[ldj325]

I was going to put this in as a response to another thread, but I decided it might be taking that thread sideway. Besides I'd like to hear from others about this. I sometimes think that I can hear a slight difference on my iPod (a lot of songs I have wav and 192 versions burned back to back), but its slight and may well be my imagination, the trail of reverb or cymbols, etc. Since I've got my highly detailed Edition 9 headphones I haven't tried the MP3s (I own very few of them) but it might make for an interesting experiment, but I digress.

BUT ON A FULL SPEAKER RIG, WITH GOOD EQUIPMENT IT IS EASY TO HEAR THE COMPRESSION OF MP3s THAT HAVE BEEN BURNED TO CD. I can even hear the difference in my car's sound system, but it is an upgraded premium Nakamichi/Lexus system, so not the average car system. When I buy music I would like the option of ripping it to CD and listening through the home or car sound system. I just won't pay money for MP3s (if it's truly lossless that would be different) that I can't burn to CD and play in all my environments.

I'll give it that played on an iPod/MP3 Player its hard to tell the difference between 192 and wav. But burned to CD and played on a full system the compression is pretty obvious. I keep wondering if all the fighting of "can hear difference/can't hear difference" is only with portable players.

Does anyone else have this same experience with external speaker systems?

 

[Schalldampfer]

Never even tried MP3's with the Tannoys I have... but it does intrigue me.

 

[ChaseD13]

192 isnt usually called transparent...320 or high vbr is.

and for me that holds true, but i will always have lossless backups.

 

[mushishi]

You should be able to provide statistically certain ABX results, then. I look forward to them.

 

[ldj325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseD13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 192 isnt usually called transparent...320 or high vbr is. and for me that holds true, but i will always have lossless backups.

I have to admit that its probably been 2-3 years since I did my little A/B and 192 was the highest I tried it with. But it was so obvious at that bitrate that I've never looked back or given it a second thought.

Does anyone know what the bit depth is with 320, or of something like FLAC? I ask because I've recently gotten into SACDs (24 bit) and generally (probably dependent on the SQ of the recording/mastering) I can hear a significant difference between redbook and SACD.

Also I'd love to hear the experience from someone with a moderate audiophile full external system (10K-20K) which is the level I used to listen to. I heard a 150K-200K system a few weeks ago and there was discernable difference between the same SACD on a 6K universal player and the 45K player. I suspect that on such as system the difference between 320 and wav would be obvious, but I don't know for sure.

 

[ldj325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mushishi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should be able to provide statistically certain ABX results, then. I look forward to them.

I sure hope this isn't directed towards me as I have no idea what this response refers to.

PS. Next time it would be helpful if you use the quote button for a response, so that its obvious what the response pertains to.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldj325 /img/forum/go_quote.gif BUT ON A FULL SPEAKER RIG, WITH GOOD EQUIPMENT IT IS EASY TO HEAR THE COMPRESSION OF MP3s THAT HAVE BEEN BURNED TO CD.

I have issues with this form of playback for MP3. MP3s and other lossy files are best played back as 24bit. Once you record them as 16bit to CD, there is another loss. If you burned the disc using a normal computer and CD burner, you will have recorded high jitter to the disc which will affect the playback also.

If you want to do the comparision, it has to be on the same platform.

 

[flamerz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mushishi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should be able to provide statistically certain ABX results, then. I look forward to them.

Against forum rules, etc.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamerz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Against forum rules, etc.

No, it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif MP3s and other lossy files are best played back as 24bit. Once you record them as 16bit to CD, there is another loss.

Why do you say that? If an MP3 is created from a 44.1kHz, 16 bit source, why would burning that MP3 to CD result in any additional loss?

 

[flamerz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, it is not.

orly? Disregard my post then.

And ldj325, I believe mushishi was directing his post towards anyone who disagreed with him.

 

[wixy]

I can't really tell the difference between mp3 and cd, but I prefer to buy cd's, just to know that i'm not missing out on any bad effects the compression of mp3s has.

 

[islewind]

It was a couple of years ago that a friend and I did try a comparison of original cd vs various mp3 enocoders at various bitrates. It was through a decent speaker rig, and for both of us it was a relatively noticable difference until about 192kbps, at which point it got progressively more and more difficult to tell. Certain encoders at higher rates were very difficult for us to discern from the original. I don't doubt those that report they can easily hear differences at higher bitrates - what I do suggest is that if you care about this, you do a little experimentation yourself on the systems you actually listen to. And retain the original cd's of the core of your critical-listening collection.

 

[ldj325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have issues with this form of playback for MP3. MP3s and other lossy files are best played back as 24bit. Once you record them as 16bit to CD, there is another loss. If you burned the disc using a normal computer and CD burner, you will have recorded high jitter to the disc which will affect the playback also. If you want to do the comparision, it has to be on the same platform.

Ian, I am curious. Do you know the bit depth of higher rate mp3/4/etc. from iTunes or any site that offers downloads of 192 or above? Are you suggesting these mp3 are recorded using 24 bit rate and downloaded as such?

I am not technically inclined, but I agree with the other poster that if I rip a mp3 at 192 (or higher) from a CD (not SACD) then it seems like a valid comparison to A/B that with the CD itself. I suppose if I wanted to keep things even more equal I could rip the CD to a new CD-R and then rip the CD to to mp3 to CD-R. Also where did the 24 bit part come in? I know of a few audio recording systems that allow an end user to record in 24 bit and output to a DVD recorder, but certainly nothing found in a typical home computer. I am not challenging your per se, just trying to understand the distinction that you are trying to make.

 

[islewind]

One other interesting thing in our little personal experimentation was that it seemed that Apple's AAC format did sound better than MP3 bit rates, especially around their default 128kbs, but even just a little beyond that it didn't sound as good as the equivalent MP3.

 

[lan]

ldj325, mp3 and other lossy encoders are approximations. Playback quality is dependent on the decoder and it's precision. Even though the original source was 16bit from a CD, it no longer has a bit depth when it was compressed. It's better off decoded as 24bit. Since CDs are 16bit, there is another loss when these lossy files are recorded back to CD.