How many of you here have gotten use to MP3s?

[Hardbopjazz]

I'm not big into MP3s. When you play MP3s on a good stereo, at least for me, I can hear limitations, espicially with cymbals. I just hope one day that the MP3 format isn't the only choice.

Can anyone else here, notice the difference when listening to an MP3 file?

[BFrank]

You don't want to play MP3s on a good stereo. Strictly for iPods or computer speakers.

I have a wireless transmitter by Creative that sends MP3s from my computer to my stereo and boosts the fidelity a bit. Still not CD quality, but listenable, anyway.

[RDK]

With any decently encoded mp3 you shouldn't be hearing any swishing sounds. Those are artifacts of old encoders and/or inadequate bitrates. On a great system, yes, you may hear a slight difference but only if you really strain to listen for it. I listen to mp3s all the time through my system - and have compared mp3 from the discs they were ripped from - and I can rarely hear any sonic deficiencies. Try again.

[Niko]

80 percent of my listening is mp3s (deezer) and i'm happy with it, i don't pay much attention to drums usually but can easily understand if anyone who does is offended by mp3s since often the higher-pitched parts sound quite strange imho...

[Harold_Z]

You don't want to play MP3s on a good stereo. Strictly for iPods or computer speakers.

My feelings also, but I would add I find them ok in the car and actually those "Jukebox" cdrs with 6 or 7 albums on them are great for long trips.

[Claude]

I use MP3s only on my portable player, for which the sound quality (if >192kbs) is good enough, and where file size is still an issue (8GB flash memory). On my hifi system, I only play lossless files.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Claude

[jazzbo]

I wouldn't at all say I am used to MP3s. I can hear the difference between MP3 and lossless or Redbook or SACD. And if I have a choice at all I don't choose to listen to MP3. Even my iPod has lossless files whenever possible (the Wadia iTransport I have allows these to be sent to a DAC and played back sounding remarkably like the source cds etc.)

[Shawn]

.mp3 encoders have improved so much over the years. With the correct settings it should be almost impossible to tell the difference between the source and the .mp3 file...even on good systems.

[Claude]

.mp3 encoders have improved so much over the years. With the correct settings it should be almost impossible to tell the difference between the source and the .mp3 file...even on good systems.

Many download stores are now selling 320kbs MP3s, which are not much smaller than lossless files. The reason why they don't go lossless but stick to MP3 is compatibility. A 320kbs MP3 sounds almost as good as lossless, and can be used on every player, whereas FLAC or other lossless files can only be played on a limited number of devices.

But from a technical point of view, it would make more sense to sell downloads as lossless (for hifi fans) and 192 or 256kbs MP3s (for people who need to save memory space). 320kbs MP3 isn't entirely satisfying for none of these groups.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Claude

[A Lark Ascending]

I buy most of my music on MP3 now - I'll only buy a CD if I can't download it.

[seeline]

I buy most of my music on MP3 now - I'll only buy a CD if I can't download it.

Me too, I *never* thought I'd make the switch, but what's been said above about better encoders (etc.) is true.

i do hear a difference between files that are encoded at relatively low bitrates and either high-bitrate MP3s or, say, FLAC (for obvious reasons), but then, most of what I've got on MP3 is very hard to come by any other way. So no complaints here!

I also did my own double-blind test with tracks encoded in Apple's lossless format vs. MP3 at 320 k and absolutely could not hear the difference with the headphones I normally use (Grado SR-60s). Given the difference in file size, I decided that MP3s were a good bet.

But I do wish that Apple (and other companies) would alter their software so that Ogg, FLAC and other file formats would work on their players....

Edited July 7, 2009 by seeline

[7/4]

I'd rather listen to my cds.

MP3 files sound murky to me and I only listen to them on my computer, if I have to.

...

[mjzee]

I pretty much only listen to mp3's these days. It's because of location and ease of use. I listen to them while at the computer at home, in my car stereo, and on an iPod while at work or in the kitchen. Given my lifestyle and things I need to do, I don't have the luxury of just sitting in front of a stereo for an hour or so, and it would probably drive me out of my mind anyway.

And ease of use: I can call up any track on any album, and not root through stacks of CDs or LPs (yes, I'm digitizing all of those). And I pretty much only listen to music using the shuffle feature, where I get great juxtapositions and variety.

[seeline]

I hear you on all counts, mjzee. Being able to organize and search a collection is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned.

[Use3D]

I got into mp3's in early 1998, soon after winamp had launched. At first I wasn't impressed but was won over after starting to encode my own mp3s and make a small music collection. Even at mp3.com you could just download any song you wanted.

The encoders back then really sucked, so mp3's have improved quite a bit. I even have some I encoded in 2000 that don't sound so perky compared to today. A couple years ago I bothered to get an mp3 player (not an ipod), since my combined mp3 collection across three computers was about 40 gigs. Since then I've been listening to them more, but I still will always prefer and buy CDs over mp3s.

[save0904]

I would instantly switch to only download mp3 music if they would include digital lines notes and liner photographs. I'm somewhat addicted to that liner stuff.

[seeline]

Some sellers do include all of that. (And I agree with you; I want the liners, too.)

[Hardbopjazz]

I'd rather listen to my cds.

MP3 files sound murky to me and I only listen to them on my computer, if I have to.

...

Exactly, regardless of the encoding rate MP3s sound murky. It has to be. You're cutting a file down from 150 MBs to 20 MBs, something is missing.