CD uncompressed sound, with the sound being all "muddled up", the bass is all "muddy" and the stereo soundstage is "confused", specially with acoustic instruments that you know what they should sound like. I can hear the difference between mp3 and original CD through the tiny little speakers in my powerbook, and on decent speakers, the difference is really apparent. I cant enjoy music in mp3 format at all anymore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahh the curse of the "Golden Ears". MP3's on the average sound pretty crappy..but they're so damn convenient.
I have acute hearing as well, and using the --alt-presets extreme option in LAME, I really cannot tell a difference unless the source is very complex. But then again, if the source is complex...like static, I can't tell the difference anyway.
The bitrates for these mp3s average between 220-260 kbits most of the time.
If your contempt for mp3 quality is based on listening to AudioCatalyst, iTunes, BladeEnc, or whatever encoders, then yes those particular mp3s sound crappy. But that's overgeneralizing...like saying cars suck because you test drove a Hyundai, Daewoo and Chevy Cavalier and nothing else. Of course those cars suck...but does a Jaguar XKR suck?
[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I know that when you copy an audio cd to a computer and then burn it's contents onto a blank CDR there is some deterioration in the sound, little blips and fuzziness etc. I was wondering if the same thing happens when I burn some MP3 files from my computer to a CDR and then copy them from the CD to another computer, will there be any deterioration in the sound from the original files.
why i'm asking is I'm going to make some CDRs with MP3 tracks for my friend's computer, and i want to know whether the sound quality will get worse for him than it will for the original tracks on my computer.
If we are talking your average MP3s downloaded from the internet (128-160) burned onto a CD using Toast (or the PC equivalent), then yes - there is a loss in sound quality (at least that's what I found). However, it still sounds decent. I am not sure of a better program to use, but I am sure someone here does.
When it comes to music I prefer to buy the CD and record from CD to CD to make a mixed CD (not on my computer, but on my audio CD recorder which is hooked up to my home audio system). I enjoy my downloaded of ripped MP3s either just on my computers, or from my MP3 player.
If you were talking about converting those mp3's to regular CD-audio tracks, there would be a loss. Any conversion from one format to another is almost inevitably lossy. But you can copy an mp3 file as many times and to as many digital mediums as you like without loss.
<strong>...but does a Jaguar XKR suck?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once you realize that you have to buy a spare XKR for parts, and that for all the money you've spent you're driving a Ford, it does kind of suck.
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: serrano ]</p>
<strong>The more I listen to music in mp3 format, im finding that sounds terrible compared to the original CD uncompressed sound...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know the bit rates and the encoders used?
I've certainly heard some bad-sounding MP3s, but my personal collection of MP3s sounds quite good to me. Not being into downloading stuff from the internet, the entire collection has been ripped from my own CDs at 192 kbps. Listening on headphones, computer speakers, or in my car, I can't say I've ever noticed a difference from the originals. Maybe a side-by-side critical comparison between the originals and the MP3s would reveal something, but I haven't tried that yet.
<strong>I know that when you copy an audio cd to a computer and then burn it's contents onto a blank CDR there is some deterioration in the sound, little blips and fuzziness etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure what you mean by "blips", but any outright clicks or pops means that there was an outright I/O error reading or writing a track.
It's important to remember that MP3 is a "lossy" form of compression, meaning that it throws away audio information it deems less critical in order to pack audio data into smaller files. The lower the bit rate you use, the more distortion you get.
One of the worst things you can do is compress a track with MP3, expand it, and then compress it again. This causes generational loss, similar to what happens in the analog world when you copy a CD to a cassette, then copy that cassette to another cassette.
If you start with tracks ripped as MP3 files, and create a standard CD from those files, it won't be as good as the original CD -- it will have a level of quality related to the bit rate and quality of the MP3 encoder.
Simply moving MP3 files from your computer onto a CD data disc retains the same quality as the original MP3s.
Converting MP3 files from one bit rate to another before writing them on CD will cause increased distortion due to generational loss.
Is there a commonly held lower limit on bit rate after which there is no way you will still have decent sound on a good stereo system?
<strong>Is there a commonly held lower limit on bit rate after which there is no way you will still have decent sound on a good stereo system?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The key to this question is that for mp3s bitrates tell you exactly as much(or as little) about quality as MHz or GHz do about processor speed.
If you take two chips made by the same company, to the same design and keep all other factors equal (l1 cache, l2 cache, l3 cache, pipeline length, compiler, application code etc.) then, yes, an increase in Hz will mean an increase in speed. If you look at comparing systems (an iMac versus a dell) then you'll know that there is more to it and comparing Hz alone makes no sense.
For mp3s the main factors are;
the encoder used: simple, lame is the best.
CBR, ABR, VBR: if you have specific need for a certain bitrate (streaming perhaps) then use CBR or ABR, otherwise use VBR. Note that unless you use CBR (_constant_ bit rate) then the bit rate varies throughout the song. I think that some mp3 players can display the current rate as a song plays.
other settings: lame has a myriad of settings for when you really want intimate control of your mp3s.
musical complexity: some things are harder to encode like heavy metal or white noise.
so the short answer is: it depends.
But you can definitely hear a difference with any music with 'gasp' instruments and voices. 320Kbps gets acceptable. When you think of how far storage has come, 1/4th the space is small enough, you can put 6 CD's to a GB of storage, you may want to go smaller on an iPod but for a home MP3 server 6CD's to a GB is good enough.
Maybe AAC (MPEG4) will be the answer we're looking for. It improves the resolution up to 96Khz, and that should help 'natural' sounds quite a bit.
Some questions though. Where does one get this LAME for Mac? And why is it better than other MP3 encoders? Also, some people who've been trying MPEG4 say that the quality leaves much to be desired vis-a-vis Divx, mostly audio-video sync on large files. That's wierd cause the MPEG4 content on Apple's page seems to be by far the best compressed video out there. Will AAC/MPEG4 be another case of Apple's own encoder being only so-so and the best encoder coming from a 3rd party?
<strong>Some questions</strong><hr></blockquote>
Q Where does one get this LAME for Mac?
A Get the source from lame.sourceforge.net, get precompiled packages from versiontracker, get it built into Audion 3 from panic.com and get an applescript for iTunes integration from blacktree.com
Q And why is it better than other MP3 encoders?
A Compared with other encoders it has more options, less bugs and a better psychoacoustic model. It is under constant development and is open source (though it has patent restrictions). Bascially, lame mp3s sound better.
Q Will AAC/MPEG4 be another case of Apple's own encoder being only so-so and the best encoder coming from a 3rd party?
A Apple's QT6 documentation says that both the AAC and MP4 codecs are not yet complete and better codecs are forthcoming. Think of them as beta quality.
<strong>so the short answer is: it depends.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even at a paltry 18 kb/s? What about 10-ish? Surely, there has to be some lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get good sound quality out of it, LAME algorithm or not.
To clarify, I was referring to whatever is used in iTunes and I have VBR enabled.
[ 08-28-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Even at a paltry 18 kb/s? What about 10-ish? Surely, there has to be some lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get good sound quality out of it, LAME algorithm or not.
To clarify, I was referring to whatever is used in iTunes and I have VBR enabled.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said: it depends.
If you search the audio forums you will find many references to the 'fatboy' sample. This is a clip from a digitally produced song that, because of its peculiarly non-musical nature, is very tricky for mp3 to encode at any bitrate.
If you knew enough about the mp3 encoding process then you could find (or create) the opposite kind of track i.e. one that mp3 can encode very easily. To be stupid about it, digital silence would probably encode very well at those rates and be indistinguishable from the CD original.
Slightly more plausibly I would guess pure sine waves from an old skool synth playing a solo would be 'easy' to encode though at what bitrate the encoding would be transparent, I have no idea.
So to recap: it depends. Finding a "lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get good sound quality" is impossible until you pin down a great many variables. Even if you took the time to do that I am still at a loss for what utility this agreed limit would have.
Note that if you change it to "lower limit where people will flatly agree that there is absolutely no way you will get transparent encoding for 99% of people with 99% of general pop music" then lame with --alt-preset standard probably fits the bill. For iTunes you would have to go for a minimum of 256 CBR (not recommended).
btw: tranparent encoding means you can't tell the differnce between the mp3 and the CD.