carl Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 If a recording is a MP3, will converting it back to wave increase the sound quality, or once it is a MP3 there's no way to return what was lost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 what's lost is lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 what's lost is lost. You will be our first honorary dr. - Dr. org. h.c. - for providing this wise insight (Have you studied zen buddhism in the wake of Madonna, pardon, Esther?) ubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 aoum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 all gone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 Converting a sound file to MP3 condenses it at roughly a 10:1 ratio. There is no way to get that information back. It would be like shrinking a digital photograph and then blowing it back up later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 (edited) No jazz as MP3. The drum Cymbals sound like shit. But MP3 seems to be here to stay. Edited June 20, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 No jazz as MP3. The drum Cymbals sound like shit. That depends entirely on the quality of the MP3 file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 No jazz as MP3. The drum Cymbals sound like shit. That depends entirely on the quality of the MP3 file. I definately hear what you're saying, don't get me wrong, but I'd hardly stick my neck out to defend the sound quality of the MP3. The MP3 format is one of convenience, and it is VERY conveinient. I love my iPod--I mean I REALLY love it--but I would never argue in the defense of MP3 sound quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel A Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 This has been discussed before. Brandon, I know the MP3 format wasn't created in the interest of best possible sound, but I'd still say that MP3 created with appropriate software and a suitable bitrate will be indistinguishable from the original to majority of listeners, on a majority of stereo setups. I've carried out blindfold tests together with other interested people, and much better results can be had than people generally seem to think is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upright Bill Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 (edited) This has been discussed before. Brandon, I know the MP3 format wasn't created in the interest of best possible sound, but I'd still say that MP3 created with appropriate software and a suitable bitrate will be indistinguishable from the original to majority of listeners, on a majority of stereo setups. I've carried out blindfold tests together with other interested people, and much better results can be had than people generally seem to think is possible. Do you think that's because our expectations have become so low due to the crappy sound quality from CDs? 44K is certainly not great either. Compare an SACD or an LP to a CD. On the other hand, MP3s sound fine in the car and they let me take 300 albums to work on my Archos. Edited June 20, 2004 by Upright Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel A Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Do you think that's because our expectations have become so low due to the crappy sound quality from CDs? 44K is certainly not great either. Compare an SACD or an LP to a CD. I admit that I have not done any serious comparsion between SACD and any other format. While I agree that LP can be superior to CD, I suppose that the "crappy" CD sound often is enough for me - that is, with my preferences and equipment. You may have a point, since I think under the right conditions not only die-hard audiophiles are able to distinguish CD sound from LP sound, for example. The problem seems to be that not many care about it. Besides, a cheap turntable does not necessarily sound good - I believe that millions of people nevertheless experienced an improvement when they switched from an entry-level turntable to an entry-level CD player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upright Bill Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Do you think that's because our expectations have become so low due to the crappy sound quality from CDs? 44K is certainly not great either. Compare an SACD or an LP to a CD. I admit that I have not done any serious comparsion between SACD and any other format. While I agree that LP can be superior to CD, I suppose that the "crappy" CD sound often is enough for me - that is, with my preferences and equipment. You may have a point, since I think under the right conditions not only die-hard audiophiles are able to distinguish CD sound from LP sound, for example. The problem seems to be that not many care about it. Besides, a cheap turntable does not necessarily sound good - I believe that millions of people nevertheless experienced an improvement when they switched from an entry-level turntable to an entry-level CD player. I think most people thought (think) that CD is superior because it never develops those pops and crackles you get when you don't care properly for the media. SACD is lovely. But they don't play in my car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upright Bill Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Do you think that's because our expectations have become so low due to the crappy sound quality from CDs? 44K is certainly not great either. Compare an SACD or an LP to a CD. I admit that I have not done any serious comparsion between SACD and any other format. While I agree that LP can be superior to CD, I suppose that the "crappy" CD sound often is enough for me - that is, with my preferences and equipment. You may have a point, since I think under the right conditions not only die-hard audiophiles are able to distinguish CD sound from LP sound, for example. The problem seems to be that not many care about it. Besides, a cheap turntable does not necessarily sound good - I believe that millions of people nevertheless experienced an improvement when they switched from an entry-level turntable to an entry-level CD player. I think most people thought (think) that CD is superior because it never develops those pops and crackles you get when you don't care properly for the media. SACD is lovely. But they don't play in my car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 This has been discussed before. Brandon, I know the MP3 format wasn't created in the interest of best possible sound, but I'd still say that MP3 created with appropriate software and a suitable bitrate will be indistinguishable from the original to majority of listeners, on a majority of stereo setups. I've carried out blindfold tests together with other interested people, and much better results can be had than people generally seem to think is possible. I agree. It all comes down to bit and sample rates. This is why arguments refuting anaglog as the ideal format to house audio are ridiculous.....in theory. There's a practical side to this argument as well. CDs are quite convenient and you don't have to worry about pops and scuffs. And, for most people--quite understandably--a 16-bit 44.1K CD is just fine. Fair enough. Needless to say, I agree with Upright Bill when he says that people tend to think that CDs sound better as a result of there being no surface noise and don't really undetstand that digitized music involves a series of *snapshots* (e.g. the sample rate). By definition, then, you're only getting a portion of the analog feed. SACDs, of course, can accomodate higher bit and sample rates. Not exactly late-breaking news. You guy already know this. Still, it baffles me that people continue to argue in defense of CDs with this in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel A Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Needless to say, I agree with Upright Bill when he says that people tend to think that CDs sound better as a result of there being no surface noise and don't really undetstand that digitized music involves a series of *snapshots* (e.g. the sample rate). By definition, then, you're only getting a portion of the analog feed. SACDs, of course, can accomodate higher bit and sample rates. Not exactly late-breaking news. You guy already know this. Still, it baffles me that people continue to argue in defense of CDs with this in mind. I with you there too. I think the marketing expression "CD quality" has helped that misconception. Why would anyone need anything more than "CD quality"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybleaden Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I have been messing around with recording rates for mp3 for a few weeks now and found noticable difference with the higher recording rates ie between a cd ripped at 128k and one at 256K and even tried one at 320k However most of the cds I rip are for use on other cds (walkmans etc! B) ) SO I never notice the difference there. I also also heard the itunes AAC stuff and that sounds cool too mpeg 4 or something like that. Have others messed around with this ?? mind you it is an effing pain in the arse when you cannot remember which tracks are which when you forget to label them.........grrr! and want to do a compilation. What programme do people use? I have been using cdex which is very useful too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upright Bill Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I have been messing around with recording rates for mp3 for a few weeks now and found noticable difference with the higher recording rates ie between a cd ripped at 128k and one at 256K and even tried one at 320k However most of the cds I rip are for use on other cds (walkmans etc! B) ) SO I never notice the difference there. I also also heard the itunes AAC stuff and that sounds cool too mpeg 4 or something like that. Have others messed around with this ?? mind you it is an effing pain in the arse when you cannot remember which tracks are which when you forget to label them.........grrr! and want to do a compilation. What programme do people use? I have been using cdex which is very useful too. I use CDEX at VBR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 How does one keep up with all the new technologies that is constantly thrown our way? Is there one unit that will support all the formats, SCCD, MP3 XDCD and the rest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybleaden Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I use CDEX at VBR. I just tried that last night. Does that make it sound better Bill or use less space? I never got round to understading the reason for it? Any light shined here in would suffice . The other thing was which vbr to use as there are many! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybleaden Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 How does one keep up with all the new technologies that is constantly thrown our way? Is there one unit that will support all the formats, SCCD, MP3 XDCD and the rest? Yes , send me fifty million squid and I will send you a cassette player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I use CDEX at VBR. I just tried that last night. Does that make it sound better Bill or use less space? I never got round to understading the reason for it? Any light shined here in would suffice . The other thing was which vbr to use as there are many! VBR, or variable bitrate, adjusts the bitrate to what is needed. Some passages will not need a very high bitrate to produce good results. Others do. You can adjust the minimum and maximum bitrates allowed. It's to reduce file size. Haven't got a clue what the different VBR settings in CDex do, must be different algorhithms. I use the default one, as I'm a lazy bastard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upright Bill Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I use CDEX at VBR. I just tried that last night. Does that make it sound better Bill or use less space? I never got round to understading the reason for it? Any light shined here in would suffice . The other thing was which vbr to use as there are many! The theory is that the musically "dense" sections get recorded at a higher bit rate than the musically "sparce" sections. It works better for me because I would record everything at the highest bit rate possible and then I can't get as many on my MP3 player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upright Bill Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I use CDEX at VBR. I just tried that last night. Does that make it sound better Bill or use less space? I never got round to understading the reason for it? Any light shined here in would suffice . The other thing was which vbr to use as there are many! VBR, or variable bitrate, adjusts the bitrate to what is needed. Some passages will not need a very high bitrate to produce good results. Others do. You can adjust the minimum and maximum bitrates allowed. It's to reduce file size. Haven't got a clue what the different VBR settings in CDex do, must be different algorhithms. I use the default one, as I'm a lazy bastard. I should have read all the way to the end before I answered. You beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Needless to say, I agree with Upright Bill when he says that people tend to think that CDs sound better as a result of there being no surface noise and don't really undetstand that digitized music involves a series of *snapshots* (e.g. the sample rate). By definition, then, you're only getting a portion of the analog feed. SACDs, of course, can accomodate higher bit and sample rates. Not exactly late-breaking news. You guy already know this. Still, it baffles me that people continue to argue in defense of CDs with this in mind. Brandon, you post a lot on threads about digital audio but I think the person that doesn't understand digital technology is you. People seem to fall back on the same old "series of snapshots" theory. If you do the math, you'll see that you can completely resurrect an analog waveform as long as you sample at a rate of 2 times the maximum frequency. You can compare the before and after using all the test gear you want but it will show you that if done right, it will be identical. Done right is the important part of that last paragraph. Artifacts from the sampling circuits and clock can and do add noise to the decoded analog waveform. Error correction of a corrupt bitstream will also skew the results. However, it is not as if any of these artifacts will result in "jagged" analog waveforms and almost every listener would be unable to detect the difference. Experiment with a record and a CD burner. Do some blind listening tests. I would be willing to bet that nearly everyone reading this would be extremely hard pressed to determine which playback was the LP and which was the CD-R of the LP. If you are arguing that there is audible content above 22 Khz, that's different and I am still on the fence about this. I believe that there is some signal up there but 1) I can't hear above 15 KHz (neither can most male humans) and 2) any signals up there will be so low in level as to be inconsequential. Right now, I believe most people falling back on this argument do so because the "series of snapshots" argument doesn't hold water. Bad-sounding CDs are the result of bad mastering and/or bad digital-to-analog conversion in the player. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.