# The snobby .mp3 haters club!



## OOZMAN (Dec 28, 2011)

Goddamn it it's hard to listen to this crap, even at 'high quality' 320kbps.

Rant if you agree! 

/rant


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Dec 28, 2011)

my beef with mp3 (ITUNES) is when you buy an album of them one song is loud and then one is hey wtf why cant i hear it.Mp3 needs a stream standard.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 28, 2011)

Mp3 is fine for an awful lot of people due to how it's designed. (basically doesn't record the tones you normally wouldn't hear after all due to cancellation or simply because they are higher/lower than typical human hearing allows)

if 320kbs bothers you it just means you have more sensitive hearing than the majority of people.

( by the way, I get my music in flac because I'm one of those folk with better hearing than usual XD)


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 28, 2011)

I don't bother with FLAC because I don't bother getting better speakers.


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 28, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Mp3 is fine for an awful lot of people due to how it's designed. (basically doesn't record the tones you normally wouldn't hear after all due to cancellation or simply because they are higher/lower than typical human hearing allows)
> 
> if 320kbs bothers you it just means you have more sensitive hearing than the majority of people.
> 
> ( by the way, I get my music in flac because I'm one of those folk with better hearing than usual XD)



Yeah, I think so. I had to take a hearing test for my job and the nurse was 'amazed' with my hearing abilities, and I always seem to hear my girlfriend's phone when she doesn't even when it's sitting next to her in her bag (when we're driving) for example. 

You can be #2! Welcome.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 28, 2011)

My mp3 player (cowon d2) plays FLAC but the files are too big, so I stick to 320 mp3.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 28, 2011)

OOZMAN said:


> Yeah, I think so. I had to take a hearing test for my job and the nurse was 'amazed' with my hearing abilities, and I always seem to hear my girlfriend's phone when she doesn't even when it's sitting next to her in her bag (when we're driving) for example.
> 
> You can be #2! Welcome.



Well I didn't think my post would get me in, but okay  Cheers.


My main problem with over sensitive hearing is if an analogue clock ( even a wrist watch) is in the same room as me (well, a normal sized room) I can't help but hear it , it's enough to keep me awake 

Also makes sleeping by tvs/speakers etc in stand by mode difficult because of the electrical hum they still produce.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Dec 28, 2011)

I like good sounding music but unfortunately for me I have moderate industrial deafness and can not hear high tones at all.  A telephone, bell or anything high pitched just gets swallowed up before it reaches the actual important bits of my ears. 

So MP3 for me is fine.  I can though tell the difference between 320 and say 180 kbps.  A mate of mine bought one of those dre beatbox Ipod docks the other day and mp3 on that thing is simply amazing.    Maybe I should get him to try flac on it.


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 28, 2011)

tigger said:


> My mp3 player (cowon d2) plays FLAC but the files are too big, so I stick to 320 mp3.



I would've loved a Cowon, but they're only like 160GB or something, so I had to go with this lump of stinking horse manure for flacs:

http://www.archos.com/products/ta/archos_48it/index.html?country=au&lang=en

Seriously, don't get this thing, battery barely lasts a work day (8 hours) when playing music, and it'll barely last a whole movie. And it's processor is ridiculously slow, menu navigation is as painful as non anaesthetic eye surgery.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 28, 2011)

The D2 only has 4gb built in but will take a 32gb sd card, its a very very wonderful sounding player, i just cannot get rid of it, i will keep it till it works no more. The battery on the D2 lasts 52hrs on music, it does play video and has a built in DAB tuner but meh to them, though the dab does sound good when it can get a good enough signal.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 28, 2011)

I'm hoping now mp3nation are doing quite well for themselves they do an S:flo 3

Last one was an attempt at a audiophile on a strict budget type PMP (I.E better than the generall crap but not as good as proper audiophile stuff)

Had separate sound processors for left and right channels, had line out and headphone out jacks ( each with their own dedicated amp).

Only problem was back then they didn't have enough pennies for anything crazy custom, so the software was crap and it was only Wolfson audio chips. Had to rely on swapping out microsd cards as well.
Hoping they do something a bit more beefed up this time, and with Android they could build something pretty decent software wise.


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 28, 2011)

tigger said:


> The D2 only has 4gb built in but will take a 32gb sd card, its a very very wonderful sounding player, i just cannot get rid of it, i will keep it till it works no more. The battery on the D2 lasts 52hrs on music, it does play video and has a built in DAB tuner but meh to them, though the dab does sound good when it can get a good enough signal.



Yeah I was looking at a 160GB one. 52 hours is ridiculous man... kudos to ya!


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Dec 28, 2011)

get flac if you dont like mp3, like panther i only get my shit in flac if its possible


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 28, 2011)

I want to see a move to 24-bit or more, 96+ kHz, 2+ channel music as an industry standard.  I don't care what file format it is delievered in so long as it is as lossless and unrestricted as CD audio (Red Book).

