Lossless vs. MP3 & SQ

BottomFeeder

Ok, don’t hurt me.

I think I get that recording a song onto my computer as an MP3 reduces the size of the song to about 3-4 megs on average and that doing the same w/lossless keeps the song the same size as it is on the album. It seems logical, if I’ve got this right, that we’d then lose something in SQ when we burn the mp3’s from our computer to a disk & then play them on our killer systems. But I’ve done it & I might need to be flogged for it, but didn’t notice a difference in SQ.

Flogging worthy or what?

cfrizz

No flogging from me BF! I'm with you, I don't notice any difference from my original cd to what comes out of my pc, to what comes off of a burned cd that is played on my audio equipment.

I'm simply happy to be able to have the songs I like available to me in whichever room I'm in or even at work!

I think some people simply like to make things more complicated then they have to be, or over analyze every little thing in order to find fault so that they can act superior.

What's important is the music, regardless of what you choose to enjoy the playback on.

For kids it's mobile ipods, for others it's a boombox, & for others it's a full rig of audio equipment.

Who are any of us to say that listening to any one of those choices is wrong, so long as the listener is enjoying themselves & the music?

Bill Ayotte

I did notice a small change on my 2ch. HT rig, but it was more of a source volume issue (iPod) than SQ......I agree with Cfrizz on the burned CDs as well.....I DO notice a huge difference on my 490t, but not on my Marantz....Don't know why. I use the iPod when I don't want to get off my **** to change CD's, or when I feel like listening to one of my playlists.......Not really concerned about sound quality when I use it....Just my $.02

phipiper10

You've got it right. There are of course a couple of variables to take into consideration.

1) Bitrate used when converting to MP3. Not all bitrates are equal.

64 and say a 256 variable rate are very different and you will see the difference in the file sizes as well as hear it in SQ in most systems.

2) Equipment used. Not all equipment is equal.

The stock system in most cars couldn't compete with most of the gear owned by members here.

I'm not listening critically all the time. My wife and kids are allowed to have conversations while music is played. :eek: So I don't notice a difference on most tracks during the day when everyone is around nor am I listening for them.

At night if I do sit down to listen differences can be heard. Again depending on track and bitrate.

Ern Dog

I notice a significant loss of SQ when I burn CD's in MP3 or WMA formats from my computer then play it on my rig. However when I use EAC, I can't tell the difference.

If you can't tell a difference either way on your rig, then I wouldn't sweat it. No sense doing it just for everyone else.

BottomFeeder

Okay! Maybe no flogging this time! Thanks for the insight / learning all!

Ern Dog, is "EAC" the same as "AAC?" That's the setting that I use on my Mac.
I also import at 160 kb's. I've sometimes noticed a difference between 160 and 128.

michael_w

EAC = Exact Audio Copy. It's a program for windows that rips cds very well. I use it with a Lame mp3 encoder to rip my cds at 320 (occasionally 192 if it's something I don't really care that much about). Great program and it's free

I-SIG

I'm not taking any chances. I'm going ALE all the way. It helps to have an 80gb iPod too.

Wes

wingnut4772

I have everything in my ipod stored with the Apple Lossless and I have a hard time telling between those recordings and cds on my car system anyhoo.

NeilGabriel

Sq=?

wingnut4772

NeilGabriel wrote: »

Sq=?

Sound quality

Lowell_M

I have ripped to Apple lossless and MP3's and then burnt back to CD to do comparisons. The lossless even keeps HDCD information intact. I can't tell the difference between lossless and the original CD.

MP3's though are a major difference on my HT system. It doesn't matter how high you set the bitrate, music still sounds compressed. The mp3 decoding sucks the life out of the music. I don't notice any difference in the car, or through headphones though. It really depends on the capabilities of your system.

BottomFeeder

Guess I'll really only have confidence if I do what you, a_mattison, did. A bit of a pain, but it seems worth it.

Thanks very much for all of the comments everyone!

Lowell_M

BottomFeeder wrote: »

Guess I'll really only have confidence if I do what you, a_mattison, did. A bit of a pain, but it seems worth it.

Thanks very much for all of the comments everyone!

