# Codec vs Bitrate



## cheesy999 (May 19, 2011)

when dealing with audio codec's such as mp3, wma, AAC what are the equivalent birate for each?

the reason i ask is i'm not sure if spotify's 320kbit mp3 is better or worse then iTunes 256kbit AAC


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2011)

Your question got me wondering too.  I found this ditty on Wikki, specifically regarding Vorbis, with some references to other audio codecs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis


Quality: Codec comparisonsFor many applications, Vorbis has clear advantages over other lossy audio codecs in that it produces smaller files than most other codecs at equivalent or higher quality while retaining computational complexity comparable to other MDCT codecs such as AAC or Windows Media Audio.[27][28]

Listening tests have attempted to find the best quality lossy audio codecs at certain bitrates. Some conclusions made by listening tests:

Low bitrate (less than 64 kbit/s): the most recent public multiformat test at 48 kbit/s shows that aoTuV Vorbis has a better quality than WMA and LC-AAC, the same quality as WMA Professional, and a lower quality than HE-AAC.[29]
Mid to low bitrates (less than 128 kbit/s down to 64 kbit/s): private tests at 80 kbit/s and 96 kbit/s shows that aoTuV Vorbis has a better quality than other lossy audio codecs (LC-AAC, HE-AAC, MP3, MPC, WMA).[30][31]
High bitrates (more than 128 kbit/s): most people do not hear significant differences. *However, trained listeners can often hear significant differences between codecs at identical bitrates, and aoTuV Vorbis performs better than LC-AAC, MP3, and MPC.*[32]
*Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up to date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs.*


----------



## cheesy999 (May 19, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Your question got me wondering too.  I found this ditty on Wikki, specifically regarding Vorbis, with some references to other audio codecs:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis
> 
> ...



in that case what's the benefit of lossless?


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> in that case what's the benefit of lossless?



Much smaller files.  All the codecs they list are "lossy", including Vorbis.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 19, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Much smaller files.



smaller files? they come out at like 50mb a track when i make them

by lossless i meant like flac or ALE


----------



## twicksisted (May 19, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Much smaller files.  All the codecs they list are "lossy", including Vorbis.



lossless means no compression which means larger filesize but better quality


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> smaller files?



Yes, like the difference between a .BMP or .TIF file and .JPG

The files are smaller because there is lots of translation of data to minimize the amount of information stored in the resulting file.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 19, 2011)

lossless preserves the integrity of the sound and at the same time decreases the file size by rearranging the data in a more effecient way.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> lossless preserves the integrity of the sound and at the same time decreases the file size by rearranging the data in a more effecient way.



but if you can't tell the difference between compression formats will uncompressed audio really be that different?


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> lossless preserves the integrity of the sound and at the same time decreases the file size by rearranging the data in a more effecient way.



Yes, in effect "zipping" the file... when unzipped, it matches bit-for-bit the original data.

I don't think that lossless formats can match the compression of a lossy format in all cases, bit that all depends on the bitrate, which I think relates to Cheesy's original question.


----------



## twicksisted (May 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> lossless preserves the integrity of the sound and at the same time decreases the file size by rearranging the data in a more effecient way.



decreases the filesize from what? (what type of file does it make smaller)... lossless is essentially the original master file without compression. I guess a FLAC is considered lossless aswell but that does have a degree of compression but only on the filesize and not the bitrate


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> but if you can't tell the difference between compression formats will uncompressed audio really be that different?



it all depends on your ear. from a technical standpoint you should be able to hear the difference between a lossless rip and a lossy rip. 

if there are two different lossless algorithms then it only comes down to a difference in code and not in sound.

as far as how things like mp3 vs aac, those are merely a difference in brand names. they both do the job and have very little difference in the overall philosophy of sound compression.



			
				twicksisted said:
			
		

> decreases the filesize from what? (what type of file does it make smaller)... lossless is essentially the original master file without compression. I guess a FLAC is considered lossless aswell but that does have a degree of compression but only on the filesize and not the bitrate



it decreases the file size of the original source audio without affecting the integrity of the audio.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> in that case what's the benefit of lossless?



The question you need to ask is how do I want the song compressed, and how much data am I willing to lose.


The simplest analogy is a box of styrofoam packing peanuts.  

Codecs would be deciding upon the shape you want to use to hold the peanuts.  Certain shapes are more efficient at packing, while others foregoe size efficiency in favor of containing all of the foam peanuts.  Mp3 generally would be a sphere, where they are designed to chop off outliers in the peanuts to save space.  FLAC and WMA lossless are cubes.  They fit all of the peanuts, but are much larger.

Bitrate decides how much of the high and low frequencies are being kept.  It would be like compressing the peanuts to fit into your desired packaging.  Mp3 compress the crap out of the peanuts, and they lose their distinct shapes.  Lossless does not compress the peanuts, but again will take up way more room.


In summation; lossless codecs require far more space, but have all of the data for the songs.  Lossy codecs use specific algorithms to remove data it thinks you don't need and compress the songs (even at high bit rates).  You choose mp3 if space is at a premium, and hardware is not sensitive enough to reproduce deep bass and high trebel.  You choose lossless if you're an audiophile.  

Even at high bit rates, lossy codecs (everything except FLAC and WMA lossless) do destroy some data.  The catch is the data lost might not even be something that you can tell is missing.  Unless you've got a high end audio system, the difference between mp3 320 kb/s and true lossless is not going to be something you can observe.

Take a look at this data, and consider that the data removed using mp3 encoding could well be below or above the frequencies most people respond to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_hearing


----------



## cheesy999 (May 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> as far as how things like mp3 vs aac, those are merely a difference in brand names. they both do the job and have very little difference in the overall philosophy of sound compression.



so 320kbit mp3 is better then 256kbit aac?


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> so 320kbit mp3 is better then 256kbit aac?



if i was a betting man then yes. i would always go with bitrate over codec brand so long as the codecs are well known and accepted by the industry.


----------



## Frederik S (May 19, 2011)

256 kb/s AAC sounds just as good as 320 kb/s MP3. ALAC sounds just like FLAC but waists a little less space. I do not know how, but Apple somehow managed to edge ahead of the rivals on this technical aspect. 

Mp3 V0 is the standard for mp3s and it sounds quite all right. If you are into audio and have half decent hardware the difference between mp3s and lossless codecs becomes more apparent. 

AAC and ALAC takes a little more CPU time, but the difference is negligible.


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> so 320kbit mp3 is better then 256kbit aac?





Easy Rhino said:


> if i was a betting man then yes. i would always go with bitrate over codec brand so long as the codecs are well known and accepted by the industry.



This was from the Wiki article...

High bitrates (more than 128 kbit/s): most people do not hear significant differences. *However, trained listeners can often hear significant differences between codecs at identical bitrates, and aoTuV Vorbis performs better than LC-AAC, MP3, and MPC.*[32]
*Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up to date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs.*


----------



## MilkyWay (May 19, 2011)

LAME MP3 encoder is pretty good, i do think the encoder does make a difference.
The codec does too as MP3 at the same rate as FLAC wouldn't be as good.


----------



## Frederik S (May 19, 2011)

By experience most user can tell the 256 kb/s from the 128 kb/s and 128 kb/s. Telling 320 kb/s constant bitrate from mp3 v0 is nearly impossible they both sound the same 99% of the time.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 19, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> This was from the Wiki article...
> 
> High bitrates (more than 128 kbit/s): most people do not hear significant differences. *However, trained listeners can often hear significant differences between codecs at identical bitrates, and aoTuV Vorbis performs better than LC-AAC, MP3, and MPC.*[32]
> *Many of these results, however, are difficult to keep up to date due to the ever-evolving nature of the codecs.*



yea it is nearly impossible to tell the difference of similar bit rate codecs even on the best equipment. you REALLY have to pay attention to it which just seems pointless to me because then you are focusing more on the tech of it all rather than enjoying the music itself.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 19, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> so 320kbit mp3 is better then 256kbit aac?



Within reason, yes.  The differences in codecs can only really be observed at similar bit rates, and with high grade reproduction.  

If you're playing the two on an ipod (or, hopefully, another mp3 player) or a cheap set of speakers the difference will, unfortunately be negligible.  The high end (256+) of the bit rate generally falls beyond the accurate reproduction level for speakers that most people generally purchase.  These frequencies are either extremely high, or extremely low, and the speakers themselves cannot vibrate at the desired frequencies.


----------



## Sasqui (May 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> yea it is nearly impossible to tell the difference of similar bit rate codecs even on the best equipment. you REALLY have to pay attention to it which just seems pointless to me because then you are focusing more on the tech of it all rather than enjoying the music itself.



Agreed... >



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Within reason, yes.  The differences in codecs can only really be observed at similar bit rates, and with high grade reproduction.



That's the key, "high grade reproduction" which not too many people have these days.  IMO ironically, MP3 killed the desire for quality vs. quantity.  "HiFi" is virtually dead.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 19, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> That's the key, "high grade reproduction" which not too many people have these days.  IMO ironically, MP3 killed the desire for quality vs. quantity.  "HiFi" is virtually dead.



it is very sad as i myself am an audiophile. i blame the mobility movement. people are constantly on the go and they want to take their data with them. music is no different but music can take up a lot of space on a mobile device if it is not compressed. so people are willing to sacrifice the quality of music for the sake of greater data mobility. this is really a 'stop and smell the roses' moment for society. there is something to be said for sitting back and actually ENJOYING the music you are listening to.


----------



## Frederik S (May 19, 2011)

Any audio setup that renders cymbals well will give you the ability to hear the difference between the codecs and bit rates.

A good PC based setup like a pair of $50 headphones and a $50 sound card is enough if you listen for it.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 19, 2011)

The main advantage of a better codec is more like a smaller size while keeping the same level of quality. Like how LAME MP3 is a good MP3 encoder compared to like windows media player.


----------



## Ra97oR (May 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> it is very sad as i myself am an audiophile. i blame the mobility movement. people are constantly on the go and they want to take their data with them. music is no different but music can take up a lot of space on a mobile device if it is not compressed. so people are willing to sacrifice the quality of music for the sake of greater data mobility. this is really a 'stop and smell the roses' moment for society. there is something to be said for sitting back and actually ENJOYING the music you are listening to.




I beg to differ, iPod Touch 64GB with LOD filled with lossless and useful apps have both the sound quality, mobility and function. 







Another VERY important feature of lossless is that you can encode it to any format without any transcoding degradation. Where a lossy > lossy will have quite a impact to the sound quality. That sets it apart to the lossy format as better archival format even if you don't care about the sound that much.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 19, 2011)

Ra97oR said:


> I beg to differ, iPod Touch 64GB with LOD filled with lossless and useful apps have both the sound quality, mobility and function.
> 
> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9239/img5738z.jpg
> 
> Another VERY important feature of lossless is that you can encode it to any format without any transcoding degradation. Where a lossy > lossy will have quite a impact to the sound quality.



of course there are ways to get CD quality sound on the go. that is not the point i made. if people were born sedentary then the demand for the highest quality sound would be very very high. see my point now?


----------



## Ra97oR (May 20, 2011)

I myself do not blame the advancement of portable music devices, but the cultural and music industry itself. I have yet to heard anything on the radio played nowaday have good recording quality and most only have dynamic range of like 1 db with the same 150Hz rumble all round the whole track. As this kind of music gets very popular, the mainstream consumers will only look for devices that plays that 100Hz rumble the loudest, because again, in those music videos, playing music loudly is a cool thing. 

Shame that it have turned that way, but I am still glad I am sitting here listening to lossless music through my hot running class A amp. Sometimes I just wonder if adverts promote good sound than HD TV and boom boom car subs.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 20, 2011)

well if you are listening to the radio then you can't tell if the recording quality is very good in the first place. very few stations play CDs now, they all play MP3s, and even if they do play CDs think of the distortion and noise of listening over a non-guided medium.  

of the music itself, sure there is a segment of the population that enjoys dumbed-down bass slamming music, but i would contest that even that music is well produced and can be enjoyed to a greater extent if it is not compressed down to garbage.

while there are certainly several factors that go into people wanting crap quality sound in their music, i think the mobility movement shares the most blame.


----------



## Ra97oR (May 20, 2011)

To be honest its not the mobility movement, TV is one of the main killer as will other form of visual entertainment. Now music are nothing but background noise for the masses, they turn on the music and go off doing something else instead of being a main form of entertainment, it have turned into something that used to break the silence. I myself is not old enough to judge what is there before TV is very wide spread as I am only 19 myself, but there are so many reasons that have killed off high quality music.

From TV and other visual entertainment, music industry trying to make quick money producing something that is easy to rush out weekly, audiophiles being branded as fools with all the cable junks popping up, the mobility movement is here for sure, but I think visual entertainment is the one to blame most.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 20, 2011)

Ra97oR said:


> To be honest its not the mobility movement, TV is one of the main killer as will other form of visual entertainment. Now music are nothing but background noise for the masses, they turn on the music and go off doing something else instead of being a main form of entertainment, it have turned into something that used to break the silence. I myself is not old enough to judge what is there before TV is very wide spread as I am only 19 myself, but there are so many reasons that have killed off high quality music.
> 
> From TV and other visual entertainment, music industry trying to make quick money producing something that is easy to rush out weekly, audiophiles being branded as fools with all the cable junks popping up, the mobility movement is here for sure, but I think visual entertainment is the one to blame most.



hrm, well i disagree to an extent. i think yes it all comes down to culture and how people consume things without thinking about it. but since digital technology has allowed us to become more mobile im willing to bet that still has a lot to do with it.


----------



## Sasqui (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> hrm, well i disagree to an extent. i think yes it all comes down to culture and how people consume things without thinking about it. but since digital technology has allowed us to become more mobile im willing to bet that still has a lot to do with it.



Yea... How many people here have experienced well built large cabinet speaker systems and large quality analog amps?  If you haven't, you just can't compare.  And I'm NOT talking about volume.  If you can enjoy every nuiance of a song and talk at the same time... you've got something amazing.


----------



## twicksisted (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> it decreases the file size of the original source audio without affecting the integrity of the audio.



That doesnt make sense... what type of file is the original source audio you're referring to?
Youre saying that lossless is smaller than the original, but the original is "lossless"

The original source audio could be be in WAV or AIFF format which is "lossless" but the largest in filesize as there is no compression. It could also be recorded as FLAC which is lossless too but uses compression hence the smaller filesize.


----------



## Ra97oR (May 20, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> That doesnt make sense... what type of file is the original source audio you're referring to?
> Youre saying that lossless is smaller than the original, but the original is "lossless"
> 
> The original source audio could be be in WAV or AIFF format which is "lossless" but the largest in filesize as there is no compression. It could also be recorded as FLAC which is lossless too but uses compression hence the smaller filesize.



The source audio he is referring to I assume is from the CD or something like that.

On a side note, now listening to some 176/24 binaural recordings, they sounds godly realistic.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 20, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> That doesnt make sense... what type of file is the original source audio you're referring to?
> Youre saying that lossless is smaller than the original, but the original is "lossless"
> 
> The original source audio could be be in WAV or AIFF format which is "lossless" but the largest in filesize as there is no compression. It could also be recorded as FLAC which is lossless too but uses compression hence the smaller filesize.



lets say the source audio is a CD that was produced in a music studio. lossless rip would take that cd and decrease its file size but keep the integrity of the sound by rearranging the data in a more efficient way. lossless refers to the sound quality, not the file size yet lossless also means smaller files since the 1s and 0s are rearranged in a more efficient manner. this all well documented if you want to look more into it.


----------



## Wile E (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> yea it is nearly impossible to tell the difference of similar bit rate codecs even on the best equipment. you REALLY have to pay attention to it which just seems pointless to me because then you are focusing more on the tech of it all rather than enjoying the music itself.



It's much more obvious with better equipment. I can hear the difference between mp3 and AAC most of the time, without really trying.

Ogg seems to be the best lossy format in terms of quality per bitrate, but it is also less compatible with devices. Your typical stereo with usb can't read ogg most of the time, but most do AAC as well as mp3 (and sometimes wma).


----------



## twicksisted (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> lets say the source audio is a CD that was produced in a music studio. lossless rip would take that cd and decrease its file size but keep the integrity of the sound by rearranging the data in a more efficient way. lossless refers to the sound quality, not the file size yet lossless also means smaller files since the 1s and 0s are rearranged in a more efficient manner. this all well documented if you want to look more into it.



I understand but lossless refers to the original master file aswell not just a rip of something.


----------



## Maelstrom (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> well if you are listening to the radio then you can't tell if the recording quality is very good in the first place. very few stations play CDs now, they all play MP3s, and even if they do play CDs think of the distortion and noise of listening over a non-guided medium.
> 
> of the music itself, sure there is a segment of the population that enjoys dumbed-down bass slamming music, but i would contest that even that music is well produced and can be enjoyed to a greater extent if it is not compressed down to garbage.
> 
> while there are certainly several factors that go into people wanting crap quality sound in their music, i think the mobility movement shares the most blame.



I think another huge factor is the music downloading services don't offer high quality audio files. Not everyone wants to buy cds and then rip them to a lossless codec. It is much more convenient to just download from iTunes or Amazon mp3.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 20, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> I understand but lossless refers to the original master file aswell not just a rip of something.



the master file is called the master or source, not lossless. lossless is a term referring to how an audio file is changed. this is the context in which we have been discussing. read up to see more.


----------



## Wile E (May 20, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> The main advantage of a better codec is more like a smaller size while keeping the same *a "good enough"* level of quality. Like how LAME MP3 is a good MP3 encoder compared to like windows media player.



Little bit of a tweak top your statement to make it a little more accurate.



Ra97oR said:


> I beg to differ, iPod Touch 64GB with LOD filled with lossless and useful apps have both the sound quality, mobility and function.
> 
> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9239/img5738z.jpg
> 
> Another VERY important feature of lossless is that you can encode it to any format without any transcoding degradation. Where a lossy > lossy will have quite a impact to the sound quality. That sets it apart to the lossy format as better archival format even if you don't care about the sound that much.



64GB not enough for my music in Flac. 32GB isn't even enough for what I want to carry in AAC.



twicksisted said:


> I understand but lossless refers to the original master file aswell not just a rip of something.



When speaking of audio ripping, lossless refers to lossless compression; uncompressed, source or raw refers to the raw wav/aiff/CD/whatever. Using the term lossless in regards to rips assumes compression.



Maelstrom said:


> I think another huge factor is the music downloading services don't offer high quality audio files. Not everyone wants to buy cds and then rip them to a lossless codec. It is much more convenient to just download from iTunes or Amazon mp3.



That and the Loudness Wars and mixing for devices of the lowest common denominator have ruined the fidelity of most music these days anyway, so you seeing a benefit to higher bitrates gets even smaller. If it sounds like crap before you rip it, it's gonna sound like crap regardless of bitrate.


----------



## qubit (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> it is very sad as i myself am an audiophile. i blame the mobility movement. people are constantly on the go and they want to take their data with them. music is no different but music can take up a lot of space on a mobile device if it is not compressed. so people are willing to sacrifice the quality of music for the sake of greater data mobility. this is really a 'stop and smell the roses' moment for society. there is something to be said for sitting back and actually ENJOYING the music you are listening to.



Hmmm... I'm not sure it's so much the mobility movement as much as pig ignorance and therefore a lack of ability to discern the difference between a crap product and a good one. Most people I've come across are of the mentality "I can 'ere da muzik so it ok, innit?".

As this mediocrity tends to make up most of the general population, us audiophiles are phucked.  If we had been the standard, then audiophile products would cost everyday prices and quality solutions overall would be much more widespread. Ah, alas one can but dream...

I myself will only listen to music off a CD or uncompressed CD rip and insist on only buying DRM-free lossless music from online stores and CD quality as a minimum. As I like electronica and trance especially, www.beatport.com has the kind of product I'm after - but they sure make you pay through the nose for the privilege of getting the track in WAV format - a whole pound per track extra!  Example: MP3 costs £1.12. For lossless WAV instead, add £1. On top of that, VAT is added to the whole transaction. This costs stupid money, especially for something like 10 tracks and severely limits how much I buy from there.



Sasqui said:


> Yea... How many people here have experienced well built large cabinet speaker systems and large quality analog amps?  If you haven't, you just can't compare.  And I'm NOT talking about volume.  If you can enjoy every nuiance of a song and talk at the same time... you've got something amazing.



An excellent point and one where I can say that I have indeed experienced such systems! My family was into audiophile Hi-Fi in a big way in the 1970s and one of the components they bought were Tannoy Arden speakers. Absolute monsters: 15" dual concentric drivers in a huge cabinet and an awesome sound. They would easily put lots of modern speakers to shame. Quality lasts. The best bit is that we still have them. 

Here's a Facebook page on them: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121958587821415&v=wall


----------



## AsRock (May 20, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> but if you can't tell the difference between compression formats will uncompressed audio really be that different?



Not all music is recorded at a high rate a lot today is crappy 128 which is used a lot on CD's just not always.  

Trail and error try it at a lower bitrate then a higher one and stop going any higher when you hear no difference.  Although your hardware (example speakers ) might be why so when you upgrade to better gear you'll notice.

In fact i think there is a way to check the music CD to find out what it was recdorded at..  I my self don't bother and just do all mine in WMA\AAC with the highest bitrate which is 320 on either my comp blu ray player or the PS3..


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 20, 2011)

Can you really blame everything on a movement towards mobility, I think not.

While I concede the fact that mobility is a big issue, the bigger issue is that people have been conditioned to settle for less.  This trend started with the likes of kazaa and limewire.

Someone purchases a copy of a cd, then rips it to a lower quality mp3 set.  From there they are able to distribute these files quickly because they can be shared over even the slowest of connections in a matter of minutes.  The people behind Apple look at this, and see a market with lower quality files (read, low disk space requirements), lower quality hardware needed to play them, and no legal penetration into the market.

And so, itunes (*cough* can't get the taste of bile out of my mouth) is born.

Apple and competitors keep hardware quality at a minimum, so the mp3s you already have don't sound bad and their bottom line is still very profitable.  As conditioning continues, people buy less cds because it is acceptable to buy the 3 songs you like from a cd for $3, which is internally justified as a "lesser expense than $12" for a cd where you'd only like those three anyways.  Of course, you lose quality and have a similar (if not higher) price per song than if you would have purchased the cd. 

Quality took a hit whenever people allowed it to.  It became outdated when bands put out cds where there's only one or two good songs and the others were just cd fillers.  Check your local electronics store.  They have been cutting back on cds (at least Be$t Buy in the US), because they sell poorly and the giant profit margins just aren't there anymore.  If you check their online stores you can still find 256 kb/s "high quality" mp3s. 


\rant over\


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 20, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Can you really blame everything on a movement towards mobility, I think not.
> 
> While I concede the fact that mobility is a big issue, the bigger issue is that people have been conditioned to settle for less.  This trend started with the likes of kazaa and limewire.
> 
> ...



i still buy CDs. i think there have been bands always putting together albums with "one or two" good songs. but that is a relative observation. there are maybe 5 bands that when they put out an album i will purchase it that very day without listening to it. that is called being a fan. the rest of the CDs i purchase i listen to first by downloading them. if they are good i will buy, if not they i dont and i dont listen to them in mp3 format. im not sure why i am an exception to what the masses do...


----------



## cheesy999 (May 20, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Yea... How many people here have experienced well built large cabinet speaker systems and large quality analog amps?  If you haven't, you just can't compare.  And I'm NOT talking about volume.  If you can enjoy every nuiance of a song and talk at the same time... you've got something amazing.



so your saying i should just carry on using cd's when i use my analog amp + speaker (70's for ftw)

i know what you mean by the volume, i can experience every element of the song at a volume where you can't here it in the next room, or i can have the same quality and move the walls - if only you could get rid of neigbours


----------



## qubit (May 20, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> so your saying i should just carry on using cd's when i use my analog amp + speaker (70's for ftw)



No, just rip the CD's to a lossless format, such as WAV, FLAC Monkey's Audio etc.

