[JMedeiros]

How is this possible?

I'm pretty new to the MP3 thing..I have been ripping CDs from my collection using Music Match set at 320 kbps. I have basically been transferring them to my Archos and enjoying music on the go.

Tonight I decided to burn my first CDS using Music Match. I made a few mixed CDs from the stored MP3 files I have stored on my laptop hard drive.

I am sitting here playing my first homemade CDs on my Philips 963SA via my CD3Ks..and these tracks sound better to me than on the CDs I sourced them from. Some ALOT better. I am using all the same settings on the Philips as I do when playing a manufactured CD....upsampling....video bypass...I am hearing more detail, better decay, solid and more present bass and midrange. Sweet highs and with such a sense of reality. and openess. Am I nuts? How can an MP3 sound better than it's source?



John

 

[MagusG]

Please John, put the musicmatch down and step away. Use EAC, musicmatch is some of the worst software evermade. I will post with some linkage and instructions in a bit. If you are going to do something you might as well do it right.
-Mag

 

[sTaTIx]

At the risk of losing almost as much credibility as JMedeiros has with this thread, I have to say that it's not impossible for mp3's to sound better to you on your particular system. I'm sure that MP3 encoders, to whatever extent, affect their own natural sort of equalization on the music. For instance, an encoder may output MP3's that sound slightly brighter, thus, more exciting and detailed to you. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Phillips' internal MP3 decoder can also have an affect on the sound as well.

 

[Squalish]

High-qual MP3 may be just like vinyl, tubes, radio, etc in that some people prefer the subtle distortions that it brings to the original source material. Compression(or analogicity) can bring losses in certain frequencies, loss of annoying recording details, artificial added detail, equalizations, distortions, and just about anything to the sound that one person might find attractive. Others might find them unattractive. Audiophilia is an purely subjective experience-based obsession, not an objective science.

Go with it. If it sounds better to you, then it IS better to you.

 

[D-EJ915]

it can add a special something that appeals to you, like-I can't stand mp3's, I always use WMA's, I just think they're better, mp3's are to tinny sounding to me

 

[JMedeiros]

Quote:

Originally posted by sTaTIx At the risk of losing almost as much credibility as JMedeiros has with this thread,

Huh? As said, I am new to MP3s having been playing only CDs and Lps for years....I don't think I have any MP3 credibility knowledge to lose at all...only knowledge to gain....hense the question.

John

 

[Hirsch]

In digitizing from CD, the timing information is stripped. If the CD was poorly made, the reclocking (and absence of error correction) done by ripping to mp3 could possibly make up for the sound loss due to the sampling. I have no idea if this is so, but in theory it is possible.

 

[sTaTIx]

Quote:

Originally posted by JMedeiros I don't think I have any MP3 credibility knowledge to lose at all...only knowledge to gain....hense the question. John

Ok, so then you're in the negative.

 

[blessingx]

I'm a big defender of MP3 compression, but over the last two days I have been working with FLAC lossless compression and been surprised of the difference (even with my minor setup). Have you done any tests with other lossly files (say AAC, OGG, etc.) to see if the setup reveals similar proprieties?

 

[mclaren20]

while i prefer the original CD to any mp3 i think this same conceot goes for MD's too. most of the time, i prefer an optically recorded MD in SP mode to the original CD. but like others have said, if it sounds better to you, it is better.

 

[mekanoplastik]

maybe what makes your recordings to sound better than the original is the burned cd....sometimes a properly backed up image and good burned cd can solve some problems (as Hirsch commented)

when a good reader rips a cd, it might read more info than your standard cd player, plus the error correction and then a nice completly centered burned cd may help the cd player to read some stuff it missed before....so it shouldnt be so much of a shock that copies can perform better than originals......

 

[pigmode]

With some especially strident and highly digital recordings, I've seen a well EACed mp3 smooth the sound out considerably. l

 

[Wodgy]

In general, I've found that MP3s do tend to sound slightly warmer and less harsh than the original. (Not always true, of course, depends on the encoder.) I've noticed that WMA tends to err towards high-frequency detail, whereas MP3 tends to err towards midrange and bass. I can imagine that the effect would make some CDs sound better.

 

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by JMedeiros How is this possible? I am hearing more detail, better decay, solid and more present bass and midrange. Sweet highs and with such a sense of reality. and openess. Am I nuts? How can an MP3 sound better than it's source?

You're not alone John. I've noticed the same "openess" with some mp3's, especially those ripped from older "ADD" remastered cd's. It's not just a slight change, either. I rip at 192vbr with cdex. It was a pleasant suprise, but still baffles me.

 

[blr]

Me and a friend conducted some blind tests comparing VBR mp3s to the original files last weekend. Surprisingly I could pick the difference in 100% of the cases and preferred the mp3 on 2 out of 3 tracks! I was worried

Anyway, it is possible that encoding introduces some pleasant distortions eswpecially on harder electronic sounds, making them sound more "human"
On track with a lot of acustical instruments however I found that the opposite is true, any compression makes them sound artificial.
If you look at reviews of MD decks in HiFi mags for instance, you'll see that they never score well with classical tracks but rock and electronica is usually described as good.
And I agree, it depends on encoders and hardware.