NOSValves Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Well if indeed (which I disagree with) MP3 compression does discard bits then explain why if you were to encode a original CD right now to MP3 (I usual do 256) and then encode it back to redbook its the Identical size file and the internet data bases will still find the CD as the original which they use bit size I believe to do this. I have even searched out and downloaded song by song entire albums at high bit rate copy them in the order of the original album and all the CD data based pick them up as the original CD !! Is MP3 a compression ?? I think you guys are mistaking the quality of the sound of MP3 with what they do when encoded back. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted January 7, 2003 Author Share Posted January 7, 2003 Sorry 2000 hz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryklipsch Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 There should be no difference in quality or sound between the master & copy at all or even mp3 to cd's.Seems to me you are all running good burners,I use a plextor 12/10/32A and a asus 50x.I have found problems also in sound quality using a wide range of cd's.This is where quality of sound steps in,CD's are not manufactured equally.The best i have found to use is Verbatim datalifeplus, 4x-10x cdrw,These suck up every bit of info,Then i do another copy to regular 16x verbatim's.Copy all at 4x,slower the better.If you can find an external drive that reads 1x this would be even better,Give it a shot with verbatims you find more accurate recordings in your copy's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invidiosulus Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Craig, To my ears I can hear a difference between a CD and a CD made from high bit rate MP3 files. I would prefer to not listen to MP3's as I don't think they sound as good as original or direct copied CD's. With the higher bit rate MP3's it's not something that jumps out at me immediately the way hearing something on a cheap cassette tape does but there is a difference to me in the presentation of the high end. I seem to hear a little more air around things such as guitarists fingers squeaking on the strings or the sound of vocalists inhaling between lines. Acoustic guitars seem to have a slightly duller attack and seem lacking in harmonic overtones. All of these things together add up when I am listening to music just for the sake of listening. Believe me there are a number of MP3's that I have on my computer that I will have playing whilst doing computer work, although during the day I usually just crank up some vinyl on the klipsch so I can hear it in my room. Like I said, this is just my opinion on what I hear. I may just be kinda picky(or mental) I'm sorry if I came across as being an @$$ about this. Peace, Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I myself never listen to MP3's at all and its a shame since I have a $450 set of Klipsch pro media's they just dont do the music justice anymore. I still say MP3 back to redbook is dead on Identical. another good point is the media you use although I've never really noticed a difference. Oh and you were fine I didn't take any offense at all Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkl Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 " at all or even mp3 to cd's" " I still say MP3 back to redbook is dead on Identical." Nope, It is NOT identical at all. Maybe you can't hear it..but where do you think the extra information goes? Mp3 is a LOSSY compression scheme. It literally throws away some information, there is no way to revert back to original raw audio. I have written compression schemes a lot like mpeg layer 3 (mp3). If you don't believe me here is the first link I found on google: (There are probably millions if you search for mp3 and lossy) http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/lossiness.htm From that link "and it's important to understand that all MP3 files, no matter how well-encoded, have discarded some of the information that was stored in the original, uncompressed signal." If you want a lossless (no audio data is lost) compression scheme for audio, look at monkey's audio http://www.monkeysaudio.com/ Monkey audio loses no information, so you can revert back to the original file. The compressed file sounds just as good as the original since its all the data , just compressed. In mp3, highs and lows are the first to go! -mkl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Craig, what are you saying exactly? That MP3 sounds identical to Redbook CD? Or that you can take an MP3 and turn it into virtual redbook file? I can tell you right now, the .mp3 is a major sonic difference for the negative. What are you saying exactly? kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkl Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "the Identical size file and the internet data bases will still find the CD as the original which they use bit size I believe to do this" Nope, thats not how CDDB works (at least, not the standard cddbs protocol) They operate on the TOC and time of each track. So even if you recorded blank silence, if you had it the exact same length and in the right order, a CDDB would think it was that cd. Since mp3 doesnt change the LENGTH of the tracks, it still shows up. To sum all my posts up, it is FACT, not my opinion that mp3s permanently discard information in order to compress. (and naturally not all compression loses data, but lossy ones like jpeg and mp3 do) -MKL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Mobile, No I'm not saying that MP3 is in anyway the same quality as Redbook sound quality wise. I say MP3 is a compression format. When compressed properly with good utilities it can be uncompressed and renders a virtual Identical file as the original. I don't believe it disgards anything if done with good software. If it is indeed a compression format and it does discard information than it is not a compression format !! So what is it ? Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkl Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 " I don't believe it disgards anything if done with good software. If it is indeed a compression format and it does discard information that it is not a compression format !! So what is it ?" There are two types of compression schemes, Lossy and Lossless. (see http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214453,00.html ) From that page: "Lossless and lossy compression are terms that describe whether or not, in the compression of a file, all original data can be recovered when the file is uncompressed. With lossless compression, every single bit of data that was originally in the file remains after the file is uncompressed. All of the information is completely restored. On the other hand, lossy compression reduces a file by permanently eliminating certain information, especially redundant information. When the file is uncompressed, only a part of the original information is still there (although the user may not notice it). Lossy compression is generally used for video and sound, where a certain amount of information loss will not be detected by most users" The quality of software has nothing to do with wether mp3 losses information. By definition of the mp3 algorithm, it throws away information, never to be seen again. -mkl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 ---------------- On 1/8/2003 7:17:32 PM NOS440 wrote: Mobile, No I'm not saying that MP3 is in anyway the same quality as Redbook sound quality wise. I say MP3 is a compression format. When compressed properly with good utilities it can be uncompressed and renders a virtual Identical file as the original. I don't believe it disgards anything if done with good software. If it is indeed a compression format and it does discard information than it is not a compression format !! So what is it ? Craig ---------------- Craig, MP3 is lossy. When you create an MP3 from a Redbook (actually tiff, 44kHz sample, 16 bit) file you lose information!!! You are not just zipping the file but actually reducing the amount of data that is delivered per second. A normal, stereo redbook file has something like 1440 kb/s data rate. MP3's typcially have 128-320 kb/s rates. So, when you convert an MP3 to redbook, all you are essentially doing is creating an aiff file that has 1440 kb/s but it only has as much information (bandwidth) as the 128 kb/s MP3 file. You have NOT resurected the original Redbook file (like uncompressing a zipped word document gets back to the original word file). As comparison, it is similar to JPEG. You can compress a TIFF file using JPEG, then convert it to TIFF. However, the resulting TIFF will show compression artifacts from the JPEG, you do not get the original TIFF back. You take away colors with the JPEG and when you convert to uncompressed TIFF, the file is huge, but doesn't contain any more detail (sort of like empty magnification on an SEM) than the JPEG. I think I'm talking in circles now. Time for bed. Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Digital / blocks of 1's and 0's. I'm the same as craig , i burn backups and play them till there scratched, lost, broken, chewed by my dog, used as a frisbee by my kids, booze splilled on them and last but not least used for leveling the coffee table .lol Burn them right and play them back right / you'll never tell the original from the copy . Theres no rocket science in copying cd's, it's been made way to easy and cheap to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Dale, I have found there are sonic difference between backups and the original but most you can live with. But in really important stuff, I have found the sonics to just not quite equal; admittedly, this is more noticable in a high resolution system, but it's there nonetheless. The is a slightly less extension in the bass and there also seems to be touch of less focus overall. Sometimes, this can actually make the recording sound more appealing, ironically enough. Also, these differences are when burning a disc with your computer and not a dedicated rig. I also agree with an earlier poster regarding the type of media. I happen to like Maxell Pro Gold for audio. Also, moving to MP3 really takes the sound down a few notches in all ways. And it is my understanding that you cannot recover this if taking from an MP3 back. But the majority of tikes listening to mp3 dont really care about the lack of sonics. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 There is a new format of MP3 coming out, if not already out, that allows for lossless ripping... yummy. Dolby Labs has a 5.1 MP3 TYPE format that is lossless and only 80%ish the size of a 320Kbps MP3... and sounds light years better. Read about it in Popular Science or HT Mag. Not much more about it lately though I can't hear a difference on my new setup from CD original to CD copy. I use Imation CD-R's and a 48x Burner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Ok kelly i'll give you that one and agree, you are correct. But those seeking this kind of perfection from a recording would probably be better served switching back to viynl !!! Not all , but most cd's are as good as it gets with this type of devise. As craig is starting to be quoted "period" Just my opinion anyway, music is as much perception as anything and some seem to try hard to find what just isnt there to start with. Although there are some who spend tons of money trying and claiming they have found the live interactive sound. Me i'm happy with whats put in front of me from the start and will adjust my system to play it back the way " I " like to listen . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Ultimately, you are entirely correct, it does rest in the individual's hands. Most of what I am talking about is when really trying to analyze equipment anyway. If listening to music without this in mind, the differences in a direct copy and the original will not keep you from enjoying the music. On the other hand, I am sent equipment and I occasionally like to listen to what my stuff can do. In the past, I have rallied against those that LISTEN to sounds via their equipment, losing the whole of the music including the emotional interaction. The pained "I am listening for the rustle of the changing of the page of music at 1:03 in Track 5" look is one I have seen often. Indeed, all it takes it to read a typical review and you will have some reference to this scene, although not directly. Yet, it IS when listening to your gear that you DO really hear the differences between a computer copied CD-R and the original. IF you have a tuned, properly setup(key here), highly resolving gear that is capable of revealing these differences, then they sometimes make themselves known even in casual listening. But as you say, more often than not, the ripped CD is fine and one could easily forget, or not even notice, the differences here. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 kelly : DIDO !!! not to be confused with dildo . lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 I agree with Kelly on this. That is basically what I tried to convey in earlier posts, although I find the recordings less involving for lack of better words. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 ---------------- On 1/9/2003 12:49:03 AM mobile homeless wrote: Dale, I have found there are sonic difference between backups and the original but most you can live with. kh ---------------- Kelly, Are you referring to Redbook copies of Redbook CD's??? If so, how can there be a difference between copies? How can burning equipment make a difference? Do Redbook CD's have a certain allowable error rate when they are played back or something? 16 bit audio sampled at 44 kHz is 16 bit audio sampled at 44 kHz, independent of the media into which the pits are etched! At least that is my understanding. In search of more understanding, Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 OK - End all Come on guys cut through the chase. I'm half deaf literally, and I can hear the difference. Either I'm useing shabby burning equipment or my playback equipment is that reveiling!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.