The latest MP3 discussion thread (moved from the DVD-A discussion)

[ssully]

Ok....how do you play that stream I linked on a 5.1 system using a ps3 then? It may have dts or dolby digital decoders, but that's not what that stream is.

It's not clear what the audio format is on the link, but Dolby Home Theater/Dolby Digital Live (which comes as an option in the sound schemes of some computers these days...including my $300 laptop) can convert audio to DD 5.1 'on the fly' and output it as a bitstream to an AVR via optical S/PDIF or HDMI (connections which were rare on computers a few years ago but which, again , are now to be found even on some cheap laptops and netbooks).

If you insist on lossless surround, you'll have to either get a PC soundcard that can pass multichannel lossless via HDMI, or wait for multichannel HDMI out to be offered on laptops (currently laptop HDMI is 2-channel only, for lossless audio).

 

[daved64]

Quite by accident, I have the latest GQ magazine and it includes an article named Return to HiFi that dismisses the MP3 players and docks as tinny, rediscover your CD collection (duh) and better grade separates. The backlash to mp3 quality is well under way.

More to the point was a recent quote I read reflecting on all this recent "vinyl love" going on; it's NOT the medium (format) so much as it is the investment of a listener's time to actually sit still long enough to take it all in as art rather than commodity.
.

MP3's and my iPod Touch have made me enjoy music more than I have for years. Loading up 4 gigs on a stick to play in the car or having my iPod in situations where I would never have been able to enjoy music has been a godsend.

Hate to tell ya, but there is no MP3 backlash, other than a few websites with almost zero influence on the industry. There's a generation of kids that never played a CD, never mind vinyl!

 

[DKA]

MP3's and my iPod Touch have made me enjoy music more than I have for years. Loading up 4 gigs on a stick to play in the car or having my iPod in situations where I would never have been able to enjoy music has been a godsend.

Hate to tell ya, but there is no MP3 backlash, other than a few websites with almost zero influence on the industry. There's a generation of kids that never played a CD, never mind vinyl!

exactly, Dave. articles are written to sell print and be provocative.

 

[JonUrban]

The iPod is a natural progression from the cassette Walkman and the CD Discman, only a million times more convenient. No longer do we have to worry about a tape or disc running out, or a disc skipping or being restarted while mowing the lawn or running. The fact that it makes our music portable and easy is undisputable. And, as much as some won't admit it, it makes music in the home so easy, a caveman can do it!

"High Fidelity" in the home has been replaced with an audio system for the TV and iPod/MP3 music everywhere else. So, in order for surround music to make it these days, it has to be available in either the car or marketed as "Home Theater Music". The DVD-A movement in the car has been quite remarkable, however it's 10 years too late. Those little DVD-A logos on the dash don't mean a thing when you can't buy a disc.

It seems that the last chance to get surround music out there is Blu-Ray. If a label decided to sell 'Surround Music for your Home Theater' on Blu-Ray discs, with some sort of video montage of HD images that could be viewed as the music played (similar to what the Alexander Jero discs do), you could market these as discs to play while the viewers were waiting for the movie to start, or as background music to play during a conversational period before the video presentation.

Of course, in theory, this could then move to the car if and when a Blu-Ray deck appeared in the dash. (ELS, wanna give it a try?)

However, given all of this, it still remains to this day that the perfect format for all of the above is in fact, the DVD-Audio disc. Sad, really.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

MP3's and my iPod Touch have made me enjoy music more than I have for years. Loading up 4 gigs on a stick to play in the car or having my iPod in situations where I would never have been able to enjoy music has been a godsend.

Hate to tell ya, but there is no MP3 backlash, other than a few websites with almost zero influence on the industry. There's a generation of kids that never played a CD, never mind vinyl!

I'd love to tell you or anyone else, Convenient or not, mp3's sound like crap.
I had my first experience with an entire album (over an hours worth) in the mp3 format just a couple weeks ago and it was too hard sounding for my tastes (agony is a better word) and I would never listen to that format again even if it cost me nothing.

 

[jimby]

I'd love to tell you or anyone else, Convenient or not, mp3's sound like crap.
I had my first experience with an entire album (over an hours worth) in the mp3 format just a couple weeks ago and it was too hard sounding for my tastes (agony is a better word) and I would never listen to that format again even if it cost me nothing.

Hate to break it to some of you, but we've conducted numerous tests on MP3 and other codecs, including blind listening tests. Our results show that for almost all material, the MP3 codec achieves transparency at about 160 kbps, meaning that not one of our test subjects can pick out the codec from the original PCM in any numbers greater than random.

Most of the bad rap MP3 (and codecs) gets is based on a failure to eliminate other variables in the decoding and playback chain. You can't judge MP3 based on cheap D/A or headphone amplifiers, or inexpensive earbuds. We conducted tests by encoding content into MP3 and then decoding it back to PCM. We then play the decoded PCM against the original PCM in a blind ABX test. We employ both studio monitors and monitor-quality headphones in the test.

It is humbling exercise for those people who think that MP3s sound bad. In fact, some of our test subjects have argued that the test is "rigged" somehow, but so far have failed to find any flaws in the methodology.

Also, I point out for your browsing pleasure, AES Journal article 775 (purchase required) in which the authors (audio engineers) performed similar tests with hi-res audio vs CD-quality PCM with similar results.

This isn't the only AES article debunking some of these myths; there are several others.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Hate to break it to some of you, but we've conducted numerous tests on MP3 and other codecs, including blind listening tests. Our results show that for almost all material, the MP3 codec achieves transparency at about 160 kbps, meaning that not one of our test subjects can pick out the codec from the original PCM in any numbers greater than random.

Most of the bad rap MP3 (and codecs) gets is based on a failure to eliminate other variables in the decoding and playback chain...

I forgot to mention that I didn't know I was listening to mp3 files until I asked.
It sounded like a lot of information was lost in the playback and it turns out I was right that it was downgraded mp3.

Also, I wonder who these "Blind Listening Test" people were and was there any upconversion going on in the playback chain.
A lot of my Compact Discs sound just as bad as mp3.
I'd like to add that I can tell the difference between 96 kHz & 192 KHz.

 

[jimby]

I'd like to add that I can tell the difference between 96 kHz & 192 KHz.

Sure you can. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Sure you can. Whatever floats your boat.

Thanks for the validation!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Sure you can. Whatever floats your boat.

Well it's sort of like being able to taste the difference between organic and non-organic food. It's nice to know what one is eating and what's in the food and that one has a choice. Likewise if one buys a download one should know the bit rate and exactly what one is getting and offered a choice regardless of format.

I'm waiting for the 25 terabyte iPod with HDMI out , until then not my main music source or interest except on vacations.

 

[ssully]

Hate to break it to some of you, but we've conducted numerous tests on MP3 and other codecs, including blind listening tests. Our results show that for almost all material, the MP3 codec achieves transparency at about 160 kbps, meaning that not one of our test subjects can pick out the codec from the original PCM in any numbers greater than random.

Most of the bad rap MP3 (and codecs) gets is based on a failure to eliminate other variables in the decoding and playback chain. You can't judge MP3 based on cheap D/A or headphone amplifiers, or inexpensive earbuds. We conducted tests by encoding content into MP3 and then decoding it back to PCM. We then play the decoded PCM against the original PCM in a blind ABX test. We employ both studio monitors and monitor-quality headphones in the test.

I'm with ya on the over-demonization of mp3. But the gear really isn't so important -- or at least, no more or less important than for testing any other format -- compared to the quality of the codec (the free LAME codec is as good as they get for mp3), the bitrate (160 and above as you say, tends to be enough) , the material encoded (typically not a problem, but there are rare 'killer' tracks that are still hard to encode without obvious audible artifacts). After that it's down to whether the listener has trained to hear subtle lossy encoding artifacts. Most aren't an most won't 'pass' an ABX of most music encoded by a quality coded at a high bitrate.

 

[ssully]

I forgot to mention that I didn't know I was listening to mp3 files until I asked.
It sounded like a lot of information was lost in the playback and it turns out I was right that it was downgraded mp3.

All mp3s aren't created alike. And your test was hardly bulletproof.

Also, I wonder who these "Blind Listening Test" people were

Conducted by members of the Boston Audio Society and AES. IIRC participants included professional sound engineers and 'audiophiles'.

and was there any upconversion going on in the playback chain.

There was *downconversion* of SACD to Redbook. That was the point. "Native' SACD output was converted to Redbook on the fly. THe listener could switch between the original DSD output,
and the downconverted output. No one was able to tell them apart unless the volume was cranked very high on very quiet parts...then the different noise floors became apparent, as expected.

A lot of my Compact Discs sound just as bad as mp3.

But you haven't established that mp3s inevitably sound 'bad' in the first place.

I'd like to add that I can tell the difference between 96 kHz & 192 KHz.

I wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

 

[daved64]

I'd love to tell you or anyone else, Convenient or not, mp3's sound like crap.
I had my first experience with an entire album (over an hours worth) in the mp3 format just a couple weeks ago and it was too hard sounding for my tastes (agony is a better word) and I would never listen to that format again even if it cost me nothing.

I'm glad you've based your opinion on an entire format on ONE listening experience.

Regardless, I wish you luck on your endless quest for audiophile panacea. You'll never get it.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I might not bet on being able to hear the difference between 96kHz and 192kHz, but I would bet on hearing the difference between 160kbps mp3 and CD, depending on the quality of the original source of course. But most 160kbps mp3s I've heard I've recognized as crap easily before checking the bitrate.

Now, I suppose it's possible technology has developed to better encode mp3s at 160kbps with better sound quality. I'd have to hear it to believe it though.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

All mp3s aren't created alike. And your test was hardly bulletproof.

