MP3 vs Uncompressed - Page 14

I could not agree more.

I use APE, and covert to mp3/Apple Lossless for my iPod.

yes, I demonstrate this regularly to groups and individuals. they will come in and claim, just play it loud, it will sound right. they are invariably shocked at the enormous difference (even and especially on a noisy rock or electronica or metal track) between very compressed and (almost) uncompressed files.

96 kbit/sec (508KB for 42 seconds): distortion, not useful for music...
128 kbit/sec (676KB for 42 seconds): very bad compression artifacts
128 kbit/sec VBR (760KB for 42 seconds): still very fuzzy
160 kbit/sec VBR: still a significant amount of gurgling
192 kbit/sec VBR (1MB for 42 seconds): just acceptable
320 kbit/sec VBR (1.6MB for 42 seconds): acceptable on a middling system
for your head-fi conditions, you should not be stingy with space - you will be rewarded!

A friend prepped a sample track as an original cd, then rips at 128-320 in mp3 and a few other formats. We did a little test in less-than-controlled conditions, and it got pretty challenging above 192kbps lame encoded mp3 vs the original.

...But other systems may be much more revealing, and this was through speakers. (PSB Stratus Bronze driven by a Parasound Amp and Sony Processor and CDP)

OMG, why we have such a useless topic? Why we even bother to use compressed ones for archive?

The size of 100 MP3 (about 5mb average) = 500 mb = 0.5gb
The size of 100 FLAC (about 25mb average) = 2500 mb = 2.5gb
size difference = 2.0 gb

The cost of 2.0 gb using HDD (ref : Seagate 750 gb) 0.36 x 2 = 0.72$
The cost of 2.0 gb using DVD recordable (ref ridiculously expensive gold archival dvd) 0.64 x 2 = 1.28$

Come on guys, it is about a cent more expensive per song. Compressed ones are only useful for portable players, which usually do not have enough justice to play CD-quality music anyway.

I find MP3 files also very usefull for making MP3 discs to play in the car.I can get 9 dics box sets and collections onto one disc that will play in my car for 2 weeks without ever making a disc change.It also kind of forces me to play collections I might not bother to listen to otherwise.

it is really no use arguing like this... especially now that I lost to the deafening din of electrelane last night at the troubadour in hollywood what was left of my hearing after the open air prince concert in minneapolis a decade ago. oh, they got better each song and ended okay, but I gotta admit, maybe that's just my impression because my hearing definitely got worse with each minute... so perhaps soon I too will embrace 192kbps garbage...

I was a hardcore advocate of lossless or uncompressed. LAME sucked for me, even at 320kps because it brickwalls. However, recently I recently found an old MP3 encoder that only encodes 128kps. It is completely transparent and sounds better than LAME at 320kps.

Search for it. The original mp3 encoder. Very hard to find but it's out there. You definately get CD quality encoding or at the least, near CD quality - and I am listening with UE10's!!!

LFF is hiding something he should be sharing!!!

Yeah, the fact that he is taking the mickey.

My mp3 impressions in general are as follows:

The only bitrate that fully delivers right midrange timbre is 320kb/s, no matter it is LAME, FhG or Blade. All other lose the "color" of sound a bit. Second closest is LAME 3.97 when you use --alt preset extreme.
All mp3 have a bit handicapped soundstage and source localization. It is hard to define the right placement of an instrument and its virtual distance from your ears. The worst is LAME with its Joint Stereo mode. Dual Channel and Force Joint Stereo aren't worth mentioning. Turning on Stereo helps but bitrate goes more for channel encoding, and therefore midrange loses warmth slightly. FhG, which you can try ripping your CDs with i.e. WMP11, gives the best bang for the buck IMHO. It encodes Joint Stereo but soundstage is wider and more stable, and SQ is satisfying. Instruments are better articulated than with LAME as well. The last is Blade which is CBR and Stereo only. It has the best stage and sound clarity but it sound boring and fatigued sometimes. Interesting thing is that I ABX'ed myself using foobar2000 and a track in FLAC vs. mp3. When I was winning 4:0 with LAME 3.97 Preset Insane, I stopped the experiment and switched to Blade. Here I had real problems and decided I cannot exactly tell which is which. So I assumed Blade 320kb/s is "transparent" for me. After longer listening you can realize its boredom and lack of dynamics, but not in quick comparison tests. The setup was: HP Compaq laptop and Senns HD 595 / CX300.
Last word goes for FhG. IMHO this codec gives the best tradeoff between soundstage, dynamics and tonal balance. I haven't tried ABX tests between FhG and lossless so far but find this codec superior to others. No surprise to remind that Fraunhofer (hence FhG) invented mp3 format.

LAME's joint stereo mode uses the mid/side stereo encoding which is a lossless process.

If you want to do a proper ABX test, decide in advance how many trials you are going to do, and do not look at the results as you go.

I have to admit that whilst i believe that there is a loss in warmth and tone quality, I can't agree with the joint stereo - I personally find joint stereo harder to discern from lossless than normal stereo.

Have you considered providing a link/ Or is this something from one of the the "black arts" "cracked" sites?

Here's the link that you are looking for.

This is correct. The algorythm itself is lossless but it gives different input data for lossy algorythms and this makes a difference, and I can hear it.

I made ABX just formally. I hear the difference but to assure myself I launched ABX. If I'm in doubt, I perform more thorough test.