burtlively Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 i've been in this forum for long enough to not ask such a stupid question, but here it goes anyway. when i upgraded my equipment i guess i didn't know how substantial my upgrade was. there was a day when i could burn a 165 song mp3 disk, put it in my dvd player and enjoy hours of awesome sounding music from one disk! now since i've gone with separates and seriously upgraded the quality of my sound, when i play the same disk, many of the songs sound horrid. others sound fine. what am i experiencing and is there anything i can do to enjoy my music collection again??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 I don't rip anything under 320kbps. It take a butt load more disk space, about twice of a 128, but it sounds much better. If you want to have a decent sounding MP3, rip from the original CD at the highest possible bit rate (if it has to be mp3 because of your player's ablilities, no ogg vorbis or wma, etc), or just use original CD's as even 320kbps CD's don't sound as good as real deal CD's, though I can't but barely tell the difference and even then only on very particular music types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 the only music I rip at 320 kps is jazz stuff, the rest I do at 128 k. jazz has so much of the cymbal work that tends to be most affected by low bit rates, and it just drives me insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Jazz and Piano is worst as far as showing faults in MP3's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 "Jazz and Piano is worst as far as showing faults in MP3's" Agree Where you have piano,or any acoustic instrument where the ring,room acoustics play a major role low bit rate MP3 butcher mucic. For most type of music(almost all POP,rock,RAP throw them in)256KBPS is A ok,for more acoustic music 320KBPS is a definite YES. The minimum should never ever go under 128KBPS(still very flawed)and the good middle of the road is 256KBPS. I saw some 64KBPS floating around(pathetic phone booth quality). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 But low bitrates are awesome for speeches and other voice work. How about a 30 minuite speech in 2 MB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I used to think that with the ability to download and burn MP3 into audio cd's, the cd industry was totally doomed. My friends and I used to say what's the point in buying any cd now? In fact, we even compared how long it's been since each of us last bought a cd. But this was before I got my home theater gear. Now I realize there is no match for a cd in terms of it's bitrate and it's recording. On a revealing system, an MP3 cd simply isn't all that. So whereas the last cd i once bought was about 3 years ago, i've purchased about 10 more in the past 2 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrench_peddler Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I have bought more CDs since I started downloading Mp3's. I wouldn't buy a CD before because I didn't want to take a chance on the only song fit to listen to was the one I bought it for. I can now listen to more of the disc and if it has more than one song I like, I don't mind buying it. I guess that in a nutshell, I use downloaded MP3's as samplers and buy the real stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burtlively Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 nicholtl by looking at your system, i can tell you have experienced EXACTLY what i am experiencing now. going to quality separates is a HUGE difference in sound. have you seen or heard the omnifi. i wonder if this would make a difference in mp3 listening enjoyment? http://www.omnifimedia.com/home/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Quality MP3 sound?! Ol' Paul would say that it's an oxymoron, just like the list he started. Jumbo shrimp, instant classic, etc, etc. It's okay to listen to on a small portable stereo or such, but to listen on good headphones or speakers, most people would agree that the quality is not even close to compact disc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burtlively Posted October 17, 2003 Author Share Posted October 17, 2003 michael, exactly my point. i had no idea how inferior mp3 sound was until i got my ref 50 and denon dvm. for some reason my yamaha rxv-3000 masked the terrible sound somehow. the sound i get from my new gear is extraordinary from cd and extremely inconsistent with mp3. granted some mp3's sound good, but i was unaware of the inconsistency prior to my upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Hmm, omnifi seems interesting enough...although it is essentially a device that takes all your mp3's and broadcasts them anywhere in your house (kinda like Yamaha's Music Cast Client) or to your car - which is admittedly pretty neat. Still, I generally listen to either radio or the same ol cd's over and over again in my car. And since I live in an apartment, broadcasting it all over 1200 square feet isn't really all that necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandi Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 hmmm, are you all talking about the "popping" and what I might call "slipping"? I just burnt a 160 song disk. If was burnt off my puter from stuff I got from my brother but ripped to the harddrive and he now has the cds. I thought this was great, I could put them all on a disk shuffled and I would have an entire days worth of music. At one point I thought I might have hurt a speaker. I turned down the volumn because I kept getting all these "hits" and "cracks". I did a search and found this thread. The genre I have downloaded has alot of piano and guitar. Hmmm, guess I am going to have to get a bigger CD changer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juba310 Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 MP3's to me, are for when you're doing something else and want some music. EG: On the computer, driving in the car, bus rides, in class, etc. I don't think 192 and up would sound bad on the computer, but even 128s sound start to sound icky with the PM's. As for stereo sytem listening, stick with 320. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I demonstrated the terrible sound of mp3 vs. 16/44.1 on my system a while back to some friends who were really into mp3s at the time. They were really shocked at how much of a difference there was - clarity, depth, everything was compromised on a 128K (standard trading size) mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblue Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 I agree that there is a huge difference when MP3's are ripped at 128-192. But, to tell you the truth, using a good encoder (LAME) at high bitrates produces a virtually identical sounding copy of the song (with much less space taken up). Using Exact Audio Copy with the Lame encoder, I've ripped my entire collection (except HDCD's which are ripped as WAVs) at highest quality VBR. I then use a device called the Audiotron by Turtlebeach to stream the media to my listening room via 100 Mbit Ethernet. I have done numerous A/B comparisons, and am still unable to tell the difference between the origninal source and the MP3's. There's absolutely NO artifacting, all the subtle nuances remain intact. Even the dynamic range is intact...ripping at high quality with a high quality encoder might surprise some of you. (Never download someone elses botched MP3's, rip them for yourself). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 ---------------- On 3/29/2004 11:18:36 AM dblue wrote: Even the dynamic range is intact...ripping at high quality with a high quality encoder might surprise some of you. (Never download someone elses botched MP3's, rip them for yourself). ---------------- Exactly. I use CDex with the LAME encoder. At 256K VBR, they're indistinguishable from the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 ---------------- On 10/5/2003 8:25:13 PM burtlively wrote: i've been in this forum for long enough to not ask such a stupid question, but here it goes anyway. when i upgraded my equipment i guess i didn't know how substantial my upgrade was. there was a day when i could burn a 165 song mp3 disk, put it in my dvd player and enjoy hours of awesome sounding music from one disk! now since i've gone with separates and seriously upgraded the quality of my sound, when i play the same disk, many of the songs sound horrid . others sound fine . what am i experiencing and is there anything i can do to enjoy my music collection again??? ---------------- let me get this straight... BEFORE you "upgraded" you would enjoy hours of awesome sounding music from just one disc. AFTER you "upgraded" many songs sound horrid and the rest sound fine. NOW you just want to get back to being able to "enjoy" the music... to be blunt, maybe your "upgrade" wasn't an upgrade at all. you went from enjoying hours of awesome music to no enjoyment and the music sounding just fine if not horrid. in the audio world, everyone is always saying to go with what sounds the best to you. though most everyone would agree that the changes you made were "improvements", if the enjoyment didn't improve for you then why don't you just go back to what you had before? the only other alternative is to increase the quality of your source material...aka, get rid of the mp3's. the reason most people find a revealing system as an upgrade is because they hear new things on the recordings. on a good recording, the new things add a whole new dimension to the music; it can create the illusion that the music is actually being performed in your room. however, on a bad recording, the new things your hear tend to be crap buried into the mix. all that to say, go out and buy a "high quality" recording on CD. listen to it in the car for a good week or so going to and from work. once familiar with the recording, pop it into your nice system and see if you feel like you're missing anything when you go back to listening in the car. (this will work provided your car has a lousy sound system) this is one of those times when you gotta choose whether or not to train your ears. (though it may be too late since you've found how lousy mp3's really sound). for what it's worth, i grew up around a lot of studio and live mixing work and never actually tried to sit down and listen to music until around the age of 16. my parents never had music playing at home and in the car we didn't even turn the radio on. all that to say, i grew up with trained ears (i had already been mixing and recording for 8 years before i had ever listened to recorded music). i always made everything sound the way i wanted it to (or at least tried). and because i grew up trying to have trained ears, the first time i tried to sit down and do some dedicated listening for enjoyment (recordings not my own), i couldn't get around how crappy it sounded. everything sounded so fricken awful that i was asking myself who made this crap...they should be shot for ever trying to sell this! (i think part of my problem was at 16 i was on an ego trip and felt that i was the best mixer in the world and everything not mine had to sound like crap, but that's all beside the point). my point is that i've rarely if ever enjoyed recorded music. once you cross that threshold, there's no going back. now in more recent years (haha, im only 20), i've actually gotten myself to the point where i can now enjoy an mp3...i just listen to it in the car but seriously, i can enjoy an mp3 if im in love with the song itself. i think that as one matures (or at least as i've matured. i'd like to think im more mature anyway), that one can allow himself to become more emotionally involved with the music and eventually temporarily forget the technical aspects...well at least to an extent. (edit: wow, i didn't mean to give my life story there! it seemed way shorter in my head.) so if you wanna keep listening to your mp3's, go back to your previous setup because you already proved that it is capable of amazing enjoyment. but if you wanna keep your upgraded system, then just know that mp3's should sound like crap and if you wanna get back to enjoying the music, you're going to have to upgrade your source material as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PYRO Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Anyone try or use mp3pro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblue Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Tried MP3 pro a few times, but it seemed to SERIOUSLY affect the sound of the song (made it sound a lot different). I gave up on it and went back to regular MP3s. 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.