[mcsamms]

So this being a community of people into Hi-Fi, why do so many people use mp3? Yes it is widely available and in some circumstances all you can get. But is there a perticular reason that everyone, including a lot of Head-Fi people use this codec. Especially when Musepack and Ogg Vorbis are so much better lossy audio codecs.

I say we start a revolution

 

[Xyrium]

Personally, I haven't become accustomed to the inexpensive price of capacity yet, so MP3s have been my preference over Flac, etc. which seem to be at least twice the file size. Currently, my largest drive is only 120GB, so....

Secondly, how many can discern the differences between CBR 320kbps and lossless?

 

[audioneophyte]

Not to be flame-bait, but mp3 is popular because it is the de facto format for pirating music. End of story.

The other problem is that crappy portable music players don't support better formats (at least not without 3rd party firmware).

And lastly, while it may not apply to Head-Fiers, the crappy equipment used by most can't discern between the better codecs.

I do agree however that 320kbps CBR from a good encoder is most likely indiscernible from lossless with pretty much any gear. I was however surprised to realize that I can now tell the difference between 192kbps mp3s and lossless pretty well with the Zhaolu D2 -> HD280. (Coming from the supposedly good quality X-Fi sound card.)

Personally, I am now a FLAC believer, and user.

 

[Xakepa]

As long as I can't distinguish my MP3s from loseless on ANY setup, I consider it waste of space and resources. I'm ripping everything since LAME 3.94 (in 320kB/s tnah) and now with 3.97b2 at --preset extreme -q0

Dynamic range compression is far bigger problem than lossy ripping IMO

 

[pedxing]

I am not sure what you mean better, but I assume you mean comparing compression ratios with the same level of lossiness in quality. FLAC is not very good at compressing, but it is lossless. Some people think Ogg has better quality at lower bit rates when compared to mp3, but many people find it indistinguishable at higher bit rates.

Here are my opinions why people dont change and I am probably wrong but this is the way I see it now:
1) mp3 is the first compressed music file format that becaome popular, especially after the media associated with the pirating of music.
2) People already have large mp3 collections. They want to keep it consistent.
3) People can't hear a difference because they really don't care much for quality or their equipment is poor.
4) Dealing with another codec is too much trouble, espeically if the playback device does not already handle it transparently.
5) What the heck is a codec? Most people don't even know that mp3 is compressed and lossy. They think its just another form of media, like a CD or vinyl. If people can't discriminate the difference between a file type and the physical medium the data resides on, how in the world you expect them to understand why FLAC and Ogg are better by design?

I personally like ogg and FLAC, but I still encode my stuff with mp3. I use FLAC to archive my CDs.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I can't tell a VBR LAME mp3 from lossless, so I have no problem using them. (Although I normally encode my music to "Braindead" level MPC files anyway.)

 

[Cjattwood]

MP3's take up a small amount of space compared to lossless codecs like FLAC. While Musepack/OGG may be better in sound MP3 is still the standard for audio players, with support on thousands of devices out there. Using LAME MP3's can really sound great.

 

[lordgibbness]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xakepa Dynamic range compression is far bigger problem than lossy ripping IMO

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedxing I am not sure what you mean better, but I assume you mean comparing compression ratios with the same level of lossiness in quality.

He means that most new CDs (since the early nineties) are mastered to sound louder which means that there is little discernable difference between the quiet parts and the louder parts, which can result in clipping and fatiguing listening. Plus you just lose the overall depth of the music. See this article for more info.

 

[Rempert]

What is the one format that all mp3 players can play, hmm?

What is the one compressed format that you can play on virtually any media player, instead of just a select few? Is it any wonder then, that people actually choose a usable format over one that isn't supported?

My CDs are archived as .flac. My portable is .mp3. When I share my own musical creations via the internet, I put them in VBR .mp3. It is simply the best compromise between small size space, decent quality, and a format that people will actually be able to open them without installing a new media player and/or buying a new portable.

 

[Chri5peed]

IMO you should always try to archive your CDs in a Lossless format. It may well be the case that today even good quality set-ups can't tell 320K from FLAC, but will that be the general consensus with stock earbuds in 10 years?

 

[Asmo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed IMO you should always try to archive your CDs in a Lossless format. It may well be the case that today even good quality set-ups can't tell 320K from FLAC, but will that be the general consensus with stock earbuds in 10 years?

Storing your audio lossless is just smarter, regardless if you can hear the difference. That way you have a original perfect copy of your cds. Unless hard drive space is really a issue, there is no reason to go with mp3, except for portable devices.

 

[Chri5peed]

Also as the saying goes, you should only have to rip from your CD once. If you rip mp3s thats no going to be the case.

If you rip in Lossless, you have a virtual copy of the CD on your harddrive, which you can do anything with. I bet in a short while Lossless compression will be massive, but with FLACs you'll just convert them.

 

[rincewind]

The main reason I have any MP3 is from before i got into head-fi. Some music I don't like enough to bother storing as FLAC. I use mp3 only on my mp3 player so I can store about 3x as much music.

And the other main reason is because my car head unit (JVC) only plays wav/mp3/wma. Out of those, I prefer mp3 to avoid having to fiddle around with changing CDs while driving.

I'm undecided whether I can tell the difference between lossless and the highest level lossy's, but I figure since I can buy more HDDs and I've bought expensive gear, might as well follow the GIGO logic and feed them the best signal possible.

 

[h-man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed Also as the saying goes, you should only have to rip from your CD once. If you rip mp3s thats no going to be the case. If you rip in Lossless, you have a virtual copy of the CD on your harddrive, which you can do anything with. I bet in a short while Lossless compression will be massive, but with FLACs you'll just convert them.

couldn't agree wit you more. I initially had all my music in lossless alac, but after the switch to rockbox on my ipod, I converted everyting (700 albums) to FLAc using dbpoweramp.

 

[Skylab]

I agree 100% that regardless of how transparent any lossy codec is, you should RIP in Lossless. Then you have the files there that way, and you can make lossy copies of them at any rate with any codec for any purpose, but you have the files archived as lossless.

But I also don't get why anyone would listen to lossy files on their computer. With disc space so incredibly cheap, it seems to me that listening to Lossless on the PC is a sensible thing to do - might as well get the best sound you can. I understand that for portable use there are other considerations, but at the PC - listen to lossless!