Mp3 means less bass?

[zeropoint0.5]

a system sounds as good as the weakest link....... using mp3's wants to say they are the weakest link........

a real sound quality lover with high end equipment will only listen to Original cd's.......

[mrblack]

While you're right about the weakest link being the discerning factor in a system, the use of a quality MP3 has far less of an impact than many other installation related decisions. Note that I said quality MP3, as simple 128 bit rips or iTunes crap is easily discernible in comparison to the original album, a high quality LAME encoded rip will only show the most miniscule differences in quality, differences you'd never hear while riding down the road at 60 MPH.

I used to be of the same mindset as you Zeropoint, I wanted to take no shortcuts in my system and experimented for years with different ideas and installation tactics. Then I happened upon a digital adapter for my iPhone which allowed for a bit perfect connection between my phone and digital processor. In the end the result was eye opening. The quality difference between using MP3's and your built in head units CD player has far less to do with the rip and far more to do with the quality of unit you use and the connection you're making to your system. Cheap DAC's in iPod's / MP3 players kill the quality and for the most part that is what you're hearing when you compare the difference in quality between CD and MP3. Bypass that DAC and you'll be amazed, I'd put money on it that a large majority of you wouldn't even be able to A/B 192K MP3's reliably from the CD original.

Sadly, the killer in today's systems is the quality of album mastering of recent music. You can't expect a speaker to play dynamic impactful sound when all of the sound is brick walled to the max. At first listen many people mistake this new louder sound as more pleasing because they hear more of the minute details standing out, but the type of sound is fatiguing to our ears and just makes us want to keep turning the volume down instead of enjoying what a truly great system can do.

Best comparison I can come up with top of mind is the difference between Pearl Jam's original and remix of their debut album Ten. The original was loud and powerful yet greatly dynamic, the drums had punch and the finer details stayed in the background where they belonged. The remix, while some consider the reduction in reverb used during mastering beneficial to the overall quality, lacks punch and actually appears to sound quieter than the original on songs that start out slowly and then jump in with full force. If you have the albums to compare, try out song 9 - Garden some time. Put it at max undistorted volume on your system for the original '92 album and listen to it attack you once it gets going. Then switch over to the remix and you'll be surprised by the disappointment when you expect the song to really get going and it falls flat on its face with lifeless dynamics and little to no punch.

Let me know if anyone tries this, I'd like to hear reactions / thoughts on this from others. Been a while since I've gotten into a discussion about today's music and what it takes to build a great system, god I know I miss mine.

[ttocs]

While you're right about the weakest link being the discerning factor in a system, the use of a quality MP3 has far less of an impact than many other installation related decisions. Note that I said quality MP3, as simple 128 bit rips or iTunes crap is easily discernible in comparison to the original album, a high quality LAME encoded rip will only show the most miniscule differences in quality, differences you'd never hear while riding down the road at 60 MPH.

I used to be of the same mindset as you Zeropoint, I wanted to take no shortcuts in my system and experimented for years with different ideas and installation tactics. Then I happened upon a digital adapter for my iPhone which allowed for a bit perfect connection between my phone and digital processor. In the end the result was eye opening. The quality difference between using MP3's and your built in head units CD player has far less to do with the rip and far more to do with the quality of unit you use and the connection you're making to your system. Cheap DAC's in iPod's / MP3 players kill the quality and for the most part that is what you're hearing when you compare the difference in quality between CD and MP3. Bypass that DAC and you'll be amazed, I'd put money on it that a large majority of you wouldn't even be able to A/B 192K MP3's reliably from the CD original.

Sadly, the killer in today's systems is the quality of album mastering of recent music. You can't expect a speaker to play dynamic impactful sound when all of the sound is brick walled to the max. At first listen many people mistake this new louder sound as more pleasing because they hear more of the minute details standing out, but the type of sound is fatiguing to our ears and just makes us want to keep turning the volume down instead of enjoying what a truly great system can do.

Best comparison I can come up with top of mind is the difference between Pearl Jam's original and remix of their debut album Ten. The original was loud and powerful yet greatly dynamic, the drums had punch and the finer details stayed in the background where they belonged. The remix, while some consider the reduction in reverb used during mastering beneficial to the overall quality, lacks punch and actually appears to sound quieter than the original on songs that start out slowly and then jump in with full force. If you have the albums to compare, try out song 9 - Garden some time. Put it at max undistorted volume on your system for the original '92 album and listen to it attack you once it gets going. Then switch over to the remix and you'll be surprised by the disappointment when you expect the song to really get going and it falls flat on its face with lifeless dynamics and little to no punch.

Let me know if anyone tries this, I'd like to hear reactions / thoughts on this from others. Been a while since I've gotten into a discussion about today's music and what it takes to build a great system, god I know I miss mine.

Not sure I have seen anyone contradict themselves in the same post so well before if I am reading this correctly.

Your first paragraph starts by saying that mp3 quality is less important then other install related decisions. To me install related decisions like what cables/wires or amp location are used are certainly important but if the source of the signal sucks the cables/locations will do nothing too correct the recording or playing problems at the source.

you 2nd paragraph then goes into saying that the DAC is the biggest problem with mp3's and simply bypassing the internal DAC will make the biggest improvement in sound.


Your 3rd paragraph then says that biggest impact too it all is in the modern recording/sampling.

So I am not sure what your trying too say here. Is the original recording important or will any 192kb/s recording through your external DAC be hard for us too tell the difference? Is the original recoring the problem? Is it the ipod DAC? Or is it our install related decisions that will make the biggest impact? I think the answer is yes to all if you care about your sound(which is why we are here) so too say one is a bigger deal then the other is hard too do or to rate them in importance as each is a small percentage of err created in the time from recording too playing but if you ignor them all they can add up exponentially to make for a big diference from beginning to end. No different then that game you play where you say a phrase to a person, and then have then pass it on too the next person again and again to find the phrase at the end is completely different from what was started. The more times you modify, enhance, change to improve something there will be a change. As to if its better in the end well that is subj to the holder.

We have lost some SQ in the quest for mp3's but that was not too say it was not inevitable too happen. cd's sound great but they are just too delicate, big by todays standards and difficult to maintain. It was not a surprise that we took a step back in sq to gain some convenience since cd's were so hard to keep perfect. Remember that we transitioned from tapes, to cd's prior to that which was just about the exact opposite from cd's to mp3's. tapes you didn't have too worry about damaging them(except over playback degredation) but the sound sucked. Now think back to the record/tape transition and it was again different as we went from a medium that could have good playback, but was too easy to damage. hopefully someday we will find a perfect mix of convenience and sq but I am sure at that point we will still have some really old fogeys saying records sound better still, while we are still stuck with our cd sound. Sound is subj and what you grow up with listening too and have been told sounds good will stay with you for life

[mrblack]

Slow down... You've completely missed the point I am trying to make.

What I am saying is that a well encoded MP3 will in most cases be indiscernible from its original REGARDLESS of mastering quality. My comment about DAC quality and the ability to bypass the cheap ones in an average MP3 player / iPod to use the better ones in a high quality head / processor was meant to strengthen that point. If you're truly able to get a bit perfect signal from your MP3 player to your system and let it do the processing instead of your cheap MP3 player, you'll understand what I mean. In order to do so, the signal must remain purely in the digital domain up to the DAC in your head / processor, something that few of you likely have taken advantage of in the past. A simple AUX input or even worse an FM Transmitter is not going to let you experience the actual quality of the MP3 sample.

Lastly, my comment about today's mastering technique was an add on about my feelings towards the quality of todays music. I am an alternative / rock fan. I listen to things like KoRn, Tool, System, Metallica, Avenged, QOTSA, Soundgarden, etc. Todays albums of this style of music leave LOTS to be desired when it comes to quality, and I would go so far as to say it has nearly the same impact on a good sounding system as many installation decisions do. If we want to discuss the scope / impact of various installation decisions, I would put MP3 playback at the very very very bottom if done correctly.

[THUMP-LUMP]

I believe that being able to distinguish between a "quality" mp3 and a CD would depend a great deal on the playback system. I can certainly tell the difference on my little home DAW setup for recording. I can hear a difference between a CD and supposed "lossless" compression. mp3 compression is painfully obvious.

