MP3's really stink

afterburnt

I stole a Nickelback mp3 and I want my money back!

F1nut

afterburnt wrote: »

I stole a Nickelback mp3 and I want my money back!

All you'd get is a nickel back.

Gatecrasher

Nightfall wrote: »

Right. "If" you did... that's nice that you have enough money for all of that expensive equipment but none for the artists that pour their hearts and time into making the music you love to listen to on it.

I spend hundreds of dollars on CDs every month. Just ordered $234 worth last night.

steveinaz

Repeat after me: There is nothing "hi-fi" about an MP3.

D'prived

I listen to 320 MP3's in my car on an SD drive. Home listening is FLAC uncompressed via network streaming.

Gatecrasher

steveinaz wrote: »

Repeat after me: There is nothing "hi-fi" about an MP3.

I think I would have killed for MP3s back in the 70s when I was listening to 8-track tapes in my Chevelle SS396 4-speed with the Panasonic 8-track player and 6x9 Craig PowerPlay speakers.

tonyb

Gatecrasher wrote: »

steveinaz wrote: »

Repeat after me: There is nothing "hi-fi" about an MP3.

I think I would have killed for MP3s back in the 70s when I was listening to 8-track tapes in my Chevelle SS396 4-speed with the Panasonic 8-track player and 6x9 Craig PowerPlay speakers.

No you wouldn't.....for one the 8 track sounded better than MP3's, and 2....you wish you had that 396 Chevelle back period. Suckers worth some coin today.

rooftop59

I'm sorry tony but that 8 track certainly did NOT sound better than a 320 Mbps MP3 ripped from a well recorded digital master. I think other memories from that era are clouding your judgement lol.

As for the car, well that's a different story.

Gatecrasher

rooftop59 wrote: »

I'm sorry tony but that 8 track certainly did NOT sound better than a 320 Mbps MP3 ripped from a well recorded digital master. I think other memories from that era are clouding your judgement lol.

As for the car, well that's a different story.

I agree. 320kbps Mp3s ripped from CDs (especially from new or more recent remastered releases) sound a lot better. Of course the technology of today's automotive sound systems compared to what we had in the 70's helps too.

As for the car, yeah I wish I still had it. I sold it in 1980 when the price of leaded premium went from 69.9 to $2.00 per gallon overnight during the Iranian hostage crisis. It didn't last long but for about two weeks we had gas rationing where you could only buy 10 gallons every other day. I lived in PA and they went by your vehicle inspection sticker on the windshield. Odd numbers could get gas on odd days and even numbers on even days. The 375 HP 11:1 compression ratio big block Chevelle guzzled 100 octane leaded premium like it was going out of style.

The minimum wage back then was like $2.65 per hour and I could barely afford to drive to work so I ended up selling it with 80,000 miles on it for $1,800. It was nice and was my 1st car. One heck of a first vehicle for a 16 year-old. I worked at a gas station for a couple years and saved just about every cent I made so I could buy a nice car as soon as I turned 16. It came down between the 1970 SS396 Chevelle and a 1968 Plymouth GTX 440 Magnum. It was a tough decision but I went with the Chevy. Been a Chevy man ever since.

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

Gatecrasher wrote: »

steveinaz wrote: »

Repeat after me: There is nothing "hi-fi" about an MP3.

I think I would have killed for MP3s back in the 70s when I was listening to 8-track tapes in my Chevelle SS396 4-speed with the Panasonic 8-track player and 6x9 Craig PowerPlay speakers.

No you wouldn't.....for one the 8 track sounded better than MP3's, and 2....you wish you had that 396 Chevelle back period. Suckers worth some coin today.

EXACTLY, as pityful as that reality is.

tophatjohnny

Willow wrote: »

What is sucks more is it is the norm for people these days. This is what they think music sounds like. It's all about quantity not quality. How many songs can I load up?

Not me, I like both,Quantity and Quality. I have both and a library now to die for and it's growing weekly. Yes MP3's are awful. I have compared and A B'd several of my rips (yes I have time on my hands) in 16 bit 44.100Hz 16 bit 48000Hz and 24 bit 96Hz and while the 16bit 44.100Hz got slapped up by the rips in 16 bit 48000hz, the 24/96 sounded exactly the same as the 16 bit 48000Hz but took up way more drive space, so for my modest set up, over 7000 disks are ripped in 16 bit 48000hz. This may differ with real high end gear (which I do not have) but I am quite happy with the quality popping up off my systems. Just say no to MP3's!!!

StantonZ

tophatjohnny wrote: »

Willow wrote: »

What is sucks more is it is the norm for people these days. This is what they think music sounds like. It's all about quantity not quality. How many songs can I load up?

Not me, I like both,Quantity and Quality. I have both and a library now to die for and it's growing weekly. Yes MP3's are awful. I have compared and A B'd several of my rips (yes I have time on my hands) in 16 bit 44.100Hz 16 bit 48000Hz and 24 bit 96Hz and while the 16bit 44.100Hz got slapped up by the rips in 16 bit 48000hz, the 24/96 sounded exactly the same as the 16 bit 48000Hz but took up way more drive space, so for my modest set up, over 7000 disks are ripped in 16 bit 48000hz.

I'm with you on the Hi-Rez stuff (24/96) not being worth the extra disk space, but you lost me on the 44 kHz vs 48 kHz stuff. Native CD format is 16/44 (not 48), so ripping CDs at the higher frequency just doesn't make sense.
I've got a HDD full of 16/44 FLACs, so I've listened to plenty of MP3 vs CD vs Hi-Rez samples.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

Repeat after me: There is nothing "hi-fi" about an MP3.

They don't get it Steve..........mp3's stink period. So many contradictory statements in some of these gentleman's statements.

"I can get better than cd quality with my dac and apple, but the max apple streams at is 256kbps" That one has me scratching my head?

"only poorly recorded masters sound bad on mp3" What? What? is that person talking about?

Or what Gatecrasher said about taking a hi rez source bastardizing it to mp3 and then saying the mp3 sounds better than the redbook version??? What? I say What? Again.

Mp3 is fine for casual listening or car listening, but it has zero, nada, bupkiss, place in a serious hi-fi rig if you care anything at all about the quality and integrity of your source.

PERIOD!

H9

mikeyb128

I never said I get better than cd quality with Apple Music. I said To my ears it's close, but obviously not better. I don't believe I read anywhere in this thread that states MP3's are totally awesome and sound amazing.

I almost solely listen to CDs, vinyl, flacs and hi-Rez. I said it sounds pretty good when people come over and want to put a new song on. My friends certainly don't notice, so I leave is at that.

Also maybe some people systems aren't as revealing? I certainly can't tell with ear buds in at the gym.

heiney9

mikeyb128 wrote: »

When I have friends over we listen to a lot of Apple Music, try new artists, introduce each other to new songs, and I get better than cd quality through my DAC running apple. Apple streams a maximum of 256kbps, sounds really good to me. I have even loaded the exact same song on cd and Apple Music and switched back and forth. The cd quality is a touch cleaner. But the difference is quite small.

Perhaps the way you worded it was wrong, but read the highlighted part, that's what I was referring to.

mikeyb128

heiney9 wrote: »

mikeyb128 wrote: »

When I have friends over we listen to a lot of Apple Music, try new artists, introduce each other to new songs, and I get better than cd quality through my DAC running apple. Apple streams a maximum of 256kbps, sounds really good to me. I have even loaded the exact same song on cd and Apple Music and switched back and forth. The cd quality is a touch cleaner. But the difference is quite small.

Perhaps the way you worded it was wrong, but read the highlighted part, that's what I was referring to.

Well crap. My bad. I certainly didn't mean that I get better than cd quality.

heiney9

I figured that.

Anyway, I'm not denying mp3's don't have a place. They are great for convenience and for less than serious listening. I understand we all have our thresholds of what is acceptable. It seems more and more people are succumbing to the mp3 being the standard..........and that's a shame to allow a compromised source to be the common acceptable standard.

To many of us more serious listeners, MP3's have no place in an audio system, they simply aren't a good choice for a source of music if you are looking to get excellent quality out of your rig.

H9

mikeyb128

heiney9 wrote: »

I figured that.

Anyway, I'm not denying mp3's don't have a place. They are great for convenience and for less than serious listening. I understand we all have our thresholds of what is acceptable. It seems more and more people are succumbing to the mp3 being the standard..........and that's a shame to allow a compromised source to be the common acceptable standard.

To many of us more serious listeners, MP3's have no place in an audio system, they simply aren't a good choice for a source of music if you are looking to get excellent quality out of your rig.

H9

Very well put. That summed it up nicely.

afterburnt

Nickelback mp3s are just as good as their cds.

txcoastal1

afterburnt wrote: »

Nickelback mp3s are just as good as their cds.

Journeys SACD is just as bad as their CD's or MP3's

afterburnt

Dont cry, I got physically ill trying to listen to Nickelback.

[Deleted User]

afterburnt wrote: »

Nickelback mp3s are just as good as their cds.

Haha. I agree!

Gatecrasher

I still have an 8-track player if anyone needs a reality check on how bad they really were. I even have a book of matches you can wedge in the opening to reduce the double-tracking.

lol

tonyb

txcoastal1 wrote: »

afterburnt wrote: »

Nickelback mp3s are just as good as their cds.

Journeys SACD is just as bad as their CD's or MP3's

You noticed that too huh ? Why for Gods sake can't they master a cd that sounds good ?

K_M

One variable I do not see mentioned:

There is quite a big difference in how MP3 is encoded, and what system it was encoded on.
That may explain a lot of the sound expectations.

Mp3 At 320Kbps, on a new system with the latest codecs, can sound utterly amazing.

A few years ago that was not possible.
I have different computer based sound systems, (In addition to CD and Vinyl )and the older systems that I did not update, (hardware and software) do indeed have a lesser quality to the sound.

So there could be some apples and oranges comparisons being made!

heiney9

MP3's, no matter what, have no place in a serious audio system....period!

320kbps with the latest codecs still don't come close to the same material uncompressed.

No matter what anyone says when 80% of the signal is missing, you will hear it and it will NOT sound the same as a full signal.

Perhaps the system you are using is not as capable of detecting the poor MP3 quality.

H9

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

MP3's, no matter what, have no place in a serious audio system....period!

320kbps with the latest codecs still don't come close to the same material uncompressed.

No matter what anyone says when 80% of the signal is missing, you will hear it and it will NOT sound the same as a full signal.

Perhaps the system you are using is not as capable of detecting the poor MP3 quality.

H9

I would have totally agreed with you a few years ago!!

I would have never considered MP3 Comparable to my Vinyl or CD before.
I had assumed it was simply somewhat subpar and was not really accurate enough.

I have a very revealing system so that is not the variable we are chasing.

I could hear the difference, before with the older codecs etc,not only on my good system, but also on my much more mundane systems.

Perhaps there is something else to factor in or another variable we are not allowing for.

heiney9

The loss of information is what the issue is. Once it's gone (as in thrown out during compression) it can never be gotten back during playback.

Some people find MP3's to be perfectly acceptable. I don't, and never will when it comes to music for my main rig listening. The quality difference is apparent.

For portables or in the car, fine...........but even that makes no sense today as storage space is cheap, so why use lossy compression at all?

H9

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

The loss of information is what the issue is. Once it's gone (as in thrown out during compression) it can never be gotten back during playback.

Some people find MP3's to be perfectly acceptable. I don't, and never will when it comes to music for my main rig listening. The quality difference is apparent.

For portables or in the car, fine...........but even that makes no sense today as storage space is cheap, so why use lossy compression at all?

H9

Again, too many variables to say for sure what you were hearing.
I would have to hear your system to understand why it came off sounding so poor.

I am inclined to believe (from other more audiophile type forums I frequent) that listeners are hearing widely varying qualities of encoding.

I have seen opinions all over the place from, fantastic to total crap...lol
So not sure all were actually hearing good encoding....and they all had quite decent systems, and their descriptions were all over the place.

txcoastal1

This is just another subject that has been beaten down on all audio forums.
Never goes anywhere and is a subject of opinions....i.e. to each his own