The lossless format may support data compression (eg Monkey's Audio) similar to a zip format, but it will make no difference to the sound, as all the detail will be preserved.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 20, 2011)

qubit said:


> No, just rip the CD's to a lossless format, such as WAV, FLAC Monkey's Audio etc.
> 
> The lossless format may support data compression (eg Monkey's Audio) similar to a zip format, but it will make no difference to the sound, as all the detail will be preserved.



what will make a difference to the song is the quality of the output if i power my amp using a mobile phone or ipod though - i'm assuming it'll be the dac's or whatever - for some reason though i don't like the output of my CD player so its either a turntable or an ipod normally


----------



## micropage7 (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont listen to them in mp3 format


but mp3 still the one that most supported beside the other like wav, flac 
no matter what i guess it needs both, the file and the hardware: if you have nice file but you run it on bad player its just aint work well


----------



## qubit (May 20, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> what will make a difference to the song is the quality of the output if i power my amp using a mobile phone or ipod though - i'm assuming it'll be the dac's or whatever - for some reason though i don't like the output of my CD player so its either a turntable or an ipod normally



As you obviously understand about sound quality, it seems to me like investing in a good quality sound card for your PC would be a good idea. My Creative ExtremeMusic sounds fantastic, for example, noticeably better than other cards and even my old CD player. These are now discontinued, but you can find equivalents.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 20, 2011)

qubit said:


> As you obviously understand about sound quality, it seems to me like investing in a good quality sound card for your PC would be a good idea. My Creative ExtremeMusic sounds fantastic, for example, noticeably better than other cards and even my old CD player. These are now discontinued, but you can find equivalents.



i don't use my pc for music much anyway and i'd need to get some better speakers before i got a better sound card, my analog amp + proper speakers still run mainly of 70's equipment or my ipod (40 years of compatibly )


----------



## Fourstaff (May 20, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> while there are certainly several factors that go into people wanting crap quality sound in their music, i think the mobility movement shares the most blame.



I think you got the wrong idea here: people are fine with crap quality, hence there is no drive to improve. Think of it as SD and HD, when people saw HD videos, they did see the difference and hence there was a real drive to HD, and now we are enjoying HD material widely. However, I fail to see the drive in the Audio section. 

I don't have good sound output devices, so I am generally fine with lower bitrate quality. That said, whenever I can, I will try to source for the highest bitrate, CD or otherwise. I don't listen to mainstream garbage, and prefer to immerse myself in orchestral works, OSTs and generally Asian music with much better dynamics. So much more enjoyment than the overdominant drum or guitar drowning all the subtle details.

I play the piano and the violin for more than 10 and 3 years respectively, so my ears are "not completely bad".


----------



## cheesy999 (May 20, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I think you got the wrong idea here: people are fine with crap quality, hence there is no drive to improve. Think of it as SD and HD, when people saw HD videos, they did see the difference and hence there was a real drive to HD, and now we are enjoying HD material widely. However, I fail to see the drive in the Audio section.



that's the stores fault, but my local comets has just set up a headphone display and although i would never buy from them as they overcharge apparently now people can try on some better headphones their sales have gone sky high as people have actually realise that even DR-dre beats the crap out of the pound shop headphones

its less about people not wanting better and more about them not realising just how much better it is


----------



## Fourstaff (May 20, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> that's the stores fault, but my local comets has just set up a headphone display and although i would never buy from them as they overcharge apparently now people can try on some better headphones their sales have gone sky high as people have actually realise that even DR-dre beats the crap out of the pound shop headphones
> 
> its less about people not wanting better and more about them not realising just how much better it is



Nah, I have tried the mid tier earphones like Shure SE530, Westone 3 and the lesser headphones like HD555 etc, and find them immensely enjoyable but I still cannot justify spending £100+ for them (although I will gladly pay for a £2000 violin without a second thought ). I am fine with my Creative Fatality HS800 and my Ultimate Ears 220. Do I want an upgrade? Hell yes! Can I afford it? Yes. Do I need it? Not really. Hence I will continue using my 'phones until I need to replace them. My next purchase is going to be either Sony MDR-V6, Creative Aurvana Live! or something along that class, good enough to notice the difference but not enough to justify me buying an amp/source/etc.


----------



## Wile E (May 20, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> but mp3 still the one that most supported beside the other like wav, flac
> no matter what i guess it needs both, the file and the hardware: if you have nice file but you run it on bad player its just aint work well



AAC (also known as mp4 audio or m4a) has nearly as much support, and is a better codec if you absolutely need to go lossy.





Fourstaff said:


> Nah, I have tried the mid tier earphones like Shure SE530, Westone 3 and the lesser headphones like HD555 etc, and find them immensely enjoyable but I still cannot justify spending £100+ for them (although I will gladly pay for a £2000 violin without a second thought ). I am fine with my Creative Fatality HS800 and my Ultimate Ears 220. Do I want an upgrade? Hell yes! Can I afford it? Yes. Do I need it? Not really. Hence I will continue using my 'phones until I need to replace them. My next purchase is going to be either Sony MDR-V6, Creative Aurvana Live! or something along that class, good enough to notice the difference but not enough to justify me buying an amp/source/etc.



The reason you may not hear a huge difference with the more expensive headphones is the fact you are using lower quality tracks. Did you test with high quality lossless tracks?

And as far as that is concerned, I don't understand why you feel mp3 is good enough if you are classically trained. Classical music is one of the largest genres benefited by going lossless. You miss so much by using low bitrate lossy formats on it.

I have a modest setup with a X-Fi Forte and a pair of Grado SR225i cans. It was a total investment of around $300. That really isn't that bad, when you consider the longevity of a good pair of cans.


----------



## Ra97oR (May 21, 2011)

Well, there is one very clear reason that why good quality audio is not desirable for some people.

Many tend to buy products to show off, like TVs, you can say you have a 40inch wide screen LED TV, 7.1 speakers with 2000W, 120GB iPod, 6.0L V6 with 600BHP. Notice the numbers. Where good audio equipment does not show it differences in numbers, but only on actual listening. It is rather funny how it works, there are actually people buffing about their headphones impedance... "Yea, my headphones have 300Ohms your iPod earbuds is only 16Ohms". To them 300ohms sounds impressive for some strange reason, but there isn't a direct relation from numbers to sound quality therefore often overlook as it is hard to show off with it.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 21, 2011)

Ra97oR said:


> Well, there is one very clear reason that why good quality audio is not desirable for some people.
> 
> Many tend to buy products to show off, like TVs, you can say you have a 40inch wide screen LED TV, 7.1 speakers with 2000W, 120GB iPod, 6.0L V6 with 600BHP. Notice the numbers. Where good audio equipment does not show it differences in numbers, but only on actual listening. It is rather funny how it works, there are actually people buffing about their headphones impedance... "Yea, my headphones have 300Ohms your iPod earbuds is only 16Ohms". To them 300ohms sounds impressive for some strange reason, but there isn't a direct relation from numbers to sound quality therefore often overlook as it is hard to show off with it.



how did you know my headphone were 300ohms? 

i hate people who buy things to be cool or fashionable etc


----------



## claylomax (May 21, 2011)

Frederik S said:


> Any audio setup that renders cymbals well will give you the ability to hear the difference between the codecs and bit rates.
> 
> A good PC based setup like a pair of $50 headphones and a $50 sound card is enough if you listen for it.



This.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 21, 2011)

Wile E said:


> AAC (also known as mp4 audio or m4a) has nearly as much support, and is a better codec if you absolutely need to go lossy.
> 
> The reason you may not hear a huge difference with the more expensive headphones is the fact you are using lower quality tracks. Did you test with high quality lossless tracks?
> 
> ...



Yes, Loseless + dedicated sound card. Vivaldi's 4 seasons never sounded better. At times it feel like you are sitting in the midst of them playing when you close your eyes (good soundstage, I think that is the phrase?). But I realised that if I continue to enjoy high quality music, I will soon find myself not able to stand shitty quality music which is so prevalent (and easily obtainable). Like when you eat steak everyday you will not be able to swallow a McBurger anymore. Sad but true.


----------