I just finished a little project that, I hope, shows the "loudness wars" perhaps better than the videos did. Or at least, the difference in mixing/mastering in both the digital and analog domain.

The first track is from a CD that I rarely play simply for one reason. IT'S TO LOUD! I like the music but, it gets real tiring to listen to.
The second track I rarely listen to as well because it simply sucks all the way around. To loud and awful tunes.
The third track is the same band as the second track (Metallica) but mixed and recorded on ANALOG equipment. Much more listenable.
The forth track is Jazz and is what I will use to help tune a system. Mixed and mastered Digitally but not slammed against the limiter when mastered.

I saved this recording project so if anyone wants to listen, they can download the REAPER recording software and I can send them the file. Here is a link to the software......http://www.reaper.fm/download.php



Here is a chart that may also help in showing the differences in recording levels between older recordings, mixed and mastered on analog tape and newer ones mixed and mastered in a digital domain.

[mrblack]

Originally posted by THUMP-LUMP

I believe that being able to distinguish between a "quality" mp3 and a CD would depend a great deal on the playback system. I can certainly tell the difference on my little home DAW setup for recording. I can hear a difference between a CD and supposed "lossless" compression. mp3 compression is painfully obvious.

You're right about one thing, the playback system can make a great deal of difference between being able to discern between a good quality recording and a low quality one. But that's where our agreement on the topic ends.

I'm sorry but if you're claiming to be able to hear a difference between a lossless encoding and the identical CD equivalent then there is either a problem with your encoding method or one of your playback sources or you're simply playing mind games with yourself. In the digital domain there is absolutely no difference between a 16 bit, 44khz stereo lossless encoded file and it's uncompressed CD original. Any difference you might be hearing is clearly a fault of a piece of your equipment and not of the lossless file or its CD mirror, or as I earlier suggested it's all in your head... Surely there must be someone left on this site that is knowledgeable enough to understand what I am getting at...

To further simplify my statement, if you zip a file to save some space and time on your computer while sending it to someone via email, is the received file on the other end somehow of lesser quality once it has been downloaded and uncompressed? Lossless encoding works exactly the same way as a zip file, except the lossless audio format (such as FLAC) is just specialized to work more efficiently in the audio domain and is entirely dependent on the encoding process and the method of decoding the file.

Let's take things a step further. Imagine that any digital game you downloaded from Steam or Origin would be of lesser quality than the DVD equivalent. Hell, if it really worked like that the data structure of all digitally compressed data would be corrupt upon receipt and nothing would work. If things really worked the way you suggest, the entire internet would be broken.

[ttocs]

See now I would say that on a well done system, you have a good chance at picking out subtleties such as what kind of recording you are playing. Strange that we all agree that here is a loss in compressed music over its original recording and suddenly now at the end you say that we would not notice a difference with a well done mp3 recording, even after saying the modern method of recording mp3's sucks... Don't care what DAC you use while it may make it sound better then the cheapest version apple was able to find but that is not going to replace lost info or make it as good or better then the original uncompressed recording.

your posts really confuse me that you play both sides of the coin in each. The modern recording process sucks - but with the right DAC we would never notice?

[mrblack]

You're missing my point entirely... Modern professional mastering techniques suck regardless of whether it is encoded to MP3 or pressed onto CD. Modern lossless (i.e. FLAC) AND lossy (i.e. MP3) encoding methods work great with most all audio. I realize this is a very technical topic, but slow down and try to take in what I'm saying.

[ttocs]

lossy works great with most all audio.... What does that mean?

[mrblack]

Originaly posted by ttocs

suddenly now at the end you say that we would not notice a difference with a well done mp3 recording, even after saying the modern method of recording mp3's sucks... Don't care what DAC you use while it may make it sound better then the cheapest version apple was able to find but that is not going to replace lost info or make it as good or better then the original uncompressed recording.

