My take on MP3

[bluesman]

So, while MP3 might be anathema for ripping CDs, transferring music from LP and listening critically on an iPod or some such, for Internet radio, I'm glad it exists. If MP3 (or some similar extreme data compression scheme) didn't exist, I doubt if we'd have Internet radio at all.

Yes indeed! "Lesser" formats and modes of transmission may compromise the absolute sound (I couldn't resist...), but they're not horrible and they serve a purpose. Spotify through my desktop system may not be high end audio, but it soothes me every day while working in my office. And we have excellent classical and jazz HD radio stations in Philly, with sound quality good enough to keep me well amused driving to and from work every day. Simulcast may reduce ultimate SQ, but I can hear the music of my choice with acceptable (to me, at least) fidelity 24/7/365 in my car.

 

Sure, I can stream FLACs to my phone and Bluetooth the output to my car radio - but even opening the app and selecting the album often take more energy than I have left after 10 to 12 hours at work. And when I do get home, I appreciate my system even more than when it was my only source of music.

[thesurfingalien]

Hi George,

 

Nice topic... I wonder what the fuzz is about; we all know MP3 is lossy and therefore is a compromised format in terms of absolute sound-quality. If one does not like to listen to it, then do not. If I am correct, MP3 (and other lossy formats) were conceived to be used on portable devices with limited storage capabilities, and now for Internet-streaming.

 

I confess that, for the most part (it depends on material and listening conditions), I have trouble telling a 320 kbps MP3 (besides in FLAC, all my music has a 320 kbps MP3 version too) from its Redbook version. But let's face it... The majority of people (and some audiophiles with rather expensive setups I know) would not be able to tell the difference as well, even if their lives depended on it.

 

In short, people use whatever format they believe is satisfactory for their needs. For some that means hi-res, and others go for 192 kbsp MP3 (or equal).

 

Just my two centavos!

Kind regards,

Peter

[RealAudio]

 

I confess that, for the most part (it depends on material and listening conditions), I have trouble telling a 320 kbps MP3 (besides in FLAC, all my music has a 320 kbps MP3 version too) from its Redbook version. But let's face it... The majority of people (and some audiophiles with rather expensive setups I know) would not be able to tell the difference as well, even if their lives depended on it.

 

Peter

 

You'll never get them to admit that. Even if confronted with a blind test they participate in and can't hear the difference you'll see a stream of rationalizations.

[gmgraves]

Hi George,

 

Nice topic... I wonder what the fuzz is about; we all know MP3 is lossy and therefore is a compromised format in terms of absolute sound-quality. If one does not like to listen to it, then do not. If I am correct, MP3 (and other lossy formats) were conceived to be used on portable devices with limited storage capabilities, and now for Internet-streaming.

 

I confess that, for the most part (it depends on material and listening conditions), I have trouble telling a 320 kbps MP3 (besides in FLAC, all my music has a 320 kbps MP3 version too) from its Redbook version. But let's face it... The majority of people (and some audiophiles with rather expensive setups I know) would not be able to tell the difference as well, even if their lives depended on it.

 

In short, people use whatever format they believe is satisfactory for their needs. For some that means hi-res, and others go for 192 kbsp MP3 (or equal).

 

Just my two centavos!

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Quite right. I like hi-res audio as much as the next CA correspondent, but, as you and others have pointed out, we can't have hi-res all of the time. I listen to FM in the car (with it's fuh-fuh-fuh interference caused by obstacles between my moving car antenna and the broadcast signal), and I just ignore the interference. I also ignore the MP3 artifacts on Internet radio because both of these obstacles to hi-fi sound are beyond my control and I'd rather have the FM available than not, and I'd rather have MP3 Internet radio than no Internet radio at all!

[PeterSt]

Maybe some context or actually a question;

 

I think you (US) guys are quite keen on satellite (/digital) radio (in the car). Well, cars are just sold with Sirius/XM sh*t, right ?

 

Now, maybe I missed it, but I did not see this "discussed" in this thread with the notice that only the US, a part of Canada and some African part has satellites overhead for this. But not we over here and also not Australia, to name something.

 

This tempts the question : What are "you" actually talking about when mentioning internet radio, car radios and such ? I mean, I think that listening to radio in the car will maybe for 50% of people be "satellite" anyway, while internet radio springs from the same source before it's uploaded to the satellite(s). Internet for that (source) is better but still super heavily compressed while Sirius/XM (Sirius even worse as I understand) has become totally unlistenable these days (can go as low as 24kbs)).

 

Thus, looking at this from this distance, I'd say that before you talk about internet radio and its MP3 quality, you first must define the source ? Or am I just a bit stupid and you guys say "of course that's out of the equation to begin with dude !! - we talk Pandora."

But I wonder.

 

Otherwise I notice that sat radio by now has become a multi-billion market - or better put : the investments have been way too high - and that some gurus have defined that more channels bring in more subscriptions. So next month the number of channels is doubled again and the bit rate is halved. That leaves 12kbs.

Well, something like that, but that's the way it goes, as it seems.

 

Meanwhile all is advertised as "CD quality" while the max rate is 128kbs anyway, but this is actually from 13 years back when the 128 could be achieved (because not so many channels).

 

If you dive into this you see it is one big mess because there is no way back. Oh, there is a way - launch a new satellite or two. But this was planned for 2012 and it did not happen - as far as I can see because of lack of money.

