The description of the Harman Kardon DPR 2005 reciever says it has a mp3 decoding feature. Does this mean it can read mp3 feeds and reproduce them at a higher quality?
HK will decode up to 320kbps MP3's. The advantage is that the DAC's are much better in the HK receiver than in your MP3 player device, so the output sounds better by comparison.
I don't think Paul has ever heard an MP3 file through hi-fi. The analog output stage may be better in the HK and the speakers attached to the unit may also be better. This can lead to more accurate sound raproduction. Depending on how the MP3 was encoded it may or may not be a good thing.
ben, regardless of what format you use, mp3s are compressed files. compression means loss of data. there is no getting around that. for most people listening to their ipods with earphones it doesnt matter. you buy several thousand dollars worth of stereo equipment and it can. better codecs will increase quality, but it is still a compressed file. ill agree with paul on this one, buy the cds if you are serious about listening to the music.
Hmm...I love my music and do buy cd's but I like the idea of having a bunch of albums on one CD so I don't have to swtich discs every 40 minutes or so...or I like the randomness that comes wiht being able to put your own compilation together. I don't have a system, yet, that will play MP3's, but I'm looking at the NAD L53 which is a single CD/receiver setup. I host a lot of dinners and party's and the system will be a discrete, smallish setup...I DON'T want to have to play DJ all night so the best alternative is use MP3's...I'm not saying they sound good...but in a pinch, they're quite convinient.
Anyway, are there better decoders than others avaiable?
It is a foolish assumption to assume all MP3 files are pirated. Music Match, Rhapsody, Napster, MP3.com all sell mp3's. You can download free ones from Amazon. Once again, Paul, you are discrediting yourself with foolish comments.
I don't believe the question was asking for a comparison of MP3 to CD.
The average human ear cannot distinguish between an average mp3 and the other wav format. The MP3 format compress a CD-quality song by a factor of 10 to 14 without noticably affecting the CD-quality sound. MP3 format uses characteristics of the human ear to design the compression algorithm. eg There are certain sounds that the human ear cannot hear. There are certain sounds that the human ear hears much better than others. If there are two sounds playing simultaneously, we hear the louder one but cannot hear the softer one.
Using these facts, certain parts of a song can be eliminated without hurting the quality of the song for the listener. Compressing the rest of the song with well-known compression techniques shrinks the song considerably.
patnshan
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Paul, Your insinuation is incorrect in a lot of people's cases. MP3's are a format that can be used to store a large amount of songs taking up less storage space. For instance, I ripped every CD I have for play on a media server. I keep the CD's in a box in the basement. Quality is less, but if you know that and are satisfied with the sound, what is the problem? MP3's have a legitimate use and are not only used for stealing. I also buy MP3's from legitimate sources.
Pat
Anonymous
Posted on
Why is this "Paul" guy such an a$$hole in every thread? If he hates it here why does he come here and comment? Someone please ban this pr*ck.
FWIW I also ripped my entire collection of CD's so that I can stream music over my whole-house audio and listen in my car.
chris p, you are very true about mp3s. but those facts still dont mean mp3s are equal in quality to CDs. a compression is a compression. same applies with digital pictures. what we mainly use are compressed picture files. in comparison to the non compressed formats their quality is poor. if anything mp3s can only try to be equal in quality. we may not hear but we may feel the lower freq, just because we dont hear certain sounds as well as others doesnt necessarily warrant its exclusion. mp3s are for convenience. i also ripped my cd collection to my computer and use mp3 cds in my car. but for my stereo system i use cds.
Play your typical homemade run of the mill mp3 and compare it to a quality recorded store bought CD on a quality HiFi system, and the difference in quality is obviouse. He obviously either owns a cheap 'bottom of the line' system, or is partially deaf.
Ill like to see your system Paul, in your fully sick excell bro. Ditto in what anonymous said a few posts up.
patnshan
Unregistered guest
Posted on
MP3's- I think one can tell the difference between original recordings and MP3's but not enough to make a difference to most people. The convenience often outweighs the decreased sound quality to most people (myself included). If not, nobody would be able to sell an MP3 player. Conversely, they are flying off the shelves! I also note personally that MP3's made into audio CD's sounds perfectly acceptable to my ears.
pat, you are correct but dont you think the people who care to post here are not in the "most people" category? I would assume that if you look for an audio forum you have some interest in quality not necessarily convenience. if you really think about it who are buying the mp3 players? its mostly little kids and college kids that want to be posh, not for hifi or even midfi purposes. something being acceptable to your ears doesnt make something just as good. chris, you are still off base here. cds are still better than mp3s. cds are still overpriced i will give you guys that.
I agree with Christopher, Most of the MP3 player sales go to little kids, or college kids where quality isnt a concern. To them, it's about sounding 'good enough' to enjoy the song, rather than having high quality sound which is fine for portable players or boomboxes.
wow, a moment where i am at peace with paul...haha. you know you love all the attention.
Anonymous
Posted on
So back to the original point of this thread. For those AVRs that apparently process MP3 audio (lower quality audio notwithstanding), how is the audio stream transmitted to the AVR, assuming that with a digital link (optical or coax) the AVR will be receiving PCM data, how does the AVR receive MP3 data?
patnshan
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Chris,
I cut the lawn listening to a 3 inch long, 1/2 inch wide, 4 ounce iriver MP3 player. I had a portable cd player that skipped constantly so I threw it across the yard and now it doesn't work! I can run, jump, skip, dance, and do back flips and the flash player doesn't skip. So this is one person who bought an MP3 player AND cares about quality. In that instance, I cannot have it both ways.
Of course CD's are better than MP3's in quality but they cost too much to be worth it for the most part and are not convenient.
I do like to stream my 10,000+ songs from my PC to my HT. It is just so much easier than finding a cabinet to house all those CD's in the living room and change them often.
I did just buy Amos Lee from Starbucks and it is well worth it. I even ripped it into MP3's for lawn cutting
Anon, I think you're missing the whole point. The receivers who advertise Mp3 friendliness are so only because they have the necessary BUS port to connect the portable units. Nothing more...nothing less.
mp3 is a convenient and user friendly format (for the most part), and nothing else. I use mp3 for working out, and sometimes in my car. For working out it's great - it doesn't skip, I have access to a lot of songs, grouping, etc without having to change discs frequently, and so on. It is in no way a replacement for good quality recordings though. There is a night and day difference between my cd's and mp3. mp3 is honestly the worst format for sound quality I've ever heard.
Just like everything else, it has it's purpose. To use it for another purpose is absurd. I wouldn't use an axe to perform surgery, and I wouldn't use a scalpel to split logs. When things get used the way they were intended there are generally very few problems.
mp3 is best used in places where skipping is a major issue, or parties when the music is background. The companies who make them agree that they are sonically inferior, and don't try to market them as 'reference' players. Have you seen Apple market the iPod as a replacement for a home stereo? Ever try hooking an iPod up to your receiver, and A/B it against the same music on cd?
thank you stu. i have about the same philosophy. pat, i know where you are coming from. but that is why manufacturers have come out with cd changers. i have a five disc one. my mom has a 200 disc one for the kitchen/sunroom system. convenience is really based on what you are willing to do. my parents could care less for mp3 stuff becuase to them it is too confusing. just pop in a cd and bam you listen to music. to you and me it may be different but thats because we are willing to use the newer stuff. the difference is also relative to what you are listening to the music on. on headphones may not be too big, several thousand dollars worth of speaker and equipment, more likely. but take what you like and use it, but dont forget the big picture.
I guess what i was trying to say was that MP3/s are good enough for me. And as paul pointed out and everyone else, it isnt an opinion, its a fact, i argee now. And good to hear that Christoper is at peace with paul now. lol
