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

[bleeb]

I think the part that is lossed in the lossy compression is beyond the normal audible range of human hearing....

Also, there are some song(s) that do make a difference between 128k, 192k, 320k, and original CD content.

 

[EngenZerO]

there is a difference.

I can tell from the sounds that come out of my ascends that there is a difference.

 

[0roo0roo]

well perhaps some parts. but not all, else you really wouldn't be able to hear any differences at any bitrate.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bleeb
I think the part that is lossed in the lossy compression is beyond the normal audible range of human hearing....

I don't just think you are wrong; I know it.

As I said, earlier, the emotional impact of a piece of recorded music depends on more than just the surface content -- the notes, lyrics, etc. The effect of the entire sonic composition also depends on subtle undertones and ambient information. Compression algorithms use principles known as psychoacoustic masking to determine which low level parts of the program will be masked by other stronger signals. One problem is, not everyone percieves complex sounds the same way, and the same masking algorithm may not work for all people on every possible combination of sounds.

I once participated in an experiment with a group of audio professionals where we subtracted the output from a compression system from the source CD. This allowed us to listen to just the information that was removed from the program material. What we heard was subtle extensions of echos, mechanical sounds (guitar string noises, etc.) and undercurrents of motion in the studio. Everyone agreed that we would not want any of those carefully crafted subtextures removed from our recordings.

The primary job of a recording technology is to REproduce the source material, not to produce new or changed sounds within it. As a listener, you don't have to understand the nature of this kind of sonic information or how it affects your perception of the music. That's the job of those producing the recording. All you need to know is, if the program material is changed, your overall listening experience will be perceptably different for at least some of the sounds subjected to compression such as MP3.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: Harvey

I once participated in an experiment with a group of audio professionals where we subtracted the output from a compression system from the source CD. This allowed us to listen to just the information that was removed from the program material. What we heard was subtle extensions of echos, mechanical sounds (guitar string noises, etc.) and undercurrents of motion in the studio. Everyone agreed that we would not want any of those carefully crafted subtextures removed from our recordings.

While I agree with nearly everything that you've said, I don't really see the point of listening to the "loss" when using a compression algorithm based upon masking principles. The whole point of the algorithm is that the masked material can be removed because it cannot be perceived in the presense of the other portion of the signal. The fact that the material removed by the algorithm can be heard in isolation is really beside the point. Of course, thresholds for masked frequencies vary quite a bit across listeners, which is why low-bitrate MP3 (and other similar compression algorithms) will never satisfy everyone.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Harvey

I once participated in an experiment with a group of audio professionals where we subtracted the output from a compression system from the source CD. This allowed us to listen to just the information that was removed from the program material. What we heard was subtle extensions of echos, mechanical sounds (guitar string noises, etc.) and undercurrents of motion in the studio. Everyone agreed that we would not want any of those carefully crafted subtextures removed from our recordings.

While I agree with nearly everything that you've said, I don't really see the point of listening to the "loss" when using a compression algorithm based upon masking principles. The whole point of the algorithm is that the masked material can be removed because it cannot be perceived in the presense of the other portion of the signal. The fact that the material removed by the algorithm can be heard in isolation is really beside the point. Of course, thresholds for masked frequencies vary quite a bit across listeners, which is why low-bitrate MP3 (and other similar compression algorithms) will never satisfy everyone.

I almost agreed with that until I re-read the post several times.
I'm not sure if you see this or not, but what he's saying is that they encoded a song to a lossy compression format, then subtracted that from the original CD audio.
This removed a large portion of the audio from the original CDDA stream, but left behind the audio that the compression algorithm removed- audio that will still be audible to quite a few people. Maybe not consciously, but sub-consciously? Maybe.

I'm not a studio engineer by any means, but when I was working at the University radio station as their IT guy, I was interested to see that the digital audio storage server stored files in a format that was approximately double that of MP3.
Of course, when I asked why, they simply replied with the old maxim of "Garbage in, garbage out".

