Anyone try MP#s and Set amplification?

[radiob]

MP3s NOT MP#S, not much of a typist here.I read that MP3s have more compression than CDs and Lps, and was wondering if the MP3 would be a better choice of media for my low powered bottlehead 2a3s. Since the music is more compressed wouldnt it require less amplifier power for the dynamic peaks of the music? Or does the MP3 effect soundstage and 3-D imaging? If mp3s are better, than what would be the best type of MP3 player to buy?

[bdc]

If you seriously wanted to play mp3s on your system, you can burn them as normal audio files from your computer. Of course, you won't be able to put 100+ songs on one cd, unless your cd player can read mp3.

[radiob]

----------------

On 8/1/2004 9:18:39 AM bdc wrote:

If you seriously wanted to play mp3s on your system, you can burn them as normal audio files from your computer. Of course, you won't be able to put 100+ songs on one cd, unless your cd player can read mp3.

----------------

Would they be the same sound as the I-pod or other MP3 only players out there? or would my DAC improve the sound of them?

[bdc]

I imagine they would sound better on your system than on an iPod. But, like I said in the other thread, I honestly can't hear a difference between a well encoded mp3 and the original track on the cd. But still, I'd rather play the original cd because there IS a difference, but I just can't hear it. Try it yourself and see how they sound for you.

[Parrot]

There are big difference in mp3 quality depending on the encoding rate and also the program used for encoding. Especially with storage being so dirt cheap nowadays, always use the highest encoding rate you can, if you have the option. I've heard some mighty fine mp3 files before and others that would fatigue your ears before one song was over.

[Marvel]

radiob,

The compression on MP3 files doesn't mean 'averaging' the audio levels. It means compressing the data to get a smaller file size. Like a zip file of a text or graphic file. That being said, there is a loss of the signal quality because it is an mpeg1 layer 3 encoding that is a lossy format. You can't get back all of the data. There are lossless codecs, but they won't compress as much and need that codec to play back. Just about everyone has an mp3 codec, either on their computer, cd player, etc.

The larger the data rate (bits per sec.) you record an mp3, the better it will sound. This is certainly not to be confused with the sampling frequency used on CDs. An mp3 at 320 kbits/sec cuts the file size to around 22 percent of the original. The quality is very good (depending on the codec of course).

Some encoders allow you to normalize the audio by a certain percentage. This will average out the gain, giving you more of what you are thinking about compression. Making the louder passages more the same level as the lower passages. Sounds like most modern rock music that way.

Marvel

[gtDark]

----------------

On 8/1/2004 9:26:03 AM bdc wrote:

(snip)But still, I'd rather play the original cd because there IS a difference, but I just can't hear it.(snip)

----------------

This strikes me as a bit odd. You still play the cd because you know there is a difference but you can't hear it? If you can't hear the difference why does it matter?

I play lots of mp3's on my system via both mp3 burned onto a disc as data files and as an audio disc, and they sound good enough to my ears. My audio setup is far from reference though and I don't have golden ears. Like has already been said everything with mp3 depends on how it was encoded, not only bitrate but also just the encoder used. I listen to mostly 192 kbps and I have some mp3's that sound excellent and others that sound pretty bad. Of course, these are downloaded mp3's so it's kind of a crapshoot about what you'll get; the only way to get 100% quality control is to buy the cd and rip it yourself, but then if you do that, then why not just play the real cd? That's sort of the dilemma, I download tons of music, listen to it all in mp3 format, then if I really like the album I'll buy the real cd, if I like it pretty well I'll just keep the mp3's on my computer, and if I don't like the music it moves to the recycle bin. I really like the mp3 format just because of the flexibility it provides me. I can make my own compilations and burn it to a cd, carry it along with me on the plane on my iPod (like today), and control it from anywhere in my house wirelessly with my laptop.

And by the way, I sleep great at night.

[meuge]

If you want to get the best sound possible out of your mp3s, you should use Winamp with the MAD plugin (you can google it - it is compatible with Winamp 2.X and 5.X, but not 3), which replaces the winamp mp3 decoder. Once it's installed you can switch between them and convince yourself of the difference. Generally using MAD plugin results in less (read 'less boomy') and tighter bass, and a much more convincing soundstage (closer to the original recording).

The algorithms used in the plugin are much better than in many other mp3 decoders. Furthermore, if you have a 24-bit soundcard, MAD can use the extra 8 bits for dithering and it will significantly smooth the clipping that is often encountered with mp3s. It will effectively smooth out the sound. If you do not have a computer with a SPDIF out near your equipment, then the best course of action to take, in order to make use of the algorithms in MAD, would be to use the Diskwriter feature of Winamp and have it write the songs into .WAV instead of playing them back. Then just burn the results onto a CD and you're good to go.

Let me ephasize that MAD is not an effects module, nor does it equalize. It is not psychoacoustics, it just produces are more accurate representation of the source material. I am sure when you google it you can find lots of in-depth reviews.

