[weste47]

How come so many are encoded in Lame or something, and then when you listen to the tracks the highs are just like really shrill even if the bitrate is high. I don't get it.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Unless you're listening to jazz or classical, it's likely that your music was highly compressed before it was even encoded.

There's not much you can do about it. Even the CD would sound terrible because of the compression.

Why don't you get a turntable? Check Craigslist for old ones. A little tuneup and a new cartridge will get you better sound than anything you download.

 

[Bunnyears]

If you want really high quality downloads, try going to the Linn records website. You can download studio master quality files with no DRM.

 

[Zarathustra19]

Depends on what kind of downloads you're talking about. Some places care about fidelity and keep the best quality they can. Most I get are between 192 and 320k, but for the most part commercial downloads stick to crappy quality of compressed music, so you get crappy music overall.

 

[IronMaiden]

why don't you buy cds or atleast download flac?

 

[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unless you're listening to jazz or classical, it's likely that your music was highly compressed before it was even encoded. There's not much you can do about it. Even the CD would sound terrible because of the compression. Why don't you get a turntable? Check Craigslist for old ones. A little tuneup and a new cartridge will get you better sound than anything you download.

Are CDs compressed more than vinyl?

The old vinyls were mastered, then the master was mastered for vinyl (ie compressed so that inner groove distortion was minimized and to stop the stylus jumping all over the record). The original was then labelled - do not use and stashed away.

I thought that CD has the potential for a wider dynamic range although many people don't like the sound of them in comparison to vinyl. Have I got this wrong?

Ian

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by weste47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif How come so many are encoded in Lame or something, and then when you listen to the tracks the highs are just like really shrill even if the bitrate is high. I don't get it.

Shrill in comparison to a lossless recording, or just shrill in general?

 

[krmathis]

So don't download and listen to them!

Simple as that...

 

[onyu]

Buy cd's and rip them self, then you can only blame yourself for the encode

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by weste47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif How come so many are encoded in Lame or something, and then when you listen to the tracks the highs are just like really shrill even if the bitrate is high. I don't get it.

It is not the mp3, but the source recording. A high bitrate LAME encoded mp3 is virtually indistinguishable from the CD. For probably 95% of people, including the majority on here, is is absolutely indistinguishable. (Of course there are a few who can tell the difference.)

 

[Forsaken Sound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iancraig10 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are CDs compressed more than vinyl? The old vinyls were mastered, then the master was mastered for vinyl (ie compressed so that inner groove distortion was minimized and to stop the stylus jumping all over the record). The original was then labelled - do not use and stashed away. I thought that CD has the potential for a wider dynamic range although many people don't like the sound of them in comparison to vinyl. Have I got this wrong? Ian

In terms of range for volume, CDs have more potential for a wider range. However, because of the Redbook cutoff at 44.1kHz and various other factors, vinyl is said to be better overall. Vinyl has the potential to give better sound because it is analog versus a digital CD. Digital is still trying to catch up to analog in terms of sound quality, but it is starting to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is not the mp3, but the source recording. A high bitrate LAME encoded mp3 is virtually indistinguishable from the CD. For probably 95% of people, including the majority on here, is is absolutely indistinguishable. (Of course there are a few who can tell the difference.)

Well, it can be both really. I mean, you have two possible places to create a bottleneck in the quality of the sound. If you are a loudness war activist, then you will make the bottleneck in the studio, but if you are a space saving Nazi who likes ripping CDs, then you will use mp3 to create the bottleneck there. It all depends really.

 

[weste47]

I' mainly ment, when I end up downloading an album . maybe without spending money on it sometimes the album is encoded with a high bitrate in lame and the quality and sound is much different from the real cd usually worse (sometimes with static) .. like say the sample you hear on itunes music store or something. When I rip music from one of my own cd's to the computer I've always found it to sound pretty much indistinguishable to the itunes version.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by weste47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I' mainly ment, when I end up downloading an album . maybe without spending money on it sometimes the album is encoded with a high bitrate in lame and the quality and sound is much different from the real cd usually worse (sometimes with static) .. like say the sample you hear on itunes music store or something. When I rip music from one of my own cd's to the computer I've always found it to sound pretty much indistinguishable to the itunes version.

Ah, in that case, someone may have taken a low bit-rate MP3 and re-encoded it at a higher bit-rate. It's impossible to know for sure, and of course, the re-encoding process never adds anything. So, you could be listening to a 128 Kbps MP3 that has been encoded as 320 Kbps. Silly people do silly things...