Give it a shot. it was actually pretty eye opening. Make sure you use a good recording. There are a lot of bad one's out there.

mldennison

compression is very source dependent! the way the compression algorithms work is to allocate most of the available bitrate to the frequency ranges our ears respond to best. if the recording does not have very much dynamic range to begin with, then the compression does not have to work very hard and you end up with something very similar sounding to the original.

the one example that i have always been able to tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed is in a live recording, between songs, when there is clapping and cheering from the crowd. this is almost random noise which has very wide frequency distribution. mp3's always sound horribly grating in this situation, imho, no matter how nice the system. granted, this is not the best example since no music is happening, but it gives you an idea what you are missing when listening to lossy compression.

Lowell_M

There have been many discussions on this subject here. There is definately a place for MP3's. I have an 8Gb Ipod Nano and use it to listen to MP3's in the car, on airplanes, when I work out, etc. I have put some lossless tracks on it and really don't notice a difference, especially in the environments that I am listening to them in. The convenience of MP3's make them attractive for this application.

If your aim is to appreciate and enjoy a mid-fi to hi-fi 2-channel system, an MP3 file will be your weak link every day of the week and you are wasting the glory of your system. Might as well buy Bose. As system quality improves and you begin to find synergies in how your equipment sounds together (pairing the right amp with the right DAC, etc) the difference between compressed and not compressed becomes quickly audible. I don't consider my system to be superior by any means (modest mid-fi, maybe?), but I can even hear a clear difference between a dynamic starved recording such as "Daughtry" and the amazing dynamics of John Mayer's "Continuum", or Fogerty's "Centerfield" HDCD mix. MP3's just sound like garbage if you put one in after Fogerty and Mayer.

If you are happy with MP3's, more power to you. But if you are looking for ultimate audio enjoyment in a nice system, you won't find that nirvana with MP3's.

disneyjoe7

I like the probability of digital forums, but I believe you should be using the best sounding scheme out there. For me I found Apple Lossless the best, I couldn't tell between the CD or IPOD just short of Amazing.

davidk0512

Interesting article on the subject

http://www.affordableaudio.org/iPod60gig.pdf

engtaz

How is everyone capturing streaming audio and or what software to make .mov to dvd's

davidk0512

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I like the probability of digital forums, but I believe you should be using the best sounding scheme out there. For me I found Apple Lossless the best, I couldn't tell between the CD or IPOD just short of Amazing.

I have not yet hooked up my ipod to my home system only because I haven't bought a good interconnect yet. I did some comparison between compressed copy and Apple Lossless, it seems to me that compressed lacks some of the clarity and finer subtleties in the music, I have only been using a pair of headphones so far.

disneyjoe7

Well I haven't used a nice interconnect myself for that test. Try the stock cable you'll be floored.

rskarvan

Just purchased a Sansa 1G e140 MP3 player from Woot.com for $30 (not including $5 shipping). This player has an SD slot for expansion. So, I went to Staples and 110% price-matched RAT SHACK with a $3 inkjet coupon and got a 2G SD card for about $26.

So, for $61 I now have a 3G MP3 player and last night I ripped/transferred 774 MP3 songs to it.

Wow. 774 songs on a $61 player. Impressive.

davidk0512

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Well I haven't used a nice interconnect myself for that test. Try the stock cable you'll be floored.

That's what I'm hoping, based on recommendation from markmarc, I've ordered a Kimber Kable GQ-Mini-Cu for an interconnect. I spent quite a few hours last weekend copying approximately 50 CDs with Lossless encoding, so I'm looking forward to hooking it up, selecting shuffle songs and sitting back with some Bud Light.

davidk0512

rskarvan wrote: »

Just purchased a Sansa 1G e140 MP3 player from Woot.com for $30 (not including $5 shipping). This player has an SD slot for expansion. So, I went to Staples and 110% price-matched RAT SHACK with a $3 inkjet coupon and got a 2G SD card for about $26.

So, for $61 I now have a 3G MP3 player and last night I ripped/transferred 774 MP3 songs to it.

Wow. 774 songs on a $61 player. Impressive.

My wife went to an Oracle conference last fall and a 30GB ipod was one of the gifts in the goodie bag, I convinced her that I needed it more than she does, I figured it was going to cost me something down the road anyway. It already did, I'm taking off work this afternoon to finish up a tile job at her mother's house that she volunteered me for. Still a pretty good deal.

michael_w

On the topic (feeding the derail here) of streaming, check out MyTunesRSS. Great program to stream music from home. It's something I use all the time at work and I find it's both easier and faster to use than Orb 2.0. You can even download the music off the server (your home computer) instead of stream it.