Do people still care about audio quality?

[OldSkoolRS]

reggie82 said:

He didn't say CD's are more compressed then MP3's, he said CD's are quite a low bitrate compared to some other digital formats - which is entirely true.

Whilst you could compare CDs bitrate to SACD or DVD-A discs for example, the point I was objecting to more was the one below, which re reading it wasn't his lecturer, rather his interpretation of his lecturer. I still do disagree with this statement though as there isn't any compression on a CD. I don't know if it is possible to download a higher bitrate version of a song than a CD would give you if ripped to Flac or some other lossless format though? If so then the only 'source' for an MP3 would be from a CD anyway, so the resultant MP3 couldn't be 'better' than the CD it came from.....

Techn0 said:

IE, the compression on a good mp3 is less than a cd.

I'm still not sure what to believe.

[sonic_2k_uk]

OldSkoolRS said:

I don't know if it is possible to download a higher bitrate version of a song than a CD would give you if ripped to Flac or some other lossless format though? If so then the only 'source' for an MP3 would be from a CD anyway, so the resultant MP3 couldn't be 'better' than the CD it came from.....

CD's are generally in 16bit 44.1khz stereo which is a bitrate of 1,411kbps. The maximum bitrate rate of an MP3 is 320kbps - quite a difference!

FLAC is lossless compression, so has the same quality as the source its generated from.

In the studio they record it at 24bit 96khz per channel, so 24/192 stereo.

I have 128kbps and 320 kbps MP3's, lossless FLAC from CD's, a couple of 24/96 downloaded albums and one or two 24/192 downloaded tracks also in FLAC.

As said, through a proper hifi system its very noticeable, on the car stereo or ipod, hardly so.

[OldSkoolRS]

So it IS possible to download tracks that are higher bitrate than CD, though no higher than SACD/DVD-A would be. I wonder how popular these downloads are as I presume they would be much bigger files due to the lack of compression. I knew about the 24/96 possibility on disc as I have a DTS DVD with this soundtrack (old Queen greatest hits disc), plus a limited number of SACDs (though my SACD player was moved out of the rack and lives in the loft these days ) They really did sound good compared to the 'straight' CD version, though to be fair I'm using PMC speakers powered by Arcam power amps so I should be able to hear a difference really otherwise I've wasted my money.

[Techn0]

OldSkoolRS said:

reggie82 said:

He didn't say CD's are more compressed then MP3's, he said CD's are quite a low bitrate compared to some other digital formats - which is entirely true.

Whilst you could compare CDs bitrate to SACD or DVD-A discs for example, the point I was objecting to more was the one below, which re reading it wasn't his lecturer, rather his interpretation of his lecturer. I still do disagree with this statement though as there isn't any compression on a CD. I don't know if it is possible to download a higher bitrate version of a song than a CD would give you if ripped to Flac or some other lossless format though? If so then the only 'source' for an MP3 would be from a CD anyway, so the resultant MP3 couldn't be 'better' than the CD it came from.....

Techn0 said:

IE, the compression on a good mp3 is less than a cd.

I'm still not sure what to believe.

I wasn't in a very good state when I wrote that. I'll ask my lecturer when I seem him next to clarify the point.

My take on what he said is that CD quality isn't as great as its made out. And that there are other digital formats that offer better sound.

[Zad]

Try taking a well made turntable and valve amp out jogging / on the bus / on holiday. Horse for courses. Quality of sound is just one attribute of an audio reproduction system, just as horsepower is one attribute of a car. For many it isn't the most important, or even anywhere near the top of the list.

[maser_spyder]

I think some people certainly still care about sound quality, for sure.

I refuse to plug an iPod in to our stereo (Beosound 9000), if I want to listen to something, I'll dig out the CD.

I've got an old B&O Century in the office that was my first 'proper' stereo, that'll totally knock the spots of most top quality mp3 docks, hardly worth a bean any more, but a superb system.

I think part of the reason people don't seem to care, is most haven't actually heard a properly good system....

[6655321]

'proper' stereo in beats small portable ipod speaker shocker.. Come on people, have you heard yourselves? You are comparing the likes of speakers, amps, etc, with a little plug in speaker. Exactly what do you expect?

[Poledriver]

Having been interested in "HiFi" for many years, and been involved with professional audio/recording studios in that time, I'm appalled by the quality of many domestic systems around these days. However, I did learn at a very young age that many people cannot hear the difference between the sound from a cheap portable stereo and a full-blown mega£ audiophile system! My bank manager wishes that I was one of these people!
As I have told many people over the years when asked the question "what is the best sound-system", "The one which you most enjoy the sound from"!

[maser_spyder]

6655321 said:

'proper' stereo in beats small portable ipod speaker shocker.. Come on people, have you heard yourselves? You are comparing the likes of speakers, amps, etc, with a little plug in speaker. Exactly what do you expect?

Ah, yes, sort of, but the Century isn't that much bigger than a large mp3 dock, is certainly very thin, uses tiny speakers, is using 15 year old technology, and is still far better than a new system.

I just would have thought in 15 years, somebody would have caught up....

[6655321]

maser_spyder said:

6655321 said:

'proper' stereo in beats small portable ipod speaker shocker.. Come on people, have you heard yourselves? You are comparing the likes of speakers, amps, etc, with a little plug in speaker. Exactly what do you expect?

Ah, yes, sort of, but the Century isn't that much bigger than a large mp3 dock, is certainly very thin, uses tiny speakers, is using 15 year old technology, and is still far better than a new system.

I just would have thought in 15 years, somebody would have caught up....

Well, of you are going to compare like for like, you'd compare 2 separate systems, not a portable dock, and what have you. It just seems like lazy journalism.

[k-ink]

I think I originally derailed this thread by mentioning listening at home AND on the move.

Personally I will always use CD's at home on a decent system. There is also something very satisfying and tactile in collecting the original discs. I just also happen to have a pretty decent portable system for the train. I don't really want to mix both worlds up though.

[OldSkoolRS]

Techn0 said:

I wasn't in a very good state when I wrote that. I'll ask my lecturer when I seem him next to clarify the point.

My take on what he said is that CD quality isn't as great as its made out. And that there are other digital formats that offer better sound.

Yes, there are SACDs and DVD-Audio discs, plus HDCDs that can use higher sampling rates like 96Khz or even 192Khz. These are superior to standard CDs. Though I think we've gone a little OT here. Simply put I don't bother listening to Mp3 when I'm at home as I believe my CD player sounds much better, though others might find it more convienient to do so.

[koenig999]

There is a higher resolution format than CD available.

It is called vinyl.

Koenig

[6655321]

koenig999 said:

There is a higher resolution format than vinyl available.

It is called live performance.

Koenig

[Zad]

If you find the compression objectionable on mp3 players, store your music in lossless format. If your player doesn't support lossless, get one that does!

[sonic_2k_uk]

OldSkoolRS said:

So it IS possible to download tracks that are higher bitrate than CD, though no higher than SACD/DVD-A would be. I wonder how popular these downloads are as I presume they would be much bigger files due to the lack of compression. I knew about the 24/96 possibility on disc as I have a DTS DVD with this soundtrack (old Queen greatest hits disc), plus a limited number of SACDs (though my SACD player was moved out of the rack and lives in the loft these days ) They really did sound good compared to the 'straight' CD version, though to be fair I'm using PMC speakers powered by Arcam power amps so I should be able to hear a difference really otherwise I've wasted my money.

Yes it is, but not generally for "popular" music. It is becoming more common though, and i can only hope that one day there is an equivalent iTunes for 24/96 FLAC.

Whilst you can't draw a direct comparison between CDs (PCM) and SACDs (DSD), a CD is 16/44.1 and SACD about 20/96. You can download FLAC and WAV in higher formats than this for a limited range of music.

You also can't rip a SACD.

6655321 said:

'proper' stereo in beats small portable ipod speaker shocker.. Come on people, have you heard yourselves? You are comparing the likes of speakers, amps, etc, with a little plug in speaker. Exactly what do you expect?

