True about mp3?
|
Anonymous | hah for the first time i have an mp3 head unit from alpine. is it true that mp3 file cds have worst sound quaility and thus wont sound as good in a system. and is wma better sq than mp3? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2877 Registered: May-04 | Mp3s, WMAs, and other forms of compressed media result in degraded SQ, yes. It really depends on the bitrate whether you'd consider WMA better than MP3, if both are the same, IMO WMA is marginally better, but not by much. But, MP3s can be encoded with a much higher bitrate, and can sound better at the expense of larger file size. None are as good as CD media, if that's what you're wondering. You can really notice a difference on higher frequencies, they sound a little smothered, like they were under a blanket. I used to listen to MP3s every once in a while, but honestly I can't stand to anymore, especially once I got my Dynaudios installed, it's a crap in/crap out situation, those speakers are very accurate and every flaw is made very apparent. With stock speakers or lower end stuff you won't notice the difference as much. |
|
Silver Member Username: OlegSanta Monica, CA USA Post Number: 243 Registered: Nov-04 | Jonathan, what do you mean by CD media? WMA format is not compressed. In fact, it is exactly the same quality as CD's you buy in stores since they are the same types of files. When put on a CD, WMA files are changed into musical "tracks," yet it is the exact same file. I am not challenging your expertise, as I know you know a lot, but I have to go another way on this. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2878 Registered: May-04 | WMA IS compressed. All formats such as MP3, OGG, etc. use compression algorithms. If you want to know how that works, read here: http://ekei.com/audio/ And this comparison of compressed media: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,64123,pg,1,00.asp This Microsoft site explains how much space you save due to compression: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/codecs.aspx When you convert WMA to CD, such as through Windows Media Player, it reconverts it back to CD tracking, but you still lose quality since you compressed the file to begin with. The best option is to directly copy a CD if you go that route. Using WMA on a data CD such as with the guy above, it remains in it's compressed format as a data file, the bitrate will tell you how large/lossy it is. If you have a 64kbps, you have 64 kilobits of information per second. The higher you go, the less loss there is from original CD quality. When I refer to CD Media, I mean CD Media as it comes on an audio disc, such as what you'd buy from a store. |
|
Silver Member Username: OlegSanta Monica, CA USA Post Number: 245 Registered: Nov-04 | I have to apologize. I'm used to copying WAV's, not WMA's...my bad.  |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 6921 Registered: Dec-03 | as a side note, your ability to tell CDA from MP3/WMA CDs is really going to mainly depend on the rest of your system. If you have a really high end system, you'll hear the difference. If your system is mid level, and mostly about lots of bass etc.. you may not even notice a difference. The small system I had in the grand cherokee of mine, I really didn't notice much of a loss with mp3 CDs, but I encode using VBR. The biggest thing I'd notice was either a badly encoded MP3, or the variance in MP3 to MP3.. some louder than others. that gets annoying if you don't normalize the CD before writing. remember MP3 on average is about a 12:1 lossy compression, so you're losing resolution. the music won't be as good as a full CD, but you're talking about a 4MB song size versus a 65MB song size. what do you expect? |
|
Bronze Member Username: TherainmanPost Number: 23 Registered: Oct-04 | I believe yall are all wrong. cd quality is 192 bit rate. alll my mp3's and wma disk are 320 kbps bit rate so if ur saying that there is a difference is quality yes there is cd sux fux it its old outdated new is in. wanna fix ur prob? get a dvd player and make a dvd mp3 disk thats double sided wow gg 9.3 gb of music over 4k songs i put on my dvd mp3 disk @ 320 bitrate so ppl dont give false data when u dont know ur sh!t all it is is enother decoder/encoder ok basically just an advancement in technology. u wont notice a difference unless the bitrate is differ a file is a file the determination depends on the bitrate. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AvalanchePost Number: 76 Registered: Nov-04 | Chris Prove it. what software was used for the compression. Were did you find a Deck that plays Double sided DVD's. What is the procedure. and what system are U listening to this DVD in. I would like to see this for myself. That is if what Glasswolf and Jonathan are saying. Plus they have earned the respect U still need to prove yours. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 6947 Registered: Dec-03 | Chris, no matter how great the bitrate is, MP3 and WMA are still lossy compression technologies, and when you compress a WAV file from about 50MB down to about 4MB, you're going to lose quality. Period. Now if you're able to detect the loss is going to depend on your system, and your ears, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts that playing a good CD or SACD on a high end pair or properly amplified ESL panels then comparing the same audio to a 192Kbps or even a 320Kbps MP3 will show you just how wrong you are about MP3 being superior or even equal to the original material. I've been doing this since CD technology was relatively new. I have a pretty good grasp on both CDA redbook and MP3 compression specs. What exactly are your qualifications for your views that we don't "know sh*t?" |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2884 Registered: May-04 | Chris, you obviously have no clue how MP3 works. The MP3 codec works by removing portions of the original signal which are determined to be essentially inaudible -- a technique known as "perceptual coding." MP3 and other codecs that use perceptual coding are "lossy" forms of compression: that is, some frequencies in the original signal are lost in the encoding process, and can't be restored in playback. Furthermore, since all WMAs, MP3s, are all compressed FROM CD media, how in the hell could it be made MORE accurate? You can't add anything to it, you only take away. The moral of this story is that final output can never be better quality than the original recorded source. 192 kbps is considered CD Quality by whom, by the way? If you're wondering, the bitrate of CD Audio is 1,411.2 kbps, much, much more than MP3. So, your 320 kbps MP3 is still compressed by a 4.41:1 ratio. CD wins the day for SQ, MP3 was created for hard drives, space saving and file transfer, not sound quality. |
