Living with mp3s

[satkinsn]

The more I think about this, the less obvious the answers become.

 

Like a lot of people, some of my audio is in mp3 only - I own a fair amount of music from eMusic, enough that I couldn't afford to replace it all with cds, assuming the music is available at all.

 

I also own concert recordings in mp3.

 

The quality, of course, is all over the map.

 

So the question becomes (I think): how well do I want my system to treat what I'm giving it for source material? In the case of my mp3s, should I run them through my KingRex and JohnBlues, or just analog out to the less resolving but very musical Audio Engines?

 

(You may disagree with my choice of DAC/amp and speakers, but I think the general principle holds - more scrutiny for the mp3s or not?)

 

Scott Atkinson

Watertown NY

 

[baxtus]

That's right Scott, don't think or worry about it too much. If you actually like the music you have bought, it will not really matter what you play it through, you will still enjoy it.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Scott - Welcome to Computer Audiophile. No worries about music resolution or choice of equipment around here. This site is very laid back and is all about enjoying our wonderful hobby. Your question about listening to mp3s is an interesting one that likely has many answers. I think it all comes down to your system. Some systems don't have the highest resolution but thay can make everything sound pretty good. mp3s will probably be great on this type of system. A vry resolving system may make mp3s sound really bad because it may expose the weaknesses in the lossy compression scheme. I wish I could give you a black & white answer on this one, but you'll really have to A/B this on your system. Whatever choice you make is the right one.

 

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

We're fairly sure that MP3s benefit more from the most revealing systems than do full files. We think the problem comes in defining the term "revealing". As has been observed elsewhere, a little bit of extra treble from a tone control or because some part of the system has high distortion, can give an illusion of clarity, but it's not the same as an excellent system that is revealing more, simply because there is less crap in the way of the sound. An amplifier with high level of distortion at high frequency and poor channel separation will make MP3s sound awful, but a good one will surprise and delight.

 

Interestingly I've spoken to BBC sound people about this and they, as we do, feel that MP3s at higher compression, tend to sound, if anything dull and for broadcast a little bit of treble is often added. Add to that fact that much music is produced to sound good in compressed form, so that short video and music samples on the web can help to sell it, or just because it's going on Amazon or iTunes and it becomes clear that you cannot draw a line between MP3s and full 16 or 24 bit material.

 

Issues are further complicated by the nature of music and how well it compresses. Classical is much easier than heavily compressed Pop, because it's a bit like trying to compress white noise. And finally there are plenty of thoroughly rotten CDs out there that sound worse than MP3s at higher compression rates.

 

Therefore, for some time now, I've been advancing the theory that a hi fi manufacturers job is to do the best job technology will allow to enable customers to get the best results from whatever they choose to listen to, regardless of whether it's an early cylinder or Shellac record, an LP, an MP3 or the very latest and best digital recording. I cannot see any merit in any argument that suggests otherwise.

 

MP3s are vitally important and due immense respect because they have given us access to more music than ever before whether by illegal P2P file sharing or via thousands of radio stations and Amazon's online store or Apple's 1 Billion AAC downloads a year.

 

Scott - I would not be deterred in the slightest from preserving your music collection and seeking out the best system you can afford to do it justice. It's not necessarily second best and there is nothing in any MP3 that sounds anything but enjoyable unless, a. it was there to start with, or b. the replay equipment is crap.

 

A significant part of my collection is as MP3s and unless I have the full file for comparison, I simply cannot tell them apart.

Dismissing compressed audio formats is part of the audio snobbery that has so damaged hi fi's image. Over 160 million people now have ipods and the notion that it's because they don't know any better or whatever is perfectly idiotic IMO, especially when a good few have found them better than some expensive hi fi systems.

 

I really hope you stick around Scott and tell up of your experiences as well as encourage as encouraging other audiophiles who are "closet" MP3 users to own up!!

 

Ash

 

[tfarney]

I saved all my cds to hard drive as lossless files, but my daughter sends me iTunes gift certificates from time to time, so I have quite a bit of music at 128kbps. I can tell you that a 128kbps file of a really well-recorded, well-mastered album beats mediocre production every time. Allison Kraus & Union Station's "Live," Sonny Rollins' "Saxaphone Collossus," Shelby Lynn's "Just A Little Lovin'," as a few examples, sound wonderful as 128kbps files. I could mix cuts from those albums in with lossless files and no one would identify them as mp3s.

 

If there is any call for less revealing listening systems, it is harsh, digitally compressed mastering, not compressed files of good music. And even then, there is a better solution than a lesser system -- tone controls. I have eq pre-sets in iTunes to deal with such things, and they work pretty well.

 

Tim

 

[cfmsp]

 

Scott,

Good music is like wine...unless it's 'bad', you can enjoy it for what it is - unless you're a snob.

 

The difference between compressed and uncompressed is NOT as noticeable to the majority of people as the pundits like to think. As Tim pointed out, the difference between poor recordings and great recordings is HUGE in comparison.

 

I've often thought about the need for a 'resolution' control on audio gear, but it was NOT to deal with compressed files, rather, for music that sounds worse on highly 'resolving' equipment due to artistic/production license, or just poor production.

 

If you want high quality compression when ripping music, the best I've found is LAME.

If you're on a Mac, try this link. http://blacktree.com/?itunes-lame

otherwise, search for LAME 3.98

 

I use it for devices with limited disk space - iPhone, etc., although I use ALAC and AIFF for my 60g iPod Photo.

 

enjoy your music, compressed or not.

 

clay

 

 

[Ashley James]

I've posted much the same on another Forum to a most scathing dismissal and was worried the same might happen here. It didn't and it's clear others feel as I do. It's such a relief not to have started a war, but instead to be amongst like minded friends.

 

I'm glad the much maligned MP3 has friends too.

 

Ash

 

[satkinsn]

Here's what happened to me:

 

Like a lot of people, I was a much bigger music fan than I was a hi-fi fan. I own thousands of cds, but until about a year ago I listened to them on a $99 Sony boombox.

 

Maybe it's because I always listened to music at low volumes - children and all - or because I usually read while I'm listening, but everything sounded good enough.

 

More to the point, I didn't want to care about what it sounded like. Audiophiles struck me as always chasing an abstraction - the next better sound - which pretty much guaranteed misery.

 

As the cd library spilled from closet to shelf to shelves to taking the guest bedroom by force, I got very interested in mp3s - especially as DRM and proprietary formats lost ground.

 

I loved being able to download an album from Amazon or eMusic, back it up easily and burn a copy to listen to.

 

Then, a year or so back, I started to get tired of music. I was still eager to start listening, but most albums would turn sour or harsh or grating pretty quickly.

 

This was a big deal for me; a lot of my emotional life is wrapped up in music, and I felt peculiar, for want of a better word.

 

So I tried to do something modest to help myself by buying new computer speakers. That led me to Audio Engines, which was a good thing, but also led me to start learning a bit about audio.

 

You can figure out the rest - the AEs led me to other computer speakers, which led me to DACs, which led me to the broader world of hi-fi, which is why I now own a Rega turntable, a couple of decent amps and pre-amps, a Squeezebox, a Dynalab tuner (and one of those new SONY hd tuners) a hand-built a.m. radio tuner and assorted speakers.

 

Now I'm buying better cables, and nothing sounds quite good enough.

 

 

 

I'm still trying to hold the line a bit; I refuse to take the next big steps up in quality, and I'm always looking for cheap, oddball equipment that punches above its weight.

 

All of which is my long-winded way of saying I started out sane and happy, and on this subject am neither these days.

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

Ashley,

 

I did say "unless you're a snob".

 

There are many, many folks (majority most likely) who frequently post on audio forums who 'insist' that others will only ever be satisfied with not only their perceived level of quality, but often, their preferred approach to getting there.

 

There are guys on the PC Audio forum at AudioAssylum who can't help but post their own negative criticism anytime anyone suggests that someone should even consider a piece of gear that doesn't meet their BIASED opinions.

 

Some cannot let any mention of USB in general (or Wavelength USB in particular) rest without offering their negative opinion in spades. Ditto for Macs, or Toslink, or, well, just about everything.

 

This is the equivalent of 'one-note bass'... always the same note, very loud and boomy, and gets annoying very quickly. You can even see it here occasionally, although in a more subtle fashion.

 

I happen to be particularly sensitive to it, so probably not so noticeable to others.

 

enjoy,

clay

 

 

 

[arin]

Hi satkinsn,

I do understand you but, as others told you before, music should be our first concern.

The way we listen to it should make no difference...but I know that once the hi-fi bug bites you, it hurts.

 

I spent most of my spare time in the last year and a half converting my CD collection (more than 5000) to ALAC for that is what I think the best hd space vs. quality compromise. Being a musician and sound engineer I made several tests at home and in some recording studios and then decided to do it.

This decision made me return to one of my old passion, hi-fi, and many colleagues of mine made jokes of me as they consider hi-fi buffs like sick people!

But I didn't mind and bought, after years of "only" professional audio & music gears, a true hi-fi system which made me very happy.

 

Now, when I'm not working, I can really say that I "listen" to music again. And I also learned new way of doing it, comparing different versions of the same piece of music at the touch of a button or being able to enhance the mood I'm in by creating new playlists.

 

Sometime the bug bites back and I think to change my amps or my DAC or my cables but then I stop and listen to some well recorded music and those ideas vanish for some time.

 

I started in the music business for my passion for music and that will always come first.

 

Enjoy your music, whatever the format!

 

Arin

 

[satkinsn]

...and now, iTunes goes DRMless and doubles its sound quality.

 

A couple three years back, I bought a lot thru' the iTunes store. I can upgrade everything for $140 and change.

 

So the question is - is the step up, which is still not lossless, worth it?

 

best

 

s.

 

[IamKirk]

I think all I could ever wish for is a silent background during the music (not the environment). I have an alright system now, but the variety in production and oftentimes the noise, static, clicks and pops cause me to delete albums. Perhaps it's just poor recordings, or perhaps it's just my cheaper system. Can anyone in this thread give me some ideas besides the typical "you need drastically more expensive and revealing systems". I just have a pair of Klipsch RF-10, Yamaha Rxv459, Paradigm DSP3100, Super Pro USB Dac 707, Creative 24bit external soundcard, and some compaq computer I found/made/improved. Would it just be the limitations of the Klipsch speakers? What characteristics of the Klipsch lower Reference series are good? I do enjoy the sound and I also can get headaches sometimes after extended listening (others have said the Klipsch horn can do this). I'm just looking for some more realistic answers from people who are comfortable listening to mp3's, not trying to find some 40,000 system to make things perfect. Most of my stuff is relatively cheap. The dac and creative cards are just to help the older computer get the information out, and less about adding some new sound to the system.

 

[Ashley James]

I have just updated mine for two reasons: 1. Without DRM I can send tracks to friends to aid discussions and to introduce them to music they haven't heard and 2. Because AAC is noticeably better than MP3 and although not lossless, is likely to be very hard to tell from it.

 

Arguments rage everywhere about "compressed music" and in the UK the retailers use the term as they might Satan or a sexually transmitted disease, partly because they are being territorial and partly because they don't understand perceptual encoding. It's also true that some equipment reacts worse to compressed music than the full file. Most agree that the audio output from a Mac Mini is surprisingly okay, but not so great with MP3s and lots of hi fi equipment is the same. However, if you have really good, low distortion hi fi, you'll find even Apple's 128Ks sound surprisingly good.

 

I think 256 K AAC's are well worth having, just as I think it's better to use compression intelligently on older and less good recordings to save memory. IMO it is to better not have extra storage devices making irritating noises or whatever if you can avoid them. Just one Back up on the Network is neater in my book.

 

Hope this helps

 

Ash

 

[[email protected]]

$140 is worth it if you have a sound system that can take advantage of it or appreciate the quality improvement on a portable like an ipod or iphone with quality ear phones if you are not going to get the CDs themselves.

 

I would do it if I wasn't going to get the compact discs.

 

 

 

[mpmct]

As I posted in another thread, AAC VBR is not

your father's MP3 encoding:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

 

"Weasel words" notwithstanding ...

 

AAC VBR verges on the 'transparent', depending ...

 

http://www.soundexpert.info/coders256.jsp

 

For those of us with $70k set-ups, and/or for those

of us with the coveted golden ears ... this will not

be sufficient of course. We will save to AIFF or similar

and buy more hard drives. Nothing wrong with that!

To each her own, and more power to her!

 

For all the rest of us with sub $10k systems,

and tiny 500 GB drives, AAC might just do it.

Caveat emptor. ;-)