I figured the "audio/sound" forum was the best place to ask this. I probably have 200 MP3s at any one time(I do the "try before you buy" thing. If I like the band I'll get the CD and trash the MP3 versions of their songs) and sometimes it pains me to listen to them. The compression is just unmerciful. Highs sound horrible. I mean, the poor high hat and cymbals get killed. They sound muddy and wishy-washy. I understand that there are different levels of MP3 quailty, but even the best MP3 distort, the example, heavy reverb on a snare or kick drum. Some of my friends havn't purchased a CD in a couple of years, and I'm like "How can you listen to MP3s all the time?? CD's sound soooo much better."
I'm a Radio & TV production major so I know I pay closer attention to production value than most people do, but somestimes I wonder how people cannot notice. Or maybe they do and just don't care.
Anyway... I'd like to get opinions from you guys and gals... maybe I'm just nuts.

Lethal

I'm deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other so I can't tell the difference

it all depends on how you encode the mp3's, which decoder you use, the settings involved, and so on. for example, LAME mp3 encoder works much better than the frauhnhofer-based mp3 encoders - it's faster, more flexible, and gets better compression with less artifacts/side effects (on my Athlon, anyway). Also, i use the MAD mp3 decoder plug-in for winamp instead of Nullsoft's, and i can hear an audible difference between the two (not sure if MAD is better - i have no real reference other than the CD's). A 256/320kbps mp3 will give you good quality (again, depending on the encoder), but suck up space like a mutha. I usually encode in 192kbps stereo (not joint stereo), and i'm hard-pressed to hear the difference between those and my CD's. of course, my CD's aren't exactly the highest-quality references around, but it's all relative, anyway

quote:Originally posted by tu2thepoo:
it all depends on how you encode the mp3's, which decoder you use, the settings involved, and so on. for example, LAME mp3 encoder works much better than the frauhnhofer-based mp3 encoders - it's faster, more flexible, and gets better compression with less artifacts/side effects (on my Athlon, anyway). Also, i use the MAD mp3 decoder plug-in for winamp instead of Nullsoft's, and i can hear an audible difference between the two (not sure if MAD is better - i have no real reference other than the CD's). A 256/320kbps mp3 will give you good quality (again, depending on the encoder), but suck up space like a mutha. I usually encode in 192kbps stereo (not joint stereo), and i'm hard-pressed to hear the difference between those and my CD's. of course, my CD's aren't exactly the highest-quality references around, but it's all relative, anyway

I'll have to check out the MAD plug-in and see if I can tell an improvement.

Lethal

MP3 sounds good to me. Sure there may be a difference when compared to CD but I don't care

tu2thepoo,
I grabed the MAD plug-in and wow. It made a big difference.

Lethal

All the MP3's I've listened to have been encoded at 128kb/s and the highs seem somewhat muffled, that's why I personally prefer Windows Media Audio 7 because at 96kb/s it sounds better than MP3's and you get smaller files. Windows Media 8 just came out this week (not the media player just the codec and encoding utility) and it has even better compression, check it out here http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en/WM8/audio.asp

I think mp3 sounds like crap personally. I have heard bad mp3's and I have heard good ones...both are terrible...compared to cd.

If you compare it to tapes, sure it sounds good.

However, I DO dl mp3's for use on my laptop, for instance, where the speaker is so crappy that you can't tell the difference between high quality sound vs low quality sound..so it does have it's use I guess. Also, just for mucking around, maybe to listen to music while you are on the computer, it's pretty nice.

Compare the sound to a cd on a higher end set of speakers, and it makes me cringe it sounds so bad.

MP3's can either be good or bad. I personally make my own for my own use. Thus I can use the best setting with out having to worry about how much the thing weighs in when I am done. Thus elimanating the need for dling at napster.. It also helps having a personal library of about 7400 cds.

Its great. No problems winamp and mp3 are a good combination.

quote:Originally posted by clickx17:
Its great. No problems winamp and mp3 are a good combination.

Sounds pretty damn good for being free, right! But I download usually only 192 or better, anything lower has a low s/n ratio meaning that the the the singal quality is lower and you cant play it as load without distortion. But even CD's sound crappy to me on my dads 5in radio crap speakers that are in our dining room! So speakers can really help, but also it can bring out the best or worst of an mp3.

You mean you all can actaually tell the diffeerence between MP3 and CD? I know I can't. I usually download songs off Napster at at least 128, sometimes at 164, or 192, but I can turn the music all the way up (or as loud as I would ever want it) and I hear no distortion at all.

Maybe my hearing isn't as sensitive as you all, who knows, all I know is that RealPlayer works good for me.

I like free.As long as it sounds like the sound then I am happy.I have bought like 3 cds in my life so I dont really know cd quality but I know what free sounds like and I am happy with it.

quote:Originally posted by Barabra_Walters:
You mean you all can actaually tell the diffeerence between MP3 and CD? I know I can't. I usually download songs off Napster at at least 128, sometimes at 164, or 192, but I can turn the music all the way up (or as loud as I would ever want it) and I hear no distortion at all.

Maybe my hearing isn't as sensitive as you all, who knows, all I know is that RealPlayer works good for me.

Heh---not to be insulting, but RealPlayer has one of the worst mp3 decoders out there, (unless you're using Plus, which i've never heard) and the EQ is useless. Try Windows Media Player 7 or higher. I think you'll notice a difference. :-)

It is funny how once you have done any kind of serious sound work in a studio or something how you begin to notice how crappy a lot things sound.

I find that Winamp does the best job decoding MP3, MediaPlayer7 and Jukebox suck, although MediaPlayer is better than Jukebox. I only encode at 196kbs at 44hz. I do not have any really good MP3 encoders, although I have an MP2 encoder and I encode at 256kbs and 44hz and it sounds OK, and compresses a lot faster because MP2 is not as compressed as MP3.

quote:Originally posted by blppt:

Heh---not to be insulting, but RealPlayer has one of the worst mp3 decoders out there, (unless you're using Plus, which i've never heard) and the EQ is useless. Try Windows Media Player 7 or higher. I think you'll notice a difference. :-)

Well, I just got done with a side by side test of RealJukebox, and (ohh yeah it's real jukebox, NOT real player my bad) windows media player 7, and really I can tell no difference. I played many different songs, once on jukebox, and then again on MP7. I know it's not my speakers that are limiting sound quality, so it's not them. They're no klipschs, but they "pump out the tunes".

I'm not totally deaf though, I can tell that my swim coaches 40,000$ speaker system capable of deafning you and killing you very quickly sound better than my 80$ computer speakers.

quote:Originally posted by Abit400:
It is funny how once you have done any kind of serious sound work in a studio or something how you begin to notice how crappy a lot things sound.

I find that Winamp does the best job decoding MP3, MediaPlayer7 and Jukebox suck, although MediaPlayer is better than Jukebox. I only encode at 196kbs at 44hz. I do not have any really good MP3 encoders, although I have an MP2 encoder and I encode at 256kbs and 44hz and it sounds OK, and compresses a lot faster because MP2 is not as compressed as MP3.

Hmmm, i'm not a huge fan of winamp. I think the current soundstage and clarity champ is Sonique, followed closely by WMP7, then strangely enough, the quicktime player (although the damn thing skips when you resize windows, not optimized very well for mp3 playing), then maybe i'd put winamp. I find winamp to be harsh no matter how you manipulate the 3k-6k eq bands, with a lot of crackling distortion in that range for loud guitar tones or voice. I use a Sound Blaster Live Value and A/L ACS45.2 speakers ( i know they suck, but other speakers i have tried it with reproduce the same problem).

I know what you are talking about with the 3k-6k eq in WinAmp, I noticed the same harshness on a lot of other sound cards. On ym Vortex2 I find a lot of the harshness, even in other applications and players to be much reduced, possibly becuase it adjusts its playback according to speaker size (I have small Harmon/Kardon speakers). Not sure how much the card actually does, or even what is does with different speakers, but it does seem to sound better than other sound cards I have heard.

quote:Originally posted by Abit400:
I know what you are talking about with the 3k-6k eq in WinAmp, I noticed the same harshness on a lot of other sound cards. On ym Vortex2 I find a lot of the harshness, even in other applications and players to be much reduced, possibly becuase it adjusts its playback according to speaker size (I have small Harmon/Kardon speakers). Not sure how much the card actually does, or even what is does with different speakers, but it does seem to sound better than other sound cards I have heard.

Hmmm, i tried the very same card a few weeks ago (was having problems with my computer and wanted to see it it was my sound card being the problem). I didnt like the fact that it lacks tone controls in hardware like the SBLive has, so i ditched it quick. See, the A/Ls i have are normally lacking in the high end versus a normal speaker, so i have to push up the gain on upper frequencies (10k and higher) to get the correct sound.

I use napster to download and play my songs. I can't tell a difference. i have a pretty bad speaker set and sound card (Compaq stuff) but i cant tell a darn difference. what should i use to play my mp3's?

CD Quality is a bit better, but I rip all my stuff 192kbps and can't really tell the difference between CD and MP3. Anything lower than 160kbps sounds a little soft a unclear. Sound Blaster Live and FPS1000 speakers.

quote:Originally posted by blppt:
Hmmm, i'm not a huge fan of winamp. I think the current soundstage and clarity champ is Sonique, followed closely by WMP7, then strangely enough, the quicktime player (although the damn thing skips when you resize windows, not optimized very well for mp3 playing), then maybe i'd put winamp. I find winamp to be harsh no matter how you manipulate the 3k-6k eq bands, with a lot of crackling distortion in that range for loud guitar tones or voice. I use a Sound Blaster Live Value and A/L ACS45.2 speakers ( i know they suck, but other speakers i have tried it with reproduce the same problem).

phew I thought it was just me and my old yamaha amp. but mp3's really start to LACK when I listen to classical.(comparing cd to mp3s)

Mpz are the shit, all my cd's are burned and they sound just as good as my friends cds do, and he buys them

The MP3 compressor you use makes a big difference to audio quality. The best quality MP3 compression program is Blade Inc. This was about 6 months ago when I checked. Sorry, don't have a link but you can search for it.

Personally I cant stand MP3's. I have some just because a lot of the songs I lisiten to never came out on CD but on records. I have a record player but dont want to get it out everytime I wanna lisiten to these albums. So MP3's for things like this are useful. Their only other use I can see is testing before buying. MP3's take out a lot of the lows which is one of the most important parts of the music. Lame is a very good encoder, and if any one wants to rip their owm MP3's I would have to recomend this, but it still doenst compare to having the real CD.

I only go for 160Kbps and above, My friends couldn't tell the diffrence when i did a pepsi challange with CD and a self encoded 160Kbps mp3. And i bet VERY few people can tell the difference.

It's bad encoding that makes some mp3 songs sound like shit if you stay at or above 160Kbps. Also your audiocard EQ settings matter.

My stereo is top knotch, and mp3 ROCK!

quote:Originally posted by gammaray51:
Personally I cant stand MP3's. I have some just because a lot of the songs I lisiten to never came out on CD but on records. I have a record player but dont want to get it out everytime I wanna lisiten to these albums. So MP3's for things like this are useful. Their only other use I can see is testing before buying. MP3's take out a lot of the lows which is one of the most important parts of the music. Lame is a very good encoder, and if any one wants to rip their owm MP3's I would have to recomend this, but it still doenst compare to having the real CD.

Wow, i'd say just the opposite---the main problem with mp3s seems to be the high end (either being distorted, phased, or just lacking). Never really had much problems with the bass end of things....

BTW, i used WMP8 that came with winXP beta today, and man does it sound awful. Much worse than WMP7. Wonder why MS would do that? On the plus side, i had no trouble installing Sonique.