|
Bronze Member Username: HassanPost Number: 22 Registered: Nov-04 | to simply answer Anonymous's quistion. no you wont notice any diffrence unless u spent alot of money on your system and i mean alot i know i cant notice it and i used 3 mp3 players. so just enjoy your mp3's. anybody agree? |
|
Bronze Member Username: HassanPost Number: 23 Registered: Nov-04 | oh ya and thinking its going to sound better is just funny |
|
robertoguy w. Unregistered guest | I have a Kenwood Mp3 headunit and I like it a lot.....Ocassionally i get annoyed because Mp3s sound a little crappy but i believe the advantage of having so much more music outweighs the sometimes bad quality and sound you get. I have my whole music collection with me in my car 2000+ songs on 13 CDs. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 7039 Registered: Dec-03 | a lot of how well an mp3 CD sounds has to do with how well the mp3s are encoded to begin with. If they are poorly encoded (most of them on p2p apps suck.) they'll sound worse on a good system. If you use VBR to encode with LAME codecs and software like EAC, you'll get good results ripping your own MP3s. If you encode a good MP3, then it'll sound fine even on a good system. maybe not exactly like CDA, but it'll still sound good. |
|
NewyearNewspeakers Unregistered guest | and that's the bottom line. Period! |
|
Bronze Member Username: PhxPost Number: 19 Registered: Dec-04 | anyone have a preferred codec or ripping software? is .ogg any good? |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 7185 Registered: Dec-03 | OGG isn't supported by anything but a few PC winamp type programs. for ripping I recommend EAC @ www.exactaudiocopy.de with the LAME codec. |
|
circumflex Unregistered guest | People, listen to GlassWolf. The guy clearly knows his stuff. By the way, ripping/encoding with EAC/LAME using VBR in secure mode is definitely the way to go. In fact, I truly can't hear ANY depreciation in sound quality using this method even when listening through a high-end audio system. From what I understand, even self-proclaimed audiophiles can't distinguish the two. I know it's still a 'lossy' format, but I challenge everyone out there to try it out and see if you can hear a difference. |
|
Gold Member Username: GlasswolfNorthWest, Michigan USA Post Number: 7286 Registered: Dec-03 | a lot of your ability to hear a difference will depend on the source material, too. most rock music doesn't lend itself well to finer detail, which is where you tend to be more probable to hear any loss. jazz, opera, or well-recorded solo performances like stuff from Tori Amos where it's one vocalist and a piano or guitar, are your best sources for hearing fine detail in music without the distraction of driving beats or droning guitars or synths. mind you, that's just advice for auditioning materials. It may not be your choice for normal listening. |
|
mortzombi Unregistered guest | just wnated to add in that some head units now support loseless WMA audio...and that is technically loseless but provides very large file sizes. So if you wnated to trim a little fat from the songs and still maintain "CD quality" that may be the way to go. Personally I think LAME's preset "--preset standard" works well and gives you VBR files around 190-230+KBps which is to me excellent and saves alot of room from encoding into 320kbps when its not necccasary. We'd all agree that CD quality only comes from a CD but we can all say that on most systems not costing more than $2,000 dollars mp3s are fine and do not create too much audible difference when encoded correctly at high bitrates. I use Nero to rip my wavs in 48khz and 32bits than compress back down. Also bitrate is not the only determinign factor as a 44.1KHz file is not techincally CD quality either but still produces a good sound on most systems. Also as a side note using LAME you can define your own curve to cut out sounds. there are 3 models and i believe its model 2 is the most accurate. But anyway when encoded wiht the right settings i think MP3 can sound better than WMA when defined on user tastes. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2976 Registered: May-04 | 44.1khz is the standard sampling rate of CD media, it's considered the "brick wall filter" that CD's have, it's why they don't go far past 20khz in bandwidth. |
|
mortzombi Unregistered guest | i was under the impression cds were 48khz...thank you for the information jon...also if 44.1KHz is standard for CD why do high def systems call for 48KHz sampling? just wondering if you had the answer for that. well thanks for your response. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 2983 Registered: May-04 | CD's aren't 48khz, but many digital sources such as DVDs, satellite radio, etc. are 48. Some are 96 and over as well, just depends on the media. All CD-Audio is 44.1khz, and you have DACs that will sample as high as 96khz (even though CDs are only 44.1khz, it's overkill basically), the Alpine CDA-7990 is a good example. High end electronics also use 24 bit DACs, even though CD Audio is only 16 bit media. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics