Seriously, there is a clear difference between 128kbps MP3s and CDs.

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_goku

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2004
7,613
3
0
I guess this coinsides with my dad being ignorant but wanted them anyways, so... That is why mine are good but I'm wondering, do you think my sound performance could be better had I used a different brand reciever? It sounds very good but then agian I haven't used many top of the line recievers (mostly stereo ones). If the sony was a bad choice, what brand reciever do you think I should have gotten? I do agree though that getting panasonic or sony speakers are crap and was a good idea to polk audio because of prior experience but for recievers I'm still not sure.

LOL that article explains why the bose reciever doesn't have component in/out or that it has only one optical in/out while mine has 4 (8 stereo though).
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: rh71
is a gold-plated CD supposed to sound better than the original CD ? They claim it was re-mixed from the master... and (in my terms) they did some voodoo on it to make it sound better.

Without immediately thinking "gimmick" ... can you tell me if it is actually a better sound ? I'm not an audiophile so I just pop the gold cd (Master Of Puppets) into my CD player and it sounds like the same quality as the regular MetallicA albums.

EDIT>>> Found this review talking about the diff with gold.

no, the golds bs. at best it prevents disk rot. a while back some nicer cd's had backwards compatible 20bit enhancement, but more or less no one had players that took advantage of them.
Supposedly the gold has better reflectivity than the aluminum in regular CD's and IIRC if you hold them up to the light you don't see pinholes through the gold like you do with the aluminum (never really saw that with Al, but whatever). I couldn't tell you because I never spent the money for the gold, I tend to think that aspect is mostly marketing.

The major difference with most of the gold discs is not what they're made of, but that they were remastered for audiophiles. The Master of Puppets gold disc is one of those, done by DCC. However, I would guess it's a really poor example for doing a comparison to the regular CD issue, as that music doesn't have a lot of dynamic range or many different instruments/voices going on all at once. I don't see how the best mastering engineer can do much with that and I'm not surprised that it doesn't really sound different.

thread by the guy (Steve Hoffman) who remastered Metallica for DCC, yep he says the master mix was already heavily compressed. That's his personal website by the way, the messageboard has some good stuff and has grown a lot in the last couple years.
good stuff.. thx for finding the info.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Originally posted by: rh71
Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: rh71
is a gold-plated CD supposed to sound better than the original CD ? They claim it was re-mixed from the master... and (in my terms) they did some voodoo on it to make it sound better.

Without immediately thinking "gimmick" ... can you tell me if it is actually a better sound ? I'm not an audiophile so I just pop the gold cd (Master Of Puppets) into my CD player and it sounds like the same quality as the regular MetallicA albums.

EDIT>>> Found this review talking about the diff with gold.

no, the golds bs. at best it prevents disk rot. a while back some nicer cd's had backwards compatible 20bit enhancement, but more or less no one had players that took advantage of them.
Supposedly the gold has better reflectivity than the aluminum in regular CD's and IIRC if you hold them up to the light you don't see pinholes through the gold like you do with the aluminum (never really saw that with Al, but whatever). I couldn't tell you because I never spent the money for the gold, I tend to think that aspect is mostly marketing.

The major difference with most of the gold discs is not what they're made of, but that they were remastered for audiophiles. The Master of Puppets gold disc is one of those, done by DCC. However, I would guess it's a really poor example for doing a comparison to the regular CD issue, as that music doesn't have a lot of dynamic range or many different instruments/voices going on all at once. I don't see how the best mastering engineer can do much with that and I'm not surprised that it doesn't really sound different.

thread by the guy (Steve Hoffman) who remastered Metallica for DCC, yep he says the master mix was already heavily compressed. That's his personal website by the way, the messageboard has some good stuff and has grown a lot in the last couple years.
good stuff.. thx for finding the info.
Some Sony recievers are good... I don't know which ones, though.

By the way, the reflectivity of a metal doesn't determine how well you can see through it. I think.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Foobar2000 ABX comparator. The answer to your question. Yes, there is a difference, but as always, it depends on the CD's mastering. And the encoder. And the encoder settings. And the output. And the speakers/headphones used for listening. And the person listening.
 

erikiksaz

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 1999
5,486
0
76
Bah, it all boils down to whose ears are doing the listening. Unfortunately, it gets even more complicated when some people listen to music for the sole basis of listening to music. They're not out to analyze what they're listening to, they just want to enjoy the music. On the other hand, you have the audiophiles that scrutinize the music down to the very lowest audible tones.

Or maybe you just haven't done enough analytical listening. I know that i haven't, but i'm definitely getting better at what to listen for.

In your two Incubus tracks, the cymbals/hi hats and bass drum hits are definite giveaways as to which is of lower quality. In some songs the differences aren't as obvious (in part to the poor mix), but some are quite obvious.
 

KoolAidKid

Golden Member
Apr 29, 2002
1,932
0
76
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Now this is downright scary!

This is what our hardware encoder is discarding at 128kbps!

Yes, there is an input/output function so I decided to throw the switch and listen. I am told this output is what is being lost in order to achieve 128kbps stream average! :Q

Btw, song is Get Down, Make Love by Queen from News Of The World Album, 1977.

Cheers!

