Fast1 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I am looking to burn some CDs for High End listening and wondering if anyone has experience with this. it is my understanding that unless you can hit 256 bitrate or better, don't bother. Also I understand that MP3 is not the choice for quality because of a narrowed frequency range. Most of the songs I have seen are in the 128 bitrate area which may be a waste of time. Any input would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast1 Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 By the way I am not refering to copying a CD but rather do this via download. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Anything less than 256kbit is indeed a waste. Also, MP3 is indeed not a good codec for quality. Actually, it's not a good codec for anything at this point, it's simply outdated, but its widespread use prevents it from being obsolete. Good codecs for compression (if you must compress) are Ogg Vorbis and MPC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 As a general rule-of-thumb, I like to burn or download music at ONLY 320kbps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazytubepower Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Don't compress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 ---------------- On 7/24/2005 3:15:05 PM Brandon wrote: I am looking to burn some CDs for High End listening ... ---------------- Then don't compress! Edit: Beaten to the punch again! Of course, he is correct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zealot125 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I really must protest. I am willing to wager that not a one of you could pick out the MP3 if I played one of my finely encoded ones in a blind test against the cd. You truly WOULD have to have golden ears to claim to hear a difference, even on an unforgiving system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I'll take a Pepsi challenge with a 320mp3 vs. wav any time, provided the source material is well recorded. I've done blind tests using Eric Clapton's "Unplugged" CD, and I could pick out the MP3 about 90% of the time, while overall (7 people tested so far), the percentage was around 75%. Being a scientist, I am quite familiar with statistical analysis and I've performed the two-tailed T-test on the results, and got a P-value less than 0.05, so the results are unequivocally valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 ---------------- On 7/24/2005 10:00:22 PM Zealot125 wrote: I really must protest. I am willing to wager that not a one of you could pick out the MP3 if I played one of my finely encoded ones in a blind test against the cd. You truly WOULD have to have golden ears to claim to hear a difference, even on an unforgiving system. ---------------- If you had it playing when I walked into the room - you are correct, I probably could not tell you which it was. BUT, in an A/B comparison, which I have done, it is no contest! Edit: How big a wager can I get on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 For it's purpose, MP3 is great. If you want to listen to music running, on 2-wheels, or in other noisy environments, you will get good results with 256 kbps or higher. I cannot tolerate MP3s on my audio/theater system. In the truck or on the bike, no problem. I listened to one for 3 weeks on a cross-country motorcycle tour with my son. For grins and giggles, a CD is 1411 kbps vs. 320 for a "studio quality" MP3. In the quality realm, MP3s are a bad joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrol Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 ^^^ I agree! IMO, a decent mp3 cd loaded with 200 songs can really "Make" a road trip! I recently returned from a one week, 2,000 mile trek and was easily entertained with just Three mp3 CD's . . . Heck, there are a couple songs from the third CD that I didn't even have time to hear, LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Funny, it seems to me I heard just about the same thing about cassettes! MP3s - If you want convenient(?) secondary storage for portable playback, fine....Otherwise, the issue is moot for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zealot125 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Ahh, but meuge, did you correct for the false discovery rate? In our lab, we only count p values of less than or equal to .01 as significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 ---------------- On 7/25/2005 8:12:21 AM Zealot125 wrote: Ahh, but meuge, did you correct for the false discovery rate? In our lab, we only count p values of less than or equal to .01 as significant. ---------------- I don't have a high enough sample size to get that high of a certainty. But with .05 I am secure enough in this experiment's accuracy that I don't want to dedicate any more time to this. It's not like it's a life-and-death question. For my real experiments, I like p<0.001 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaffstone Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I agree with the general opinion: MP3 is not suitable for home use, but it is just fine in the average car or truck. I've been on the road for 3 weeks now with an MP3 juke box. It's far better than 6 boxes of CDs floating around the cab and there's no way to hear the difference over the road noise and diesel engine. Everything has its place :> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast1 Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 I guess I am not looking to burn an MP3 but rather a CD because I understand if anything, the CD would win in overall dynamics. I am still wondering at what bit rate does the sound seem more accurate? I just listened to some burned stuff and it actually sounded pretty good. I think I will burn some that I have originals to and compare. I think that might put some questions to rest. I did find the burned CD had very little back noise but seemed on most to be very vocal and clear but lacked mid range. Not sure of the bitrate on these. B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I guess we should answer your original question. Just about everything you download is going to be compressed. This will cause a reduction in fidelity. Converting the files back to wave does not help; the data was lost in the compression. Since you specified, "High End listening" the quick answer is you can't. If you can, take a well-recorded CD and rip it to MP3 files at 320, 256 and 128 then compare each to the original CD. That should give you enough information about the quality to allow you to decide if you want to go forward with downloading music and if so at what rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 use OGG Vorbis, MP3 VBR .. or best .... FLAC.. A true "lossless" format 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.