Ugh! MP3s Sound Like Garbage!

[SlumpBuster]

So my trusty Diskman finally gave up the ghost. Accordingly, I got my first MP3 player. A Creative Nano 1gb on sale at CC for 60 bucks. I got home and was estatic. Without even realizing it when I bought it, it has an FM radio and direct recording from a mini-plug input. Bonus!

My computer instantly recognized it as did my MusicMatch software. How's that for zero setup time. The computer randomly loaded a bunch of songs on to the player, and I went out to rake the leaves. We have five huge oak trees in our yard so its alot of raking/blowing. Listening with earbuds and -30db ear protectors (gas powered leave blower) it sounded great. I like how the earprotectors seal out the outside noise. I couldn't believe the detail and fullness of the music, albeit with the EQ engaged. And shuffling really is cool. It sounds dumb that something so simple can make you rediscover lost corners of your music collection.

I had never listened to MP3s on anything other than earbuds and computer speakers. So after I was done with my leaves, I went in and plugged it into my receiver's frontpanel inputs. Boy o' boy did it sound like garbage! I couldn't believe this was the same thing that I just thought sounded so good. Good thing I never claimed to have a golden ear.

What a modern dichotomy. The MP3 is perfect for what it is, i.e. small, highly portable, highly temporary, music on the go, when fidelity is not primary and "good enough" will do. Yet here it is being touted as a replacement for bulkier high resolution formats. I'm just old enough to still be amazed at how small CDs are. I truly was saddened at the idea that there are thousands of college dorms full of kids that think 10,000 songs on a hard drive are a music collection, especially in light of its dubious fidelity. Yes I know that there are better compressed and lossless formats out there, but I kinda doubt thats what's coming off Kazaa.

[Dusty Chalk]

I would respectfully disagree. How did you rip it? I really think that's crucial. I use lame --standard-preset.

[jrhymeammo]

I would respectfully disagree. How did you rip it? I really think that's crucial. I use lame --standard-preset.

I think has alot to do with internal DAC too. I thought IRiver had one with optical output. Not that I would consider using a portable device as my main source, but I wouldnt mind paying extra for that feature.

-JRA

[jrhymeammo]

Modern kids dont care, just like kids 40 years ago playing LPs with unknown setups. They just want to DL torrentz and get artists' entire discography with a click on a button.

[Mike Anderson]

You are confounding a number of different factors in your analysis.

As far as the "dubious fidelity" of music on hard drives, you should realize that encoding music to a digital format and compressing it does NOT necessarily lead to any degeneration of quality. I have almost my entire music collection stored in FLAC, which is lossless compression. You get about 50% compression, and it's exactly identical to the CD.

MP3s can be decent quality if they are encoded properly at a decent bit rate. The vast majority of listeners cannot distinguish between MP3s burned at a rate of 200kbps and above -- especially if you use variable bit rate encoding. I have a fair amount of music encoded this way, and it sounds fine. I'd challenge anybody to tell the difference, even on my fairly high quality stereo rig.

Also, because you are using a Creative Nano to play the MP3s, there are many other factors that may be causing the poor quality. The DAC on your player is of comparatively poor quality, as are the analog connections to it. If you ran the same MP3s into a high quality DAC with good analog components, chances are they would sound much, much better.

These same misunderstandings come up again and again on this board, and elsewhere. It's a shame there's so much disinformation about computer-based music out there....

[SlumpBuster]

You are confounding a number of different factors in your analysis.

As far as the "dubious fidelity" of music on hard drives, you should realize that encoding music to a digital format and compressing it does NOT necessarily lead to any degeneration of quality. I have almost my entire music collection stored in FLAC, which is lossless compression. You get about 50% compression, and it's exactly identical to the CD.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming dubious fidelity of hard drives. A CD is analogous to a hard drive. So is an LP for that matter. Records are recorded and mixed from hard drives.

Its could definately be how they are ripped, but it is more likely the cheap Creative Nano and its DAC. They are ripped at 192 in MP3 and actually sound pretty good off of my computer. I did hook up a small vintage system to the computer last night, and it was markedly better than the Creative Nano through my main system.

Like I said, through earbuds doing yard work, it all sounded great. But when people go out and drop $400 on an Ipod, many are thinking that they are getting state of the art sound when there is a lot more to it than just click and drag.

[basite]

well, how you ripped it IS important, also, how did you hook it up to your receiver?
i agree there is a difference in mp3 quality compared to cd's, and yes it is badder,
so its normal you think it sucks,

for downloading: kazaa is crap, and all the things on it are like what, 128kbps? and yes, without doubt, they suck.

[jrhymeammo]

I'd challenge anybody to tell the difference, even on my fairly high quality stereo rig.

Do we have a volunteer?

On other thread I suggested:

We should do that via mail. Make 5 tracks at 64, 128, 256, 320, and Lossless on CD-Rs, and submit answers to the sender with actual answers. I'll fund $20 to whoever wants to be in charge. I guess participants gotta pay for the shipping though. $1? You can even do it with different cables too. See if we can identify differences.

[Mike Anderson]

On other thread I suggested:

Nothing needs to be mailed though, you can just do it at home. You simply need to take great care that it's truly blind. There are programs that can do this for you (e.g. foobar2000).

I'd love to have someone come here to my home to try it, because then I can make sure it's truly double-blind, as opposed to relying on someone's word for it.

[basite]

probably, since they don't make things like Idocks (for ipods) for creative, you don't have any other option then hooking it up via a analog 3.5mm minijack to stereo rca, and those, as we know, suck,

i hooked up some mp3 players from friends to my amp (well, not now, when they were here, which happens sometimes), and i found they where really boomy and well yeah, too much bass and no treble.
which is logical, since the dac in the mp3 player is cheap, and not really made to be hooked up to a expensive stereo system.

[noddin0ff]

I had this lovely conversation over in a Mac forum...
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?4...621431#2621431

But, yeah, bitrate matters.

[jrhymeammo]

I had this lovely conversation over in a Mac forum...
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?4...621431#2621431

But, yeah, bitrate matters.

Gawd, you were such an AHole on that thread.

I love it.

[ericl]

I had this lovely conversation over in a Mac forum...
http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?4...621431#2621431

But, yeah, bitrate matters.

LOL, Noddinoff, you were in fine form in that thread. Good Show!

[SlumpBuster]

Okay, after living with my new MP3 player for a week I have to unfortunately issue what may be termed a retraction, or at least a mea culpa.

First off, MP3's do not sound like garbage, my MP3 players DAC/amplifier(?) sounds like garbage. What do you call that little dingleberry of headphone jack anyway? I guess it's an amp? Actually, it is fine with earbuds, but was lacking when I used my over-the-ear Sennheiser cans or plugged it into my receiver.

Probably half my CD collection is ripped onto my computer at 256 and 192 in MP3, but I never hooked it up to a proper system. I just kinda ripped it figuring I would want it all there someday. Well it sounds pretty good through an 80's vintage Akai reciever, Infinity/Boston Acoustic FrankenSpeaker, and whatever soundcard Dell throws in when you click the button for upgraded sound when you order it.

Which comes to an important learning lesson on my part regarding new formats and being somewhat of a crumudgeon. I thought the trend of adding USB ports to receivers was just trendy marketing. "Why not just use a Y-splitter?" I thought. But now I get it! Not only am I bypassing the MP3 player's DAC and headphone amp, but the USB is supply power to the player. Frankly, it was a real "Duh" moment. All the MP3 player is is a fancy flash drive. Like I said "Duh."


Combine that with the convienence offered by MP3s and I think I just figured out what apparently everyone else already knew: These digital music players ain't too shabby. The conveinence is outrageous. Each morning before work this week, I hit a couple mouseclicks and the player is randomly loaded with a day and a half of music. Pretty sweet. Plus the random/freeform thing is a bonus.

I mean just as I was writing this I got Basement Jax; Cub; The Killers; the Bee Gees; ChixDigIt!; Belly; Bedouin Soundclash; and Snoop Dogg. Find me a radio station that does that.

Slump "I must sound like a real grandpa/gomer" Buster

[Resident Loser]

I mean just as I was writing this I got Basement Jax; Cub; The Killers; the Bee Gees; ChixDigIt!; Belly; Bedouin Soundclash; and Snoop Dogg. Find me a radio station that does that.

...but why would I want to? ;-p

jimHJJ(...I mean maybe the Bee Gees...and even that would be the older stuff...)

[SlumpBuster]

...but why would I want to? ;-p

jimHJJ(...I mean maybe the Bee Gees...and even that would be the older stuff...)

Whatchyoutalkin'bout, Willis? I saw you at the Averil Levigne concert with your "Sk8terBoi" t-shirt on.

[Dusty Chalk]

I mean just as I was writing this I got Basement Jax; Cub; The Killers; the Bee Gees; ChixDigIt!; Belly; Bedouin Soundclash; and Snoop Dogg. Find me a radio station that does that.

Here ya go. (Feel free to do the next one yourself.)

[SlumpBuster]

Here ya go. (Feel free to do the next one yourself.)

Show off. :P I thought it would be a parlor trick until The Gadjits "Beautiful Girl" came up only three songs down from Soundclashes "Workforce"

It's like they're in my head, man!

[jrhymeammo]

Here ya go. (Feel free to do the next one yourself.)

DUSTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That thing is awesome man. I typed in my favorite MC, and this motha knows exactly who I like.

Now, there are no excuses for illegal DLing just to "sample" a song.

-JRA

[noddin0ff]

Thanks, it was a particularly proud moment for me too. ;-)

[Woochifer]

As others have said, you got a lot of variables at work here. I've noticed clearly audible differences between MP3 encoders, so what you use to rip the files in the first place has a direct bearing on the sound quality. Lately, I've been going with the Real Player at 192k variable bitrate, and that creates some very convincing copies of the original CDs.

I truly was saddened at the idea that there are thousands of college dorms full of kids that think 10,000 songs on a hard drive are a music collection, especially in light of its dubious fidelity. Yes I know that there are better compressed and lossless formats out there, but I kinda doubt thats what's coming off Kazaa.

I'm amazed everytime I read comments like this because the music systems I remember in my friends' dorm rooms in the mid-80s mostly used cassette players, boom boxes, and/or receivers hooked up to large JBL clone speakers. Hardly what I would call a high fidelity experience. And people I knew who went to college in the 70s hauled their portable record changers (w/ the integrated speakers) and 8-tracks around. From one generation to the next, the vast majority of college students have never cared much for the sound quality.

In actuality, I think college students today have got it much better than students from previous decades, since MP3s and most computer speakers are far superior to what students typically used 20 or 30 years ago. For all the flak that 128k MP3 gets on this board, I doubt that anyone in their right mind would prefer a prerecorded cassette or a scratchy 45 played through a portable record changer.

[SlumpBuster]

My college experience must have been different. I went to college in the mid 90s and hi-fi was a big part of it. It was routine for people to return from summer break and Christmas break with a shiny new hi-fi. Sure there was a fair amount of Fisher and Bose, but there was alot of everything else from Boston, Jamo, JBL, Klipsch, B&W, Vegas, and Advent to Nad, Yamaha, Denon, Mitsubishi and even saw some stray Naks and Luxman from time to time. Pretty hi-fi for a bunch of 20 year olds.

What is frustrating is that good hi-fi is so comparatively cheap these days, but separate components with big speakers are not what people are buying anymore. Just look at old Radio Shack ads. 17 watts by Realistic for $400 in the 70s? Look at what the same money can get today in the two channel market.

[Woochifer]

My college experience must have been different. I went to college in the mid 90s and hi-fi was a big part of it. It was routine for people to return from summer break and Christmas break with a shiny new hi-fi. Sure there was a fair amount of Fisher and Bose, but there was alot of everything else from Boston, Jamo, JBL, Klipsch, B&W, Vegas, and Advent to Nad, Yamaha, Denon, Mitsubishi and even saw some stray Naks and Luxman from time to time. Pretty hi-fi for a bunch of 20 year olds.

What is frustrating is that good hi-fi is so comparatively cheap these days, but separate components with big speakers are not what people are buying anymore. Just look at old Radio Shack ads. 17 watts by Realistic for $400 in the 70s? Look at what the same money can get today in the two channel market.

Boy, you must have been surrounded by a buncha blue bloods (or at least students who got more generous financial aid packages than my friends did!). Most of the students I knew used mini-systems, and that's no different than the dorm rooms I visited back in the 70s, or with my younger cousins during the mid-90s. Just because you might have known some people who had component systems does not mean that was the norm. Sales for home audio components have never topped $2 billion, yet the sales for the iPod alone last year totaled over $3 billion. From my vantage point, this indicates that you got more students than ever who listen to music (doesn't mean that they're purchasing music) nowadays.

You might say that because more students nowadays use portable and computer-based systems, it indicates less of an interest in hi-fi. But, I would simply add that the interest has never been there in the first place for the vast majority of students out there. Today's iPod = yesterday's Discman = yesterday's Walkman = yesterday's tape boombox = yesterday's portable record changer.

Audio is a niche hobby, and always has been, no matter how much audiophile revisionism likes to idealize the past. How else would you explain prerecorded cassettes dominating the market from the early-80s through the mid-90s? Or how during the vinyl heyday, the vast majority of LPs were played through crappy record changers, and not high end turntables (not that the term "high end" even existed back then)?

[JoeE SP9]

not high end turntables (not that the term "high end" even existed back then)?

Sorry Woochifer, the high end was around in the early 80's. Back then I was using an ARC SP3 preamp and Maggy MG-1's. They were considered high end. As a matter of fact the HQD (stacked Quads, Decca ribbon tweeters with a Hartley sub woofer) system driven by Mark Levinson electronics was the highest of the high end.

[Woochifer]

Sorry Woochifer, the high end was around in the early 80's. Back then I was using an ARC SP3 preamp and Maggy MG-1's. They were considered high end. As a matter of fact the HQD (stacked Quads, Decca ribbon tweeters with a Hartley sub woofer) system driven by Mark Levinson electronics was the highest of the high end.

By vinyl heyday, I was not referring to the early-80s. By that time, the prerecorded cassette had already surpassed the LP in unit sales, and the CD introduction was imminent.

My contention is simply that there's a helluva lotta audiophile yearning for the good ole days, and pointing to the dominance of the LP in an earlier time as some kind of proof that consumers back then cared more about sound quality. But, the reality is that most LPs were played through cheap and crappy sounding record players (many of which used those gawdawful stack spindles for continuous play), and that's no different from today where you got many more consumers that use mini-systems or computer-based systems than component-based systems. Given a choice between those typical record changers and a computer-based system playing MP3, I'll take the latter straight up for sound quality, and consider the conveniences (i.e. instant access to music collection, no flipping of records, no cleaning/maintenance, etc.) as a bonus.