[Edit] Please, don't take this post as a "duhh, can you see what he's saying?" kinda post, that's not how I mean it but it's almost dinner time and I'm typing way too quickly to organise my thoughts properly

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
While I agree with nearly everything that you've said, I don't really see the point of listening to the "loss" when using a compression algorithm based upon masking principles. The whole point of the algorithm is that the masked material can be removed because it cannot be perceived in the presense of the other portion of the signal. The fact that the material removed by the algorithm can be heard in isolation is really beside the point.

You answered that in your own conclusion:

Of course, thresholds for masked frequencies vary quite a bit across listeners, which is why low-bitrate MP3 (and other similar compression algorithms) will never satisfy everyone.

The skilled listening group I mentioned were primarily recording engineers who I believe can better appreciate the implications of removing the kinds of undertone information we heard than an average listener could. That's what they do for a living.

The other point is that, if you can accept the sound of MP3's for what they are, they may be a convenient medium for users, but the title of the thread was,

Seriously, there's no audible difference between 128kbps MP3s and CDs.

I seriously disagree with his premise.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: SampSon
nanobug do you still "produce" awful electronic music?

Haha. Yeah, amongst other things. I'm involved in 3 different semi-serious projects and one not-so-serious one, plus what I do on my own. I've been so busy trying to get my guitar playing up to speed to incorporate it into my electronic music that I haven't even really been applying myself to the electronic side of things lately.


Just so you know, that song that I posted up here a while back was made while I was dusted out of my head. I've got more stuff that I've done since then, maybe later tonight after my daughter goes to bed I'll post something new up.

No thanks, I have thousands of great records by professional musicians, I don't need to hear some amateur powerslop.

Good luck with it though. I suggest focusing on real music, so play the guitar and real instruments more.

Electronic music isn't 'fake' just because you don't like it.

I've delved deeper into the scene than you can even imagine. I have more vinyl sitting here and in storage than you have ever seen. I don't need to start an argument.

I used to pay my bills with electronic music. I just don't want to hear another amateur "producers" tracks that they think are cutting edge or even different from the other billions of mediocre tracks out there.

Electronic music doesn't follow the conventions of any other types of music. It does not follow musical scale, it does not follow any rules of music. It is, in reality, a mix of sounds arranged in an arbitrary beat structure played very loud for kids on drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I have thousands of techno, techhouse, house, dnb and downbeat tracks that I still think are great. But I won't kid myself into thinking that it takes true talent to arrange electronic music, because it doesn't.

and it certainly doesn't make you a musician.

 

[V00D00]

Originally posted by: dwell
Yer deaf. Seriously there is a HUGE difference.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: SampSon
nanobug do you still "produce" awful electronic music?

Haha. Yeah, amongst other things. I'm involved in 3 different semi-serious projects and one not-so-serious one, plus what I do on my own. I've been so busy trying to get my guitar playing up to speed to incorporate it into my electronic music that I haven't even really been applying myself to the electronic side of things lately.


Just so you know, that song that I posted up here a while back was made while I was dusted out of my head. I've got more stuff that I've done since then, maybe later tonight after my daughter goes to bed I'll post something new up.

No thanks, I have thousands of great records by professional musicians, I don't need to hear some amateur powerslop.

Good luck with it though. I suggest focusing on real music, so play the guitar and real instruments more.

Electronic music isn't 'fake' just because you don't like it.

I've delved deeper into the scene than you can even imagine. I have more vinyl sitting here and in storage than you have ever seen. I don't need to start an argument.

I used to pay my bills with electronic music. I just don't want to hear another amateur "producers" tracks that they think are cutting edge or even different from the other billions of mediocre tracks out there.