Not really. You can use decent AAC on an ipod and it sounds a million times better than a 128kbps MP3 - yet some will still happily have the MP3.

I think this comes down to either a lack of knowledge, the practicality of storing more music, or not being able to discern a difference.

koenig999 said:

There is a higher resolution format than CD available.

It is called vinyl.

Koenig

Yeah - but then you get all those bubbles and flecks in the sound

[6655321]

sonic_2k_uk said:

Yes it is, but not generally for "popular" music. It is becoming more common though, and i can only hope that one day there is an equivalent iTunes for 24/96 FLAC.

Well, there is apple lossless

Not really. You can use decent AAC on an ipod and it sounds a million times better than a 128kbps MP3 - yet some will still happily have the MP3.

yes, you can use formats that have a much better bitrate, but if you stick it in a little ipod dock, then you are still at a disadvantage to a separates system. I'm not saying that you can't get good sound from an ipod, or similar, rather that the comparison between nice big speakers, and an amp, etc, and a little plug and play dock isn't exactly fair.

[theboss]

6655321 said:

sonic_2k_uk said:

Yes it is, but not generally for "popular" music. It is becoming more common though, and i can only hope that one day there is an equivalent iTunes for 24/96 FLAC.

Well, there is apple lossless

Not really. You can use decent AAC on an ipod and it sounds a million times better than a 128kbps MP3 - yet some will still happily have the MP3.

yes, you can use formats that have a much better bitrate, but if you stick it in a little ipod dock, then you are still at a disadvantage to a separates system. I'm not saying that you can't get good sound from an ipod, or similar, rather that the comparison between nice big speakers, and an amp, etc, and a little plug and play dock isn't exactly fair.

One of the answers is to keep different file libraries for different scenarios. For every CD I rip I encode a FLAC copy for playback on my main system and a 400kbps AAC copy for transfer to iPod. This is only possible with the iPod because I prefer to maintain a selection of albums in a higher bitrate, than transfer the 'whole lot' at a compromised bitrate. I never listen to more than a few dozen albums over the course of a few days. I know this isn't convenient for less technically-minded people but it works perfectly for me. Storage is dirt cheap so disk space isn't an issue, and software tools ensure that the library is near enough perfectly synchronised.

One of the most important things for me is that I only rip a particular CD once, so that I get a proper accurate rip (I'm sure the missus wonders why there's always a greasy microfibre cloth to be found on my desk!) with correct metadata etc.

On the subject of higher resolution formats, there are far more important factors such as the quality of the recording and the way its been mastered, and of course the quality of the kit you're playing it on. I'm sure my £150 blu ray player will output 192/24 blu-ray audio perfectly well, but a decent CD player will piss all over it. On the other hand well recorded 24-bit audio on a decent system is really something to behold. Anyone with a good system capable of decoding 192/24 data and £20 to burn for a bit of fun should go to www.linnrecords.com and download the Beethoven Piano Concertos or Mozart Symphonies to see what I mean. Superb stuff.

[The_Burg]

I think there is a lot of missing the point here. The problem more than anyhing is to do with mastering.
Modern CDs are mastered at incredibly loud levels, meaning all the transient info is swept away and they are unlistenable for more than a few minutes at a time.
Do you still remember buying the latest album of your favourite band and listening to it contiuosly? Can you do that now? Most modern stuff i can mange a track or two at best, and it's not because i don't like the music it's just not being able to tolerate the appalling quality.
Have look for Californication unmastered, 128k, (never found a better one), and burn to CD, then play the original CD. Or the Metallica 'Guitar Heros' game console version.
Which was better?
The 128k MP3 despite being of hugely lower 'quality' is the listenable one despite the sound because it has dynamics.
A pet hate of mine, if only i could buy CDs still i would, i used to download as a taster and buy the CD. These days it's pointless as the CD is just as bad as the MP3.
Music isn't dead, but the producers are doing there best to make sure we can't enjoy it.
Mind you as the public vote for retards on X-Factor rather than buying music we're all fooked anyway.....