Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: mp3 Heretic?

  1. #1
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886

    mp3 Heretic?

    I have read plenty of posts here, deriding the mp3 format and want some feedback here. Recently, I have started using a downloader that allows me to process files at 64 kbps. This is quite slower than the standard 128 kbps that I've seen used as a defalt setting. While the recording doesn't have the same lucidity of pristine CD's, the sound quality is not altogether horrible to my ears. I know that lossless formats are all the rage here, but for my limitations and puposes this seems a pretty good compromise.

    What sayeth now, oh Brown Cows?
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

  2. #2
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    I would say that 192k would be the minimum quality for ipod use for me. Most of my stuff on the mp3 player is encoded at 320k, and at that rate I can't hear a difference unless I use the main system, and even then it's probably the quality between my CD player and Sansa View that makes the difference noticable.

    I've actually never heard anything ripped at 64k. What software are you using? Are you sure your ripping at 64k?
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  3. #3
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    The only time I ever consider it is if I'm making a comp for a long trip in the truck...I can't stand listening to low-rate stuff on either of my home systems...uugghh
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  4. #4
    Suspended atomicAdam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oaktown!
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    I would say that 192k would be the minimum quality for ipod use for me. Most of my stuff on the mp3 player is encoded at 320k, and at that rate I can't hear a difference unless I use the main system, and even then it's probably the quality between my CD player and Sansa View that makes the difference noticable.

    I've actually never heard anything ripped at 64k. What software are you using? Are you sure your ripping at 64k?

    I'm in Geoffcin's boat. 192k at least, and 320k when I actually have the CD to rip from. Use the LAME codex to code with. It is constantly ranked the best and it is free.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523
    What exactly do you mean by 'downloader'?

    I have to admit that 64kbps is something most anyone can tell you that it's poor quality. 128kbps, although not CD quality, is a different story.

  6. #6
    Rob_a rob_a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    232

    Re:

    I am not a fan of MP3 or digital down load stuff as it stands right now. As soon as the quality improves, I might take a stab at it. The harsh digitalness of the sound is like nails on a chalkboard for me! I do use Itunes at work, and even with their lossless option where I can upload at 845kbps in 16 bit, the sound is so so. To help this I go throw an external USB DAC, then tube amp to tame the beast that is “Digital Audio!” The sound quality is good, not great. I can imagine this will get better over time, but for now I prefer plain old CD’s
    HT system:
    Marantz SR7001 receiver
    Emotiva UPA-2 Amplifier
    Adcom GDV-870 DVD-A/CD player
    Yamaha S1800 DVD/SACD player
    Panasonic DMP-BD60K blu Ray player
    PSB Image series speakes s/s
    Dayton RSS210HF 8" reference sub
    Hitachi 46" HD projector screen

  7. #7
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    I'm not even sure if I've heard a file so low. I have heard 128 and the compression is beyond description. Shame on you Auric, shame on you!!!

  8. #8
    _ Luvin Da Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    _
    Posts
    1,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    What sayeth now, oh Brown Cows?
    Sacré bleu
    Back in my day, we had nine planets.

  9. #9
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    I have read plenty of posts here, deriding the mp3 format and want some feedback here. Recently, I have started using a downloader that allows me to process files at 64 kbps. This is quite slower than the standard 128 kbps that I've seen used as a defalt setting. While the recording doesn't have the same lucidity of pristine CD's, the sound quality is not altogether horrible to my ears. I know that lossless formats are all the rage here, but for my limitations and puposes this seems a pretty good compromise.

    What sayeth now, oh Brown Cows?
    I refuse to pay for MP3 downloads in general. The cost per "song" is typically as high as for CD and this is gouge, IMO.

    Granted the quality of 320 kbps or VBR Extreme is such that the quality of master rather than the file format is determinent of ultimate playback quality. However on principle I always take the CD. Admittedly it's tempting to download a Naxos (classical) recording in 320 MP3 format for US$7 versus $8-10 plus shipping for the CD but so far I've held out.

    For my iPod I convert to 256 kbps or an equivalent VBR. I have a DVD at 320 kbps of music I listen to on my work computer. Both of these are quite satisfactory for their respective environments.
    Last edited by Feanor; 12-01-2009 at 11:44 AM.

  10. #10
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    Recently, I have started using a downloader that allows me to process files at 64 kbps...What sayeth now, oh Brown Cows?
    Hmmm. Highs tend to get "swishy" at that rate to these ears. 320k using LAME encoder actually sounds pretty darn good.

    rw

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •