Why MP3s are bad....
- Thread starter karfty
- Start date
Yeah supposedly if as a baby you listened to only mp3s, your brain will develop a sense of hearing with some frequencies tuned out.
Also recorded signals are never the same as the real deal, since what you're hearing is a stereophonic mix of an engineer's decision of where to place a sound source in an imaginary space -- singular sounds are usually recorded in mono and panned wherever it's required in the mix. Don't forget also in live situations you're listening to the early reverberations and the room reverb as well. The bit and sampling rates for recording the sound matters as well. A pristine 24/96 recording will have more clarity than a 16/44.1 recording, especially in the transitions of quiet to loud.
Personally i don't think anyone should add to the signal gravy by pouring on the eax sauce.
I'm not sure if the writer's of the article have a hidden agenda or not with mp3. But the fact remains that mp3s are lossy, and a general public focussed on convenience means the other lossless open encoding formats get sidelined, in the meantime all the other players in the game will be trying to turn everyone to a closed drm based encoding.
Also recorded signals are never the same as the real deal, since what you're hearing is a stereophonic mix of an engineer's decision of where to place a sound source in an imaginary space -- singular sounds are usually recorded in mono and panned wherever it's required in the mix. Don't forget also in live situations you're listening to the early reverberations and the room reverb as well. The bit and sampling rates for recording the sound matters as well. A pristine 24/96 recording will have more clarity than a 16/44.1 recording, especially in the transitions of quiet to loud.
Personally i don't think anyone should add to the signal gravy by pouring on the eax sauce.
I'm not sure if the writer's of the article have a hidden agenda or not with mp3. But the fact remains that mp3s are lossy, and a general public focussed on convenience means the other lossless open encoding formats get sidelined, in the meantime all the other players in the game will be trying to turn everyone to a closed drm based encoding.
this techhead friend of mine who doesn't believe in the sanctity of music having to be on phy format also is of the opinion that mp3s are actually crap when compared to other formats, its all just industry manipulation and marketing.........just like when it came to videotapes ppl say Betamax was actually better..........
w the added ingredient of terrible overloud mastering of music nowadays we get a serious double whammy.........we're getting increasingly clever but also concurrently stoopider..........
w the added ingredient of terrible overloud mastering of music nowadays we get a serious double whammy.........we're getting increasingly clever but also concurrently stoopider..........
Declining audio standards
Well worth a read.
http://members.aol.com/searsound/frmcont/billboard.html
Well worth a read.
http://members.aol.com/searsound/frmcont/billboard.html
Last edited:
Compared with other lossy formats, MP3 is definitely not one of the best.
The reason why the industry is still stuck with MP3 and not yet moved on is simply that too many people use MP3s.
WMA, OGG, AAC... are all better than MP3s, every available lossless format out there is exactly the same quality as the CD.
But, we are still using MP3s, P2P networks still trade MP3s, most people still rip their CDs into MP3s, load their iPods with MP3s.
Most people don't want to move on to other formats not because we are stupid, but really because:
1) It doesn't make sense to delete your entire library's worth of MP3s and re-rip them into lossless. You waste far too much time and energy.
2) At high bitrates, most people cannot tell the difference between CDs and MP3s anyway. They either don't have the ears or they don't have the environment/equipment to discern any difference from CD. Or maybe, they just don't care for that tiny bit of quality improvement by going lossless.
The reason why the industry is still stuck with MP3 and not yet moved on is simply that too many people use MP3s.
WMA, OGG, AAC... are all better than MP3s, every available lossless format out there is exactly the same quality as the CD.
But, we are still using MP3s, P2P networks still trade MP3s, most people still rip their CDs into MP3s, load their iPods with MP3s.
Most people don't want to move on to other formats not because we are stupid, but really because:
1) It doesn't make sense to delete your entire library's worth of MP3s and re-rip them into lossless. You waste far too much time and energy.
2) At high bitrates, most people cannot tell the difference between CDs and MP3s anyway. They either don't have the ears or they don't have the environment/equipment to discern any difference from CD. Or maybe, they just don't care for that tiny bit of quality improvement by going lossless.
MadWerewolfBoy
New member
Are lossless formats exactly the same quality as CDs?
gutturalpiss
New member
Whoa man this reminds me of something hilarious..i can't rmmbr if it was a blog post or a forum thread somewhere but, someone actually converted/wanted to convert/advised others to convert vorbis to mp3! :lol: It's already bad enough to convert from lossy to lossy, but OGG -> MP3? Now talk about being dumb and self-PWNed.
MadWerewolfBoy
New member
Imo, the only really bad thing about mp3s are that its not good for format conversions, ie generation loss. That's where the master wav file comes in handy.
Last edited:
If the file is ripped from CD, yes, it will retain the same quality. Absolutely nothing is lost in the compression. It is as good as listening to the original source.
MadWerewolfBoy
New member
okay thanks, read up a little about it.
Just a question to all of you here, what is the bitrate of mp3/wma lossy compressions where you can't tell the difference between the original CD quality and the compressed file?
For me, I've done some self tests in the past, and it seems that my threshold level was at 192kbps for mp3s. I could tell slight differences between 160kbps and 192kbps and a very obvious quality difference between 128kbps and 192kbps mp3s. These vary according to different songs, I could hear the most difference in subtle classical music with multiple instruments/frequencies.
No matter how hard i wanted to convience myself that my hearing's not aging and that there was a difference between 192kbps, 360kbps and CD quality, I failed to identify them correctly most of the time when they were all randomed in shuffle mode.
So my best space to quality ratio is 192kbps for mp3s. Haven't really done a test on wma and other lossy formats cause this would be quite tedious.
How about you guys?
Just a question to all of you here, what is the bitrate of mp3/wma lossy compressions where you can't tell the difference between the original CD quality and the compressed file?
For me, I've done some self tests in the past, and it seems that my threshold level was at 192kbps for mp3s. I could tell slight differences between 160kbps and 192kbps and a very obvious quality difference between 128kbps and 192kbps mp3s. These vary according to different songs, I could hear the most difference in subtle classical music with multiple instruments/frequencies.
No matter how hard i wanted to convience myself that my hearing's not aging and that there was a difference between 192kbps, 360kbps and CD quality, I failed to identify them correctly most of the time when they were all randomed in shuffle mode.
So my best space to quality ratio is 192kbps for mp3s. Haven't really done a test on wma and other lossy formats cause this would be quite tedious.
How about you guys?
You should check out the hydrogen audio forums. They've been around for many years, and there's always some test or the other.
The results of the test depends very strongly on the listening environment. Yeah 192 is probably the best compromise, but at the same time it's definitively worse than CD. I find 256 and above to be quite good.
The results of the test depends very strongly on the listening environment. Yeah 192 is probably the best compromise, but at the same time it's definitively worse than CD. I find 256 and above to be quite good.
For MP3 CBR encodings, I cannot tell the difference at 256kbps. At 192kbps, I can sometimes tell a difference depending on song. For VBR encodings, even at V3 or V4 (average of 165kbps), it's hard for me to tell any difference.
For lossy compression, I find both WMA and OGG to be quite good. To me, a 128kbps-160kbps OGG sounds as good as a 256kbps MP3. The only bad thing is you can't load WMA/OGG onto iPod.
Phil
New member
This thread is very intriguing. I'm going to revive it, pardon me. 
Quote MadWereWolfBoy:
between 192kbps, 360kbps and CD quality, I failed to identify them correctly most of the time when they were all randomed in shuffle mode.
Not to be elitist, but your audio equipment does make a difference. Listening through the iBud, with the iPod as a source, un-amped, the difference between a 192mp3, and a flac file, the difference is still evident, but minimal.
However, when I employed some better IEMs, the difference is suitably audible. When amped, the difference is night and day.
Maybe someday we can meet up and you can audition some tracks on my with my 'rig'.
I was skeptical initially, but now I'm totally sold on lossless. Also, I'm quite a scrimp, but after listening some properly encoded files i.e .flac on quality equipment, I'm a total convert. And I find it justifiable to spend, but that's another issue entirely.
Quote MadWereWolfBoy:
between 192kbps, 360kbps and CD quality, I failed to identify them correctly most of the time when they were all randomed in shuffle mode.
Not to be elitist, but your audio equipment does make a difference. Listening through the iBud, with the iPod as a source, un-amped, the difference between a 192mp3, and a flac file, the difference is still evident, but minimal.
However, when I employed some better IEMs, the difference is suitably audible. When amped, the difference is night and day.
Maybe someday we can meet up and you can audition some tracks on my with my 'rig'.
I was skeptical initially, but now I'm totally sold on lossless. Also, I'm quite a scrimp, but after listening some properly encoded files i.e .flac on quality equipment, I'm a total convert. And I find it justifiable to spend, but that's another issue entirely.
Phil
New member
Sorry for posting another reply, I didn't want to confuse the replies.
Quote Godchuanz:
If the file is ripped from CD, yes, it will retain the same quality. Absolutely nothing is lost in the compression. It is as good as listening to the original source.
That depends on how you rip the CD. A perfect rip is the perennial aim. But it's not that easy. Scratches can prevent a perfect rip. For the un-informed that rips the CD into mp3, be it 128 or 320, they are not doing perfect rips. That's why mp3 are called lossy.
For a perfect rip, you need good discs and proper settings (that's where 'accurate rip' comes in).
Quote cliffburton:
i dunno WTH u guys are toking about but.. mp3 can also actually be converted to higher bit rate for better quality right?? if u want better quality convert to higher bit rate lah,
This is a common and a very terrible misconception.
Imagine your WAV is a HUGE jar filled with marbles.
When you encode into MP3s you pour the marbles into a smaller jar and excess marbles are removed.
When you encode the 190kbps to FLAC for example, you pour the marbles from the smaller jar back into the HUGE jar.
Same number of marbles there but a much bigger jar.
Meaning to say, same quality, but just a much bigger filesize.
This applies to sound encoding too. Encoding is not work of magic, it helps reduce size of file by cut away detail/audio frequency/curtain wave form that normal people doesn't notice due to their sub par equipment and ear. (Again, not trying to be elitist, it's all boils down to personal preferences.)
And there is no way to get those details back since it has been sent to universe of emptiness.
To all, please do not feel slighted, I've have no malice intended. Just sharing,
Quote Godchuanz:
If the file is ripped from CD, yes, it will retain the same quality. Absolutely nothing is lost in the compression. It is as good as listening to the original source.
That depends on how you rip the CD. A perfect rip is the perennial aim. But it's not that easy. Scratches can prevent a perfect rip. For the un-informed that rips the CD into mp3, be it 128 or 320, they are not doing perfect rips. That's why mp3 are called lossy.
For a perfect rip, you need good discs and proper settings (that's where 'accurate rip' comes in).
Quote cliffburton:
i dunno WTH u guys are toking about but.. mp3 can also actually be converted to higher bit rate for better quality right?? if u want better quality convert to higher bit rate lah,
This is a common and a very terrible misconception.
Imagine your WAV is a HUGE jar filled with marbles.
When you encode into MP3s you pour the marbles into a smaller jar and excess marbles are removed.
When you encode the 190kbps to FLAC for example, you pour the marbles from the smaller jar back into the HUGE jar.
Same number of marbles there but a much bigger jar.
Meaning to say, same quality, but just a much bigger filesize.
This applies to sound encoding too. Encoding is not work of magic, it helps reduce size of file by cut away detail/audio frequency/curtain wave form that normal people doesn't notice due to their sub par equipment and ear. (Again, not trying to be elitist, it's all boils down to personal preferences.)
And there is no way to get those details back since it has been sent to universe of emptiness.
To all, please do not feel slighted, I've have no malice intended. Just sharing,
Last edited:
visa
New member
I haven't followed the entire thread,
but the argument posted in the first post is flawed.
MP3s are bad because modern day mastering is too compressed and loud?
Modern day mastering gives you compressed and loud music even on the audio CDs that you buy from your record stores- MP3s have nothing to do with that.
but the argument posted in the first post is flawed.
MP3s are bad because modern day mastering is too compressed and loud?
Modern day mastering gives you compressed and loud music even on the audio CDs that you buy from your record stores- MP3s have nothing to do with that.
Phil
New member
Visa,
I agree with you, take a look at this.
Silk: CuteStudio Ltd. Audio, electronics, graphics and embedded software - products/audio/CD clipping/shame
Hereby confirming that some of our best loved CDs have horrible mastering. Take a look at the 'Fame' section as well.
Hot tracks, horrible mastering, loudness. My oh my, the list goes on. Shall I elaborate?
I agree with you, take a look at this.
Silk: CuteStudio Ltd. Audio, electronics, graphics and embedded software - products/audio/CD clipping/shame
Hereby confirming that some of our best loved CDs have horrible mastering. Take a look at the 'Fame' section as well.
Hot tracks, horrible mastering, loudness. My oh my, the list goes on. Shall I elaborate?
Last edited:
theblueark
New member
The first post has nothing to do with why mp3's are bad. It's a misnamed thread title. The link he posts is to an article called "The Death of High Fidelity" which talks about the "age of mp3s". It does not mention in any way the correlation between mastering and mp3s, just saying that in this age where we use mp3s very often, producers of CDs are also using high compression mastering techniques.
Lossy comes from the word loss, or lose. You lose some information.
Lossless means you do not lose any information.
Whether you hear this information or not, depends on individual's ears and your equipment. If your player is lossy, your speakers are lossy, and your environment is noisy, then you're losing a lot of information anyway. E.g 100% is lossless. You lose 30% from your $5 earphones and 10% from your china fake ipod and a further 10% from the noisy environment. It's unlikely that you're going to hear the 10% difference that an Mp3 vs CD makes.
Believe it or not, there are many people who invest in $30 000 sound systems and $400 earphones. These guys are the ones who have very "unlossy" systems and thus it's down to the mp3s which are causing that 10% loss which is now very obvious. And these guys are actually the main market for audio equipment. One guy buying a $400 earphone is about the same as 80 guys buying a $5 one. Even wider a difference for home sound systems.
%s provided are an example and are not true nor researched.
Either way, the article is not arguing for a revolution or a ban on mp3s. He's merely making an observation on today's trends. It's like a fashion magazine saying "Black is the new pink" does not equate to the magazine saying "lets put a ban on black and bring back pink".
Lossy comes from the word loss, or lose. You lose some information.
Lossless means you do not lose any information.
Whether you hear this information or not, depends on individual's ears and your equipment. If your player is lossy, your speakers are lossy, and your environment is noisy, then you're losing a lot of information anyway. E.g 100% is lossless. You lose 30% from your $5 earphones and 10% from your china fake ipod and a further 10% from the noisy environment. It's unlikely that you're going to hear the 10% difference that an Mp3 vs CD makes.
Believe it or not, there are many people who invest in $30 000 sound systems and $400 earphones. These guys are the ones who have very "unlossy" systems and thus it's down to the mp3s which are causing that 10% loss which is now very obvious. And these guys are actually the main market for audio equipment. One guy buying a $400 earphone is about the same as 80 guys buying a $5 one. Even wider a difference for home sound systems.
%s provided are an example and are not true nor researched.
Either way, the article is not arguing for a revolution or a ban on mp3s. He's merely making an observation on today's trends. It's like a fashion magazine saying "Black is the new pink" does not equate to the magazine saying "lets put a ban on black and bring back pink".
Last edited:
visa
New member
YouTube - The Loudness War
here is a video that will let you hear and see it for yourself.
Big-name CD manufacturers are distorting sounds to make them seem louder. Sound quality suffers.
note it has nothing to do with mp3s- CDs THEMSELVES today have been stripped of dynamics and nuances in the quest to make everything loud.
here is a video that will let you hear and see it for yourself.
Big-name CD manufacturers are distorting sounds to make them seem louder. Sound quality suffers.
note it has nothing to do with mp3s- CDs THEMSELVES today have been stripped of dynamics and nuances in the quest to make everything loud.