Electronic music doesn't follow the conventions of any other types of music. It does not follow musical scale, it does not follow any rules of music. It is, in reality, a mix of sounds arranged in an arbitrary beat structure played very loud for kids on drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I have thousands of techno, techhouse, house, dnb and downbeat tracks that I still think are great. But I won't kid myself into thinking that it takes true talent to arrange electronic music, because it doesn't.

and it certainly doesn't make you a musician.

Save the secks for neochat, please.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
While I agree with nearly everything that you've said, I don't really see the point of listening to the "loss" when using a compression algorithm based upon masking principles. The whole point of the algorithm is that the masked material can be removed because it cannot be perceived in the presense of the other portion of the signal. The fact that the material removed by the algorithm can be heard in isolation is really beside the point.

You answered that in your own conclusion:

Of course, thresholds for masked frequencies vary quite a bit across listeners, which is why low-bitrate MP3 (and other similar compression algorithms) will never satisfy everyone.

The skilled listening group I mentioned were primarily recording engineers who I believe can better appreciate the implications of removing the kinds of undertone information we heard than an average listener could. That's what they do for a living.

The other point is that, if you can accept the sound of MP3's for what they are, they may be a convenient medium for users, but the title of the thread was,

Seriously, there's no audible difference between 128kbps MP3s and CDs.

I seriously disagree with his premise.

It's got to be said, Harvey really knows his stuff!
Custom "Audiophile" title maybe?

 

[McCarthy]

Surely said before, but since this was already at the top I guess there's no harm in bumping it without reading....
YES there is a difference. Even my old ears can hear it. 128 is "enjoyable" "good enough" "downright nice" depending on the encoder, but it is not CD quality. Both have bubbles, but beer is not champagne. Both have naked women, but pornography is not sex.

 

[opticalmace]

Frou Frou rules!

 

[Mill]

Ok, well you are obviously deaf buddy. I can tell a major difference between 128 and 192.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Dopefiend

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
While I agree with nearly everything that you've said, I don't really see the point of listening to the "loss" when using a compression algorithm based upon masking principles. The whole point of the algorithm is that the masked material can be removed because it cannot be perceived in the presense of the other portion of the signal. The fact that the material removed by the algorithm can be heard in isolation is really beside the point.

You answered that in your own conclusion:

Of course, thresholds for masked frequencies vary quite a bit across listeners, which is why low-bitrate MP3 (and other similar compression algorithms) will never satisfy everyone.

The skilled listening group I mentioned were primarily recording engineers who I believe can better appreciate the implications of removing the kinds of undertone information we heard than an average listener could. That's what they do for a living.

The other point is that, if you can accept the sound of MP3's for what they are, they may be a convenient medium for users, but the title of the thread was,

Seriously, there's no audible difference between 128kbps MP3s and CDs.

I seriously disagree with his premise.

It's got to be said, Howard really knows his stuff!
Custom "Audiophile" title maybe?

HARVEY

 

[ndee]

Whoa whoa, whatta change in the first post and title!

 

[Howard]

I already PMed Dopefiend (2nd post) to call him out about it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Dopefiend

It's got to be said, Howard really knows his stuff!
Custom "Audiophile" title maybe?

HARVEY

Howard -- Thanks for saving me from an identity crisis. :beer:

Dopefiend -- "Resident audiophile" was RagingBITCH's label. I actually avoid that word. I'm an electronic design engineer, and most of what I design is professional recording studio and broadcast level stuff. I'm also a musician so I can think music and build hardware to do it.

"Audiophile" tweeks drive me nuts. A lot of them strike me as more into fluff and snake oil than good engineering. Anyone who asks thousands of dollars for single-ended 12 watt tube amps, cosmic speaker wire with arrows pointing toward the speakers and power cords that are supposed to "lift the veil" and give you more tranparent sound is blowing smoke. They're also inhaling a lot of it, it's good sh8, and they're not sharing it with us.

 

[amcdonald]

I can't believe you guys argued with this troll for almost 300 posts.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Howard
HARVEY

Keep your knickers on, that was posted laaaate last night

 

[imported_Phil]

I see that virtualgames0 has admitted defeat without actually admitting it- anyone else read the first post again and realised how much he's chopped out?

I think the word owned fits the situation quite nicely here.

[Edit] Editing original posts pisses me off. See the second post in the thread (mine).

 

[ZoNtO]

lol, he's a dumbass

I rip all my CDs with Exact Audio Copy pb095, and then encode them with Lame 3.97 alpha3 @ 192 kbit VBR (high quality) setting. If anybody else has a better way to do it, (and not wma, I know it's lossless or whatever but I want mp3) please PM me. BTW, EAC is set on quality results, so the wavs are superb. Thanks, and good job for the owned!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Dopefiend
Keep your knickers on, that was posted laaaate last night

Thx. My kinckers are well secured. NP. :beer:

I just went back and checked virtualgames0' "updated" version of his post. I'm glad you quoted it the original post. The only thing in his post that now rings true is his statement, "WOW what a world of difference!" :shocked:

With that kind of consistancy, maybe he should be a politician.

 

[imported_goku]

Ok I see how no one is defending Virtual games so I guess I will attempt to take his side. Ok I see your point of view when you say that there is no distinct difference between 128K bitrate MP3s and CD quality, essentially your saying that 128K IS CD Quality because it can be difficult to notice the difference. I think the problem is that you may not be playing the music high enough (loud enough) or music with a lot of bass and because of that, you don't notice any artifacting in the music. I for one do not claim to be an audiophile but I most definately can tell the difference between a 128, 192, 384 bitrate file probably because I listen to music that utilizes bass a lot more than your music. I guess I have very sensitive ears which is why I purchased 400$ Polk audio RM6000 speakers with a $300 sony reciever because after listening to music on the bose system we/I got for my dad. The bose system has good Audio clarity for classical music but when listening to action/audio with lots of bass it doesn't nessesarily artifact but doesn't sound as good as my sound system though. So yes you can get by with 128 Bitrate for your type of music I guess but if the audio has a lot of low and high frequency, then your are better off with CDs for audio quality because MP3s just cut off too much on the extreme sides of the spectrum in music. (Yes there are other audio formats besides CDs but most music is on CD so I will say cd.)

Oh and with raising the volume, it's the most sure/easy way to tell the quality of the music/speakers your listening to because everything is exaggerated when raised and if the speakers/audio is of low quality to begin with, then it's true colors will show when you crank up the volume.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: goku2100
Ok I see how no one is defending Virtual games so I guess I will attempt to take his side. Ok I see your point of view when you say that there is no distinct difference between 128K bitrate MP3s and CD quality, essentially your saying that 128K IS CD Quality because it can be difficult to notice the difference. I think the problem is that you may not be playing the music high enough (loud enough) or music with a lot of bass and because of that, you don't notice any artifacting in the music. I for one do not claim to be an audiophile but I most definately can tell the difference between a 128, 192, 384 bitrate file probably because I listen to music that utilizes bass a lot more than your music. I guess I have very sensitive ears which is why I purchased 400$ Polk audio RM6000 speakers with a $300 sony reciever because after listening to music on the bose system we/I got for my dad. The bose system has good Audio clarity for classical music but when listening to action/audio with lots of bass it doesn't nessesarily artifact but doesn't sound as good as my sound system though. So yes you can get by with 128 Bitrate for your type of music I guess but if the audio has a lot of low and high frequency, then your are better off with CDs for audio quality because MP3s just cut off too much on the extreme sides of the spectrum in music. (Yes there are other audio formats besides CDs but most music is on CD so I will say cd.)

Oh and with raising the volume, it's the most sure/easy way to tell the quality of the music/speakers your listening to because everything is exaggerated when raised and if the speakers/audio is of low quality to begin with, then it's true colors will show when you crank up the volume.

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html