P.S. While the Winamp 5 .MP3 decoder is much better than previous ones it is still inferior to MAD (to my ears), and cannot make use of 24-bit soundcards and capitalize on that advantage.

[coda]

Check out DiscLive. Normally I don't mess much with MP3 and SET, DiscLive's download turned out to be better than expected, left a related post in the DVD section.

[radiob]

Which won of the disclives did you try? Looks interesting, Im not crazy about the artists they have listed, unless I missed something.

[coda]

Here's the link from the page above

http://www.disclive.com/artist.php?artistid=80

In this case, the $20 L.A. Woman DVD that just came out is probably more satisfying than the NetBurn download, but DiscLive gives you an alternative source for recent concert material not easily found elsewhere, their parent company is Immediatek.

[Dflip]

meuge:

How does the Winamp/MAD version compare to Nero or CDex. I have used CDex to make direct copies of the cd which I then compile through Nero. I am using a higher rate, I think 1444. It sound pretty good, but I am no expert when it comes to recording sound through the computer.

Your advice would be welcome. I have downloaded Winamp and MAD and will experiment with them later this week.

Don

[meuge]

Don

Direct copy is always better as far as audio quality. I presume you mean you were using uncompressed .WAV at 1411kbps, which is a lossless audio format and thus retains 100% of the audio information on the CD. Using any processing on it would probably degrade quality rather than improve it. However, lossless format are very expensive storage-wise (~650MB for a full 70 min CD if using .WAV). Thus lossy codecs such was .WMA and .MP3 were born for moving and storing large music libraries quickly. But with lossy codecs came a tradeoff - some of the music information had to be lost. MP3 was one of the first mainstream audio compression formats and uses psychoacoustics to reproduce as much of the original as it could while keeping file sizes small (~3-4MB for a 5:00 song in 128 kbit mp3 versus 35MB in .wav). Some of the main methods .mp3s save space is by discarding information about higher and lower frequencies (I posted a thread a while ago analyzing the freq. range and response of various lossy codecs). But the point is for mp3s, even at high bitrates most info above 17kHz is discarded. Better codecs, such as MPC (only good at high bitrates) and OGG (generally the best codec at any bitrate above 128kbit) preserve more of the original sound.

As we were discussing mp3s, I suggested MAD as the best decoder since it does a very good job of extracting more of the original from the mp3s. However, while it is better than other decoders in no way can it completely reconstruct the information that has been discarded, it can only approximate (which can sound convincingly close to the WAV when a 320kbit MP3 is played). However, at this point, mp3 is an aging format which is vastly inferior to both OGG and MPC at high bitrates.

However, as storage prices have come down (~$130 for 200GB right now) and bandwidth has increased audio compression of 16bit/44kHz CDs is becoming a moot point. Increasing number of people who care about audio quality and still want to keep their music accessible through the computer are turning to lossless formats, which use various algorithms to reduce file size (usually no more than to 1/2 size though). A premier example of one such codec is FLAC, which is what I use to keep my music library at my fingertips. FLAC files will usually be 50-70% of the size of the parent .wav (not 10-25% like lossy formats, but still much smaller), but when they are converted back they create a bit-perfect copy of the original (they can also be decoded and played without manually decoding them).

Phew... didn' t think I'd write a novel. Hopefully I answered your question. In short - if you're copying CDs using lossless .wav that's the best option.

[Dflip]

meuge:

Thank you for the detailed reply. I think I understand and will have a better grasp after I print it out and read it over a few times. It seems to take a while to sink in the older I get.

The next question is what sources/recording software allow you to record using FLAC since it seems to be the way to go if saving music to put on a cd for a party. I guess I could go with mp3. and have a whole bunch of songs on the cd, but I'm old enough to remember 4 to 5 songs on the side of an album was good, so twenty on a cd seems like a good deal. It also comes down to sound quality, I don't like listening to music and knowing there is something missing. It's fine for the car or a 50W SS mini system at a party, but not for home use.

Thank you again for your assistance.

Don

[meuge]

Don

Unfortunately there are currently no hardware CD/DVD players that support the FLAC format as far as I know. The only way to utilize FLAC as an audio storage format is to have a computer nearby to decode the files in software and output them via digital SPDIF output to an external DAC (such as in a pre/pro or receiver) or to the same receiver via some nice analog cables. So if you wanted to burn a CD for a party and play it using a CD player, you're going to have to stick with .WAV files. Hopefully this format will soon hit the mainstream, but as of now we're all out of luck as far as hardware players are concerned. This is also the case for other superior music formats such as MPC or Vorbis (OGG) as far as I know. There are CD/DVD players which will play .MP3 and .WMA files off a CD, but I don't know of any that can decode the other formats.

[Dflip]

Thank you for the quick reply. I thought that might be the answer, but I tried.

By the way, Winamp with MAD seems to do a better job of playing back mp3.'s in comparison to Real Player, Sindows Media Player and Jukebox. Thank you for the information.

Don