Interesting. I still say that this is a meaningless exercise because you would never be able to perceive all of that material in the presence of the rest of the signal. The whole point of MP3 is to remove information from the signal where it is least likely to be noticed (in other words, remove information that is likely to be masked). Audiophile or not, it is impossible to avoid the effects of masking entirely. It would be much more useful/telling if you could somehow identify what parts of the signal were actually noticed when they were taken out.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Now this is downright scary!

This is what our hardware encoder is discarding at 128kbps!

Yes, there is an input/output function so I decided to throw the switch and listen. I am told this output is what is being lost in order to achieve 128kbps stream average! :Q

Btw, song is Get Down, Make Love by Queen from News Of The World Album, 1977.

Cheers!

Interesting. I still say that this is a meaningless exercise because you would never be able to perceive all of that material in the presence of the rest of the signal. The whole point of MP3 is to remove information from the signal where it is least likely to be noticed (in other words, remove information that is likely to be masked). Audiophile or not, it is impossible to avoid the effects of masking entirely. It would be much more useful/telling if you could somehow identify what parts of the signal were actually noticed when they were taken out.
This thread hasn't been archived yet (got linked to it from M4H's pwnage thread), so I'll just toss in that there have been documented ABX tests where songs encoded with 128kbps were found to sound different than uncompressed songs.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,727
18,899
136
Originally posted by: Howard
This thread hasn't been archived yet (got linked to it from M4H's pwnage thread), so I'll just toss in that there have been documented ABX tests where songs encoded with 128kbps were found to sound different than uncompressed songs.

So at least you're not bumping an ancient thread pointlessly.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Howard
This thread hasn't been archived yet (got linked to it from M4H's pwnage thread), so I'll just toss in that there have been documented ABX tests where songs encoded with 128kbps were found to sound different than uncompressed songs.

So at least you're not bumping an ancient thread pointlessly.
Nope, not pointlessly.

But now I am. I think.

:beer:
 

knyghtbyte

Senior member
Oct 20, 2004
918
1
0
I like music reproducition so thought i'd give my tuppence......

I own a reasonably good hifi, not penile extensionely expensive, simply bought because after much auditioning in the shop it sounded the best with the variety of music i listen to.....from a stereo setup point of view (its in total a home cinema, but not necessary to go into all that for this) it comprises of a Denon 3803 receiver surround amp (not the best thing for stereo, but still this model can be considered the equivelant of a £400 normal stereo amp) and a pair of Monitor Audio Silver S6 floorstanders (£600)....i havnt listed a CD player because to be fair, given the lengths of run of cable, im using the CD player in the computer as well as the MP3 player in the computer.....
Now, if i play an MP3 at 128kpbs i can hear the music, it sounds pretty good, but there is definitely a lack of spaciousness in the mid-high band, and the low end is a little bit claustrophobic (meaning closed in and compressed, like when u listen to the radio but not quite as bad). I should quickly mention my speakers have hi-range tweeters btw, up to 30KHz. If i play an MP3 at 192kpbs, it sounds a little better, the bass is more definable, but the mid-high end is still slightly flat. Oh, quick mention here bass-wise, i have an exrtremely capable REL subwoofer, astonishing quality of bass as well as capable of going loud. Now, when i play a CD, the bass is vastly improved, especially in the kickdrum area of freqs, also bass guitars tend to be more distinguishable. The high end opens up, altho i wouldnt say dramatically, but certainly sounds more like what i would expect. Then we put on a decent modern recording of a piece of classical on 96/24 DVD-Audio....wow.....astounding, truly, the high end is just perfect and resonant, the mid range is clear and respectful, and the bass has absolute disintegration. That doesnt mean the bass is bad, it means everything is laid bare in its individual form, you can pick out an instrument if you wish and follow its path, or you can let them blend together but with an idea of where each is in a 'virtual' orchestra in front of you. For those of you not into classical, try REM's Automatic for the People on DVD-Audio, the acoustic guitar work suonds literally like its in the room with you, im not going overboard on that statement, if you have reasonable to high quality full size speakers, if possible with tweeters that can hit at least 25khz then you will really feel the presence of the guitarist in the room.
Yes, its possible this is all in my mind.......but given throughout my life i have loved playing back music on the best possible equipment i could find so as to hear the music as it should sound i dont think so. Oh, and i have no problems listening to MP3's, i use them to audition new music when im online, if i like what i hear i buy it, if i dont i delete it, i carry a 256Mb MuvoTX with a pair of neckband Sennheisers and its far better than a walkman or discman for many reasons.....but on a proper full size hifi, give me DVD-Audio any day, if not then a piece of vinyl, then a CD, then an MP3.

right, time to get to bed......

edit: i didnt read this whole thread btw, first and last page, hope i havnt repeated anything...err..hehe
 

sharkeeper

Lifer
Jan 13, 2001
10,886
2
0
The ENCODER USED has more of an impact on the result than the bitrate. There are encoders that sound absolutely HORRIBLE regardless of the slave rate. There are ones that sound surprisingly well at more conservative rates too.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
The ENCODER USED has more of an impact on the result than the bitrate. There are encoders that sound absolutely HORRIBLE regardless of the slave rate. There are ones that sound surprisingly well at more conservative rates too.
Dude! The humanity!