Unless there is a major move towards industry support, I'm afraid FLAC isn't the answer.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 28, 2011)

I have used FLAC when I could and most of the major stuff on my HTPC is in FLAC however most downloads are in MP3 and normally not at 320Kbps. I can hear the difference, but have a major lack of wanting to buy CD's so normally I end up playing with EQ's until I can get something that sounds good enough.


----------



## qubit (Dec 28, 2011)

Yup, I 'hate' all lossy compression!  I just store all my CD rips as gigantic WAVs, don't even bother with FLAC or similar - we have the HDD capacity for this now.

I have to confess though, that I find it hard to hear the difference between 320K/b MP3 and uncompressed CD audio though, but then my ears are hardly perfect.  In an A/B test once, I could tell a very slight loss of clarity and punch on the MP3, but I wouldn't know it otherwise.


----------



## wiak (Dec 28, 2011)

i have mostly flacs out of my cds, and i use spotify for the rest, it uses vorbis at 160kbps or 320kbps (premium high quality )


----------



## repman244 (Dec 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I just store all my CD rips as gigantic WAVs, don't even bother with FLAC or similar - we have the HDD capacity for this now.



You do realize that both are exactly the same? FLAC is lossless while it's half the size of WAV.

Count me in, I only use mp3 for my portable stuff because of the lack of space, everything else is FLAC or 24/96 vinyl rip.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 28, 2011)

All you MP3/AAC-listening corporate pawns have no dibs on my Ogg-Vorbis collection.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2011)

i use MP3 because of portability, but i find the main offender for bad quality is people ripping in 128Kb, then burning to CD, then re-ripping to 320 later... or just outright upconverting them


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 28, 2011)

I just found a FLAC album to try on my Cowon, it does sound awesome, but 300MB+ omfg. Incidently it does play OGG too, it plays everything muhwahahahaha


----------



## qubit (Dec 28, 2011)

repman244 said:


> You do realize that both are exactly the same? FLAC is lossless while it's half the size of WAV.
> 
> Count me in, I only use mp3 for my portable stuff because of the lack of space, everything else is FLAC or 24/96 vinyl rip.



Yes, of course in terms of sound quality. However, one always has the hassle/potential hassle of finding a FLAC plugin to make use of them, but I'm far too lazy for that  and WAVs are universally compatible.

So you see, I'm such a purist snob, that I won't even compress them losslessly!


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 28, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I want to see a move to 24-bit or more, 96+ kHz, 2+ channel music as an industry standard.  I don't care what file format it is delievered in so long as it is as lossless and unrestricted as CD audio (Red Book).
> 
> Unless there is a major move towards industry support, I'm afraid FLAC isn't the answer.



24-bit audio has no benefits for post-produced music, only in the recording studio, same with 96+ khz. Plus what's wrong with flac? It has a few quality settings but you can switch it to pure lossless when your ripping/mastering.

No offense or anything, but you don't seem to know a whole lot about audio from what I can tell. Haha wow that sounded mean, better put a smiley face 

IMO I would love for artists to put out 'bonus' non-compressed albums (all music gets compressed in the mastering stage, to make them 'louder').


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 28, 2011)

LIES!  High hats actually sound like high hats at 96+ kHz and 24-bit vs 16-bit is like comparing 32-bit to 64-bit--every sample is more descriptive.  I know The Crystal Method does all their stuff at 32-bit.

Few software players support FLAC and even fewer have hardware support (especially portable music players).

Compression has nothing to do with "loudness." Loudness is determined through amplifying.  Almost all music you buy is based on Red Book (16-bit, 44.1 KHz) and that includes MP3s.  Almost everything higher quality than that is sourced from DVD Audio but DVD Audio never got any market acceptance because of its DRM and the fact that a better disc doesn't necessarily mean better audio.

Go buy yourself a DVD Audio disk (Blue Man Group - Audio is really good), get a good set of 5.1 speakers, and you'll hear *exactly* what I'm talking about.  Everything Red Book based is so 20th century by comparison.

MP3 has a maximum of *320 Kbps*.  DVD-Audio 24-bit, 96 KHz, 6 channels?  *13,824 Kbps* and I'm not joking.  8 minute long songs uncompressed in RIFF WAVE format are over 800 MiB in size.  A single song could not fit on a Red Book CD.


----------



## MN12BIRD (Dec 28, 2011)

Honestly I like FLAC but I really don't think it's necessary for me and the hardware I'm using to play my tunes.  It's not like I'm running some $300 dedicated DAC or something.  I can barley tell a difference if any difference at all between a good 320k rip and FLAC on my home stereo let alone my MP3 player.  My MP3 player does play FLAC but even on my Sony V6 headphones I doubt the HW in the MP3 player is good enough to do FLAC justice.  I know for a fact my MP3 player doesn't play the really low frequencies perfectly.  I bet as good as most MP3 players are they aren't nearly good enough either.  So FLAC is great but I don't think most people need it.  I find for the extra space it takes up on my MP3 player its not worth it one bit.