True, but I have read many times over that mp3 sucks and I finally found out what it sounds like.

Conducted by members of the Boston Audio Society and AES. IIRC participants included professional sound engineers and 'audiophiles'.

Thanks, I needed to hear that!

But you haven't established that mp3 inevitably sound 'bad' in the first place.

You're right!
I haven't heard a lot of mp3 music tracks because I prefer not to.

I wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

This is true!
I have only listened to three discs and they were the Classic Record's Alan Parson Project releases and they don't sound that great to begin with.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

I'm glad you've based your opinion on an entire format on ONE listening experience.

Regardless, I wish you luck on your endless quest for audiophile panacea. You'll never get it.

What is this...pick on Perpendicular day??
Alright, I was asking for it!

Anyway, I know what I hear when I hear it.
We can all agree to disagree.

 

[kap'n krunch]

What is this...pick on Perpendicular day??
Alright, I was asking for it!

Anyway, I know what I hear when I hear it.
We can all agree to disagree.

These two "semi friendly" members are ALWAYS like this, pay no attention...
Somehow they are not happy until they "try " to convince you that if you can hear a difference, you're imagining it.("The more you try to convince somebody of your way , the more the other person will think they're right"-paraphrasing Dale Carnegie)
One of them doesn't even have a Quad system!!!! (love it!!!)
They're like those"nasty"uncles in family reunions...but they're part of the family...just nod and and keep having fun...

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Hate to break it to some of you, but we've conducted numerous tests on MP3 and other codecs, including blind listening tests. Our results show that for almost all material, the MP3 codec achieves transparency at about 160 kbps, meaning that not one of our test subjects can pick out the codec from the original PCM in any numbers greater than random.

Almost all material? I am only interested in what I do listen to and with that I can certainly tell the difference between 160 kbps MP3 or AAC compared to lossless uncompressed PCM. It is hardly a scientific test if it is limited to almost all material, that is sort a vague requirement. Does almost all material mean 51%? Does it mean anything other than music with a wide dynamic range? I am not an MP3 fan but what little I understand from people that do listen to MP3 a lot, they acknowledge a compromise in sound quality justified by the convenience and/or cost factor and they can tell the difference. I could never convince myself that I could tell the difference between a properly mastered stereo CD and properly mastered stereo SACD, I tried and failed. Since so many claim that they can, I just assumed it was either my hearing or my modest equipment. The same would probably be true if I compared identical masterings of high resolution stereo PCM to stereo CD. I have compared MP3 to CD and didn't find that challenging to distinguish. Just have a friend play a 160 kbps MP3 of a favorite recording, then listen to the CD without knowing which is which and see if you can get it right a statistically significant percentage of the time. I am willing to believe you can.

I have always assumed so many listen to MP3 because it sounds good enough, but almost all can tell the difference. In that case I don't care whether almost all is 51% or greater than 51% since I didn't do a study and it was just an assumption. I do agree that music I like sounds good whether it is an MP3 or something better but I continue to play CD's in the car, that is convenient enough for me.

Chris

 

[timbre4]

In regards to sub-topic #3

Okay as the original poster of the "mp3 backlash", thank you for the comments that allow me to dis the article as baseless. People don't care and the world keeps spinning. It also gives me license to say that the vinyl comeback is so small as to be off the radar. So vinyl fanboys, it's over before it's begun. But I will defend the other statement; most CDs are just fine; it is the time spent sitting still (paying attention) and LISTENING that is making the difference in the appreciation of the music and NOT so much the medium. That's healthy. Whew.

As to MP3 quality, here's a specific story. When I started using iTunes in 2005, it all went in at 128 bit rate. Most of the time it was okay but others not. One of the biggest obvious failures was the cymbal work on In The Court Of The Crimson King. Whereas this light work on the drum kit was a marvel to hear in pristine glory, this bit rate mangled it so badly as to be unlistenable IMHO. It was not much better at 160 or 192; finally at 256 it straightened out. Hell, with storage so cheap, I just went with 320 on everything now and don't look back anymore.

 

[DKA]

How you experience an mp3 depends on where you are listening. If you're listening on a pair of headphones, while running, at the gym, walking around town, etc., you are likely not to care much about the bit rate of your mp3. i keep my IPhone stuff at 128 mbps for space reasons, and that's fine. I'd never listen to an mp3 on my home stereo, though, and would never use one to upmix to surround. In both, especially the latter, the limitation of the media becomes much more apparant.

The biggest hole I see in the industry right now is the lack of easily-available lossless source, on most product, for digital purchase. Apple has the lossless codec. Whether they see it as profitable to sell lossless audio on ITunes is another story.

This is why I don't get the point of "how do we save commercial surround" conversations. We're way beyond that point. What we need to save is a baseline quality of audio. "Saving surround" is thinking about ten steps ahead.