What I am saying is that if you're well trained enough you might be able to pick out very subtle differences between an MP3 and its CD equivalent, but in no way would it be the vast difference you guys are claiming it to be. I would bet that less than 1% of the population would be able to hear the difference between a well encoded 192K MP3 and its CD equal when played back on the same system with the same variables in place. Swapping factory speakers for aftermarket ones, or switching out heads or even upgrading patch cords between amps would net a MUCH greater improvement in quality.

[mrblack]

Originally posted by ttocs
lossy works great with most all audio.... What does that mean?

What I said was that lossless AND lossy encoding methods are built to work particularly well with audio files. In the case of lossless encoding, more intricate measures might not encode to a file size as small as some more predictable music but will retain the same quality of the original master recording if encoded properly (i.e. NOT using iTunes)... With lossy encoding, the more intricate the music, the more some artifacts will stand out... i.e. possible loss of airiness / openness in an orchestral recording or a heightened SSSS sound in vocals of a poorly encoded recording. You're common brick walled popular music properly encoded to lossy MP3 leaves little to nothing discernible between the original and its lossy equivalent.

[THUMP-LUMP]

I just did an A/B/C test using a track that I am very familiar with. It is track 4 shown above. Flim & the BB's / On the Avenue.

A - From the CD

B - Windows Media Audio Lossless

C - Windows Media Audio Pro
96 kbps, 44 kHz, 2 channel 16 bit 1-pass CBR

A to B....I really couldn't detect a difference. Though at times, it seemed like B lost a very little bit in crispness on the cymbals and the kick drum harmonics seemed a little flat. After back and forth about a dozen times or so, I decided it was one of two things. Either it was me or possibly random errors in the playback. Either way, the difference was a fraction of a percent.

A to C.... Definite difference. The symptoms described above (lost a very little bit in crispness on the cymbals and the kick drum harmonics seemed a little flat) were obviously there. I listened to this version before the WMA Lossless version and that may have influenced my hearing to a degree in the "A to B" comparison.

In fairness, I only listened to this one song. But it is the best album that I have for discerning this type of thing with critical listening.

Then we get back to mp3 file compression. In the WMA Lossless format, the file size for the above song is 31.2mb. The same song as a mp3 at 128kbps, the file size is 5.5mb. Much smaller file size and the music suffers accordingly.

Truth is, the small mp3 file didn't sound bad, for casual listening.

[mrblack]

Interesting result considering you only encoded the audio file to 96kbps. Consider the difficulty you had telling the difference between an audio file encoded at that low of a bitrate and just think how much more difficult it would be using one with a quality encoder, not a crappy Microsoft embedded format. I'm talking about using a much higher quality encoding method and rate, an encoder capable of using a LAME plugin ripping to a rate above 192kbps. In a controlled test if you did a blind A/B you would hear no difference.

[THUMP-LUMP]

Interesting result considering you only encoded the audio file to 96kbps. Consider the difficulty you had telling the difference between an audio file encoded at that low of a bitrate

I think you may have misunderstood. The one referred to as "C" was recorded at 96kbps (WMA Pro) and was decidedly inferior to the one referred to as "A" (from the CD) and I had no difficulty distinguishing it from the CD. The one referred to as "B" (WMA Lossless) was at a much higher kbps rate and I compared it to being equal to the CD, at least by my ears. And yes, I do believe I listen better than most people. That's not to say that I hear better.

[ttocs]

I think mr black is forgetting that most of here are not rocking an old sony explode 6 x 9s off of a Jensen deck.

Agreed that the majority of the population would not notice nor more importantly, give a crap. Half of those people you could sit them down and give them an a-b, explain the actuall difference they are/are not hearing and they would be more impressed with how the ipod/headphones looked on them rather then the sound they can make for them too enjoy. Hell mtv doesn't even play a full video half the time anymore on the rare occasion they show a video what makes you think those people give a crap about how it sounds if they can't listen too a whole song? Again though the majority of the people on here favor themselves on he side of audiophile end of the scale then we do the mp3 end and that is why we like our quality pg stuff. I would not doubt that the majority of people here COULD tell the difference because no matter how close it is, its not EVER going to sound as good as the real original(what ever that is) after compressing. The idea of getting a high end DAC t0 make my ipod sound better is just as funny as $200 headphones on them. IF the sq is that important then why reinvent the wheel?

[mrblack]

Originally posted by ttocs
I think mr black is forgetting that most of here are not rocking an old sony explode 6 x 9s off of a Jensen deck.

The funny thing is, the followup comment to you're insult makes you sound as though you must be listening to some sort of knock off system if you really aren't able to comprehend what it is I'm getting at. Is it because I own a Sony head that you immediately write off what it is I'm saying or are you really just this ignorant?

Originally posted by ttocs
The idea of getting a high end DAC t0 make my ipod sound better is just as funny as $200 headphones on them. IF the sq is that important then why reinvent the wheel?

$99...That's what it cost me to connect my 64GB iPhone to my digital processor. The high end DAC's are in my Sony processor already, I never had to buy an external DAC to be able to use my MP3 player... But if buying a DAC would make it sound as good as an in deck CD, then why wouldn't you want to buy one?!? I'll try and explain again, I'm simply bypassing the crappy DAC in the iPhone by using a dock that relays the uncompressed digital stream from my phone to my processor via fiber optic toslink cable. The data is transferred completely digitally and therefore is as good as a CD in your deck. (Likely better as the DAC's in my processor still stand with the best out there today) You can call it silly all you want, I call it sweeter than any CD changer possible, AND its connected completely digitally so there is absolutely no loss in SQ. I have hundreds of lossless albums available at my fingertips while you're stuck flipping through pages of scratched up CD's. This upgrade was by far cheaper than the $1000's and $1000's spent on my other Sony, PG and Infinity equipment and yet it was one of the coolest upgrades I've found for my system. Now and then I'll flip to an older MP3 encoded file on my phone and to be honest there is very little difference between it and the original, which is why I've spoken up. I'm telling you that when done right, MP3's can sound just fine, and there are MUCH bigger things to worry about in the world of audio.

Seriously, I'm just trying to share with you some real world hands on experience I've had since I started messing with car stereo systems back in the 90's when I bought my first PG M50 amp. I'm not a newbie to PG or this forum or even to Soundbuggy.. I've long been here since the days that the original PG forums were taken down and for the most part passively stood by listening and learning until something popped up that peaked my interest. There was so much misinformation stated in this post about MP3's earlier that I decided to speak up, and you just keep adding to it. Sad so much of the world is so closed minded, if you opened your eyes and your ears once in a while you might learn something. I won't claim to know absolutely everything when it comes to car audio, but I am quite knowledgeable, especially when it comes to digital data transfer.

[mrblack]

Originally posted by THUMP-LUMP
I think you may have misunderstood. The one referred to as "C" was recorded at 96kbps (WMA Pro) and was decidedly inferior to the one referred to as "A" (from the CD) and I had no difficulty distinguishing it from the CD. The one referred to as "B" (WMA Lossless) was at a much higher kbps rate and I compared it to being equal to the CD, at least by my ears. And yes, I do believe I listen better than most people. That's not to say that I hear better.

No I understood perfectly what you were saying. From your description it appeared you could hear a difference between your low bitrate encoded WMA file and the CD original but still considered it casually listenable. Imagine how much harder it would have been to tell the difference if it had actually been a high quality encoding instead was the point I was getting at. You do realize how low quality a 96kbps WMA encoding really is don't you?? It should be more than obvious in an A/B test, but if you use a good MP3 encoder at a high bitrate you won't be able to reliably tell between it and the original, I'd put money on it.

[THUMP-LUMP]

Varying opinions on this topic always seem to be from the two points of view, with one being "How it sounds" versus "The numerical or digital difference". The first is open to interpretation as it will change from one person to another. The second is more scientific and open to less interpretation. Once the master is changed by whatever method, for better or worse (normally worse), it is no longer the same. But does it sonically make a perceptible difference? That's open to discussion.

I believe that the OP has gotten a much larger and more complete answer than they had ever anticipated.

