What's MP3? What bitrate, what encoder do you use to compare it? And what playback device do you use for the four different formats to compare them to eachother? There are so many variables here, it's impossible to find a valuable result, except for one: CD is in fact the most accurate format, since uncompressed PCM is the starting basis also for all other mediums, including FM for the most part of its broadcasted music titles. So all other formats are lossy, objectively worse than the original format.
This doesn't exclude that you may like FM, e.g., better - through your individual device. Maybe it has the right euphonic colorations to compensate for the flaws of the cheap DAC or output stage. FM transmission carries a high degree of distortion with it which not only is perceived as such but also can mask some digital flavour of the original.
As to MP3 and MiniDisc: I have found my first MD player (Sony MZ-R30) to be sonically superior to my D-99 Discman. Does that mean MD is superior to CD? Of course not! There are several years of technical progress between the two. But it shows how good MD can sound. Why did I switch to MP3? I bought an Archos Studio 20 jukebox with a 20 GB HD, so I have the best of my CD collection at hand wherever I am. And I liked the sound of well encoded high-bitrate MP3 even better than MDs. Of course with a different player, so no absolute rating of the formats.
I can't compare a CD to the corresponding MD recording. And I have no ATRAC encoder/player on my computer. But I can compare MP3 files to the original Wave files. And with EAC/LAME as well as my not too young ears I barely can distinguish 256-kbps MP3 from the original, maybe with certain very critical recordings; and I definitely can't in the case of 320 kbps. This even through my Bel Canto DAC2 connected to the SPDIF out. So I clearly have to dispute that MD sounds «better» than MP3. AFAIK the normal ATRAC is around 256 kbps, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by ßillcollector
I can't stand MP3 sounds for its lack of high-frequency response. |
With the right encoder (e.g. LAME) there's no low-pass filter and no HF roll-off - at least from the encoding process. The decoder is another possible source of the treble roll-off you perceive.
BTW
(cited from another thread):
The German
stereoplay magazine has compared six lossy compression systems:
AAC / Atrac 3plus / MP3 FhG / MP3 Lame / Ogg Vorbis / WMA
They have tested two variable bitrates: around 64 kbps and around 230 kbps. 64 kbps doesn't look like a good choice, since it's barely useable for serious listeners, as the tests have shown. After all it demonstrates the tendencies:
AAC and WMA were the best encoders with the low bitrate, followed by Atrac 3plus and Ogg Vorbis. Both MP3 encoders were bad here.
With the higher bitrate, Lame and Ogg Vorbis are in front; Lame with «extreme» setting is said to be closest to the original sound. AAC, MP3 FhG and WMA share the third place, whereas Atrac 3plus is worst by a fair margin.
Personally I haven't tried other compressors than MP3 so far, but I'm very satisfied with EAC/(Razor)Lame (exclusively with high bitrates) and don't expect any new codecs to sound clearly better with high-quality settings.