 

So ?

[bluesman]

What are "you" actually talking about when mentioning internet radio, car radios and such?

Speaking only for myself, I'm referring to any music I listen to in my car that gets there via the internet. With my iPhone as a source playing through my car audio system via BT, I stream my own FLACs from my home server. I also listen to web streams, Spotify and similar services, or internet radio stations using a browser or a native app on the iPhone.

 

The head unit has an HD radio tuner in it, so I also listen to HD radio streams (which often share program feeds with broadcast and internet stations). But that's not technically "internet radio", even though the programming is the same as the internet stream from the same source. Public radio stations are now doing this in many cities in the US, and it's great.

[new_media]

I occasionally stream something through my phone in the car, but my data plan is only 10GB per month. I think I would burn through that quickly if I was streaming constantly during my commute.

 

Still mostly use an iPod Classic for listening in the car. Have started to use Beats Music more recently as well, but in offline mode with albums saved on my phone.

 

My car is equipped for satellite radio but I have never subscribed to it.

[bluesman]

I occasionally stream something through my phone in the car, but my data plan is only 10GB per month. I think I would burn through that quickly if I was streaming constantly during my commute.

That's why I'm stuck with my iPhone 4S. I've had an unlimited data plan from Verizon since day 1 of such service (I started with an IMTS phone from Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems in 1982 and have been with them ever since). They've eliminated unlimited plans - so if I upgrade my phone to a 4G, I'll have to give up my endless stream. And no other cellular carrier has a usable signal at my house.

[gmgraves]

Maybe some context or actually a question;

 

I think you (US) guys are quite keen on satellite (/digital) radio (in the car). Well, cars are just sold with Sirius/XM sh*t, right ?

 

Now, maybe I missed it, but I did not see this "discussed" in this thread with the notice that only the US, a part of Canada and some African part has satellites overhead for this. But not we over here and also not Australia, to name something.

 

This tempts the question : What are "you" actually talking about when mentioning internet radio, car radios and such ? I mean, I think that listening to radio in the car will maybe for 50% of people be "satellite" anyway, while internet radio springs from the same source before it's uploaded to the satellite(s). Internet for that (source) is better but still super heavily compressed while Sirius/XM (Sirius even worse as I understand) has become totally unlistenable these days (can go as low as 24kbs)).

 

Thus, looking at this from this distance, I'd say that before you talk about internet radio and its MP3 quality, you first must define the source ? Or am I just a bit stupid and you guys say "of course that's out of the equation to begin with dude !! - we talk Pandora."

But I wonder.

 

Otherwise I notice that sat radio by now has become a multi-billion market - or better put : the investments have been way too high - and that some gurus have defined that more channels bring in more subscriptions. So next month the number of channels is doubled again and the bit rate is halved. That leaves 12kbs.

Well, something like that, but that's the way it goes, as it seems.

 

Meanwhile all is advertised as "CD quality" while the max rate is 128kbs anyway, but this is actually from 13 years back when the 128 could be achieved (because not so many channels).

 

If you dive into this you see it is one big mess because there is no way back. Oh, there is a way - launch a new satellite or two. But this was planned for 2012 and it did not happen - as far as I can see because of lack of money.

 

So ?

 

Internet radio is radio available over an internet connection, not satellite radio, which is something else. Generally speaking, unless one has built-in cell-phone reception in one's car, the internet is not available in a moving automobile. Satellite radio is and works OK (although it doesn't like tree-shaded lanes, overpasses and tunnels any more than FM does). Satellite radio is digitally compressed, but with the high background noise of an automobile, compression artifacts are largely irrelevant, in my opinion.

[PeterSt]

Internet radio is radio available over an internet connection, not satellite radio, which is something else.

 

Language ... and sorry about that.

 

I meant to pose it the other way around;

One can listen to satellite radio in the car (with my suggestion that 50% by now does - at least for the first 6 months or whatever of free trial subscription with a new car).

This is uploaded (upstreamed) to the satellite which is a general means that also directly goes on to the Internet (with the notice that at the homes the same Sirius/MX etc. can be received, but now through Internet).

Next it is people's notice that the satellite reception (thus in-car) is even worse than the direct reception through the internet and this is blamed upon the further compression towards the satellite in order to have more channels beamed (up and) down for the of course 1 total bandwidth available.

 

It is not up super importance but

 

Satellite radio is digitally compressed, but with the high background noise of an automobile, compression artifacts are largely irrelevant, in my opinion.

 

This could be exactly why I asked the question, in the sense of "what are we actually talking about" (and always in the realm of MP3-compression of course). I mean, a whole (US) world is complaining about this "digital radio" (so satellite but also the underlying upward stream leading to a direct internet stream). To my understanding, all sort of collapsed in 2011 when Sirius and MX technically merged (with Mirge or sth as keyword).

 

Anyway it should be obvious that observing "MP3" through a secondary (for reason) compressed means is not the same as observing MP3 "as is". This is also related to the today impossibility to actually measure the net rate (meaning : you're told 128 but it isn't that) which measuring was previously possible through some sort of recording means which ran out of order (also in 2011). But already back then it was 48 and this was when people though it was quite OK.

 

high background noise of an automobile

 

S/N George, S/N. In my days I didn't have a subwoofer in the back. A stack of amps yes.

;-)