[THUMP-LUMP]

No I understood perfectly what you were saying. From your description it appeared you could hear a difference between your low bitrate encoded WMA file and the CD original but still considered it casually listenable. Imagine how much harder it would have been to tell the difference if it had actually been a high quality encoding instead was the point I was getting at. You do realize how low quality a 96kbps WMA encoding really is don't you?? It should be more than obvious in an A/B test, but if you use a good MP3 encoder at a high bitrate you won't be able to reliably tell between it and the original, I'd put money on it.

I thought you were alluding to, that I had a hard time hearing the difference between the 96kbps WMA Pro versus the CD original. I could hear the difference just fine. But the 96kbps wasn't so bad, and that it was fine for casual listening (ie: doing something else while it's playing in the background). If I am listening to the music and nothing else, then I would definitely notice the difference.

[ttocs]

Insult? Not sure how you read that as insult as it was the furthest thing from it. Calm doan, stop taking this personal I am not attacking you we are debating SQ which like the taste in food is subj to the listener/eater. Not sure how my comment about how most people don't care about the sound output of the ipod compaired to the fashon statement it makes contradicts anything.

If you are happy with your system then great go play it and enjoy it but to say you can take a compressed format and by simply putting it through a different DAC and have it as good as the original, good for you. I am not sure how anyone can take something away in one process, and by simple changing the way it is formatted back to the way we listen too it somehow it regains everything that was lost, even though nothing was lost in a lossless format that just compresses the sound. To say you take a compressed format, take it out of the mp3 format and then convert it into optical, then again format it back to a amplifiable signal and never loose anything or ever gain any noise then you are dealing with some alien technology. I think even the staunchest audiophile will say that the more conversions/connections you have in the signal the more likely you are too get noise/artifacts.

I appreciate you sharing your experience in car audio. I too got my start in the early 90's first selling the gear and then working my way back to the install bay to continue my education.. I like have 1000s of songs at my fingertips when I am away from my car/home for the convenience but both my home/car gear was good enough that I could hear the difference. Call me part of the 1% I guess I will wear it with pride but to keep telling us/me that I can't/I won't/its impossible after all that we have discussed just isn't right. With everything we have discussed there are just more possibilities of noise getting into an mp3 signal so I will keep it simple, keep it clean and stick with my cd's when I can.

[Kirghiz]

Back in the '70's and '80's Audio Control came out with the Epicenter to put bass into tracks in which the recording processes of the day omitted recording the lowest bass notes onto the media. Pretty much all the discos and dance halls of the day had an epicenter on their rigs.

If they could do that back then, seems like they could come up with an in-line processor to restore some of the losses cauused by mp3 compression.

[Kirghiz]

I'm sure it's a combination of snake oil, smoke, and mirrors, but I ran across this in my search for a processor. It's almost worth $40 and the time it takes to make a fresh backup of my library to find out what it is.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/iPod/iPho ... 966204.htm

[ttocs]

" iDFX also solves the iPod problem of some songs being too quiet and some songs blasting your ears by setting all your songs to a standard volume level". " - I would like this option on my tv but after we just went over the loss of dynamic range this sounds like it completely takes that problem out of the relm of possibility by making all the recordings the same volume?!

"iDFX also substantially increases the audio clarity and undistorted maximum output level for all iPod speaker docking stations and in car connections." - this sounds like little more then a loudness button if needed or a attenuator to quiet it down if its too loud. This being the companies words I would wait till you hear the review of a non-biased reviewer too see what he says before purchasing it or at the very least try as much of the trial service as you can as this sounds like an new audio snake oil to me that I am sure we will see more and more of in the attempt to make mp3 get back to cd quality.

[dbjury]

My experience. I tested out 320k mp3 vs cd. And I could not tell the difference after an hour of careful listening back and forth. Same source to keep it fair. Digital into my marantz receiver.

And my high end car system.

So I shrugged my shoulders and got on enjoying my life and listening to copious amounts of music.

[mrblack]

Originally posted by dbjury
My experience. I tested out 320k mp3 vs cd. And I could not tell the difference after an hour of careful listening back and forth. Same source to keep it fair. Digital into my marantz receiver.

And my high end car system.

So I shrugged my shoulders and got on enjoying my life and listening to copious amounts of music.

This is exactly what I am talking about..