----------



## DonInKansas (Dec 28, 2011)

Pfft.  This is the only way to listen to music.


----------



## D4S4 (Dec 28, 2011)

here here to the ranting 

i really hate what mp3 does to hi hats, i do some music myself and when i render my track to a 128k mp3 it really pisses me of to hear that my lush hi hat lines sound like crap.

but, what i find the worst is today's overcompressed mastering made to sound good on a fucking cellphone - ppl no longer give a crap whether they're listening their tunes on a hifi stereo or some crappy 10$ pc speakers. it's sad - when i mention this to someone their reaction is wtf, dude, whatever. :shadedshu


----------



## DonInKansas (Dec 28, 2011)

D4S4 said:


> here here to the ranting
> 
> i really hate what mp3 does to hi hats, i do some music myself and when i render my track to a 128k mp3 it really pisses me of to hear that my lush hi hat lines sound like crap.
> 
> but, what i find the worst is today's overcompressed mastering made to sound good on a fucking cellphone - ppl no longer give a crap whether they're listening their tunes on a hifi stereo or some crappy 10$ pc speakers. it's sad - when i mention this to someone their reaction is wtf, dude, whatever. :shadedshu



Yes, because heaven forbid people just relax and listen to music instead of nitpicking every missing decibel/wavelength/wtfever.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Dec 28, 2011)

MP3s, mobile - smartphones, tablets, Itunes it's all consumerism that's killing quality music, movies and... games. In my young days I could touch the music, hold it in my hands - talking about vinyl, now it's nothing... 0 and 1, compressed to fit in your pocket.


----------



## erocker (Dec 28, 2011)

DonInKansas said:


> Pfft.  This is the only way to listen to music.
> 
> http://soundofthehound.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/femaleandgramophone.jpg?w=584



I agree, though I have a more modern interpetation of the ol' phonograph.


----------



## twicksisted (Dec 28, 2011)

Many people assume that just because an audio format like WAV is uncompressed it will always sound better than compressed audio but this isnt exactely true. Its all about the quality of the recording or production in the first place and the quality of the speakers its being played back through.

I worked in the music industry for many years, have produced music and worked for record labels and download stores (wont be name dropping here) I have even performed live compressed audio files for many years at events and have no personal issue with them. The louder the rigs played on the less it appeared to matter as human ears were doing natural compression on the music due to the massive decibel levels the speakers were belting out 

Sure, if you have a fantastic high-end sound system with speakers that can output a very wide dynamic range, you will probably be able to tell a good compressed audio track from an uncompressed lossless one if you listen hard enough. In most cases if the compression and quality of the original recording or source material is good, its not the huge perceivable difference that some people would lead you to believe and MP3 is a respectable music format especially due to its size.

Another major con is companys like iTunes and other music download stores charging more for WAV, FLAC and even 24bit digital files where the original source material or recordings used to create the files was some crap quality 16bit compressed format from the digital distribution service and not an actual studio master file. You can take an MP3 and render it to a 24bit lossless format if you so choose, its not going to make it sound any better as it is what it originally was to begin with


----------



## D4S4 (Dec 28, 2011)

DonInKansas said:


> Yes, because heaven forbid people just relax and listen to music instead of nitpicking every missing decibel/wavelength/wtfever.



that ain't music, it's noise i can't listen to for more than an hour. music has something called dynamic range, it doesn't have to be up to 11 all the time and you are one of the ppl i was talking about.


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 28, 2011)

You guys are weird. I don't have any hearing problems, but I can't tell the difference between CD quality and 128k mp3. I even bought good speakers and it still sounds the same to me (of course, everything sounds more rich in general, but the difference is still not there).


----------



## DonInKansas (Dec 28, 2011)

D4S4 said:


> that ain't music, it's noise i can't listen to for more than an hour. music has something called dynamic range, it doesn't have to be up to 11 all the time and you are one of the ppl i was talking about.



You don't like my laid back attitude on music, just like I don't like your laid back attitude on basic spelling and grammar.  I guess the world will keep spinning.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 28, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> Many people assume that just because an audio format like WAV is uncompressed it will always sound better than compressed audio but this isnt exactely true. Its all about the quality of the recording or production in the first place and the quality of the speakers its being played back through.
> 
> I worked in the music industry for many years, have produced music and worked for record labels and download stores (wont be name dropping here) I have even performed live compressed audio files for many years at events and have no personal issue with them. The louder the rigs played on the less it appeared to matter as human ears were doing natural compression on the music due to the massive decibel levels the speakers were belting out
> 
> ...


Compression doesn't matter so long as it is lossless.  Compression done right only effects the file size and nothing else.  Lossy encoders, on the other hand, is what I have problems with.  They describe the original sound without being the original sound.

FLAC is basically RIFF WAVE with compression.  My problem with FLAC isn't the quality of the audio but the fact a lot of major software players don't support it and most hardware players don't support it.  We need an industry takeover of high quality audio like MP3 did to disks.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 29, 2011)

Octopuss said:


> You guys are weird. I don't have any hearing problems, but I can't tell the difference between CD quality and 128k mp3. I even bought good speakers and it still sounds the same to me (of course, everything sounds more rich in general, but the difference is still not there).



I can hear the difference even if I don't know the bit rate before hand 

When my friends come round and play music on my speakers I can tell straight away if it's a 128, to put it simply it sounds flatter, can hear digital noise and the bass lacks the same punch that my lossless files have.

I tend to find classical music takes the biggest hit from a low bit rate though.

Higher the bit rate the easier it is to close your eyes and distinguish every separate instrument.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 29, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Compression doesn't matter so long as it is lossless.  Compression done right only effects the file size and nothing else.  Lossy encoders, on the other hand, is what I have problems with.  They describe the original sound without being the original sound.
> 
> FLAC is basically RIFF WAVE with compression.  My problem with FLAC isn't the quality of the audio but the fact a lot of major software players don't support it and most hardware players don't support it.  We need an industry takeover of high quality audio like MP3 did to disks.



Just buy a Cowon player, they play everything.


----------



## radrok (Dec 29, 2011)

With a higher quality audio equipment the difference between lossy compressed tracks and uncompressed tracks is night and day.
I once purchased a single track on Itunes store because I didn't want to purchase the whole physical CD and thought there was something wrong with my equipment, because the sound was lacking depth and definition so I checked and everything was fine, when I finally checked the track I saw 128 kbps AAC and got my explanation.
I NEVER purchased anything else from that shitty, if you let me use that term, site because let's face it, only passers by of music listen to such LAME (pun intended) compression.
Hell, Itunes has a setting that if it is enabled will compress ALL of your MUSIC in your library to 128 kbps AAC and this is to evaluate my thinking that the mass doesn't even pay attention to what they listen.
I'll continue to purchase CDs, not matter what, Itunes store is a dead site for me.


----------



## digibucc (Dec 29, 2011)

I tested myself today using a cd, and 320k mp3s ripped from it, and i can't tell the difference.  maybe it wasn't loud enough but from what i understand the majority of people can't tell the difference either. that doesn't seem too optimistic in terms of a standard lossless codec and more hardware to support it any time soon imo.

i'd use flac to backup my cds, and in turn stream it from my server - but for anything not at home mp3 is more than good enough. 

i do honestly wonder how many of you have done a 320kbps cbr mp3 vs flac at normal listening volume on your normal equipment, blind test? i just really think the circumstances where the differences are readily apparent are actually pretty small, and am surprised to see so many making it sound so common and second nature. from what i have read it's rare for the human ear to be able to hear those ranges anyway?


----------



## plonk420 (Dec 29, 2011)

> I tested myself today using a cd, and 320k mp3s ripped from it, and i can't tell the difference.  maybe it wasn't loud enough but from what i understand the majority of people can't tell the difference either.



THIS

however, the level of snobbishness is quite underwhelming thus far. this thread needs some vinyl/SACD/tube amp snobbery, too.

but seriously, i try to refuse buying lossy music. there's a couple tracks i have lossy, but mainly because i can't find it anywhere else (i think a Sleepthief a capella, a few other related releases that don't have a physical/lossless release, and a couple singles from Amazon that have a pretty high playcount on my last.fm).

in one respect, it's a good thing Beatport is the only store offering lossless. the moment Amazon's music store (or anyone else) starts offering lossless, i'm sure hundreds, if not thousands of dollars will be spent by me... :I


----------



## Jetster (Dec 29, 2011)

Whats this thread about?


----------



## qubit (Dec 29, 2011)

plonk420 said:


> in one respect, it's a good thing Beatport is the only store offering lossless.



I've bought many electronica/trance tracks from them and while the WAVs sound excellent, I really hate the £1 markup they add to _every single_ track. That means a 79p track ends up costing me £1.79 and there's no reduction for multiple tracks! 

I refuse to buy lossy MP3's and I'm not paying such ridiculous prices for my music, which means that my purchases are quite infrequent. Yes, due to their greed, they're making much _less_ money out of me than they would have otherwise.


----------



## radrok (Dec 29, 2011)

digibucc said:


> I tested myself today using a cd, and 320k mp3s ripped from it, and i can't tell the difference.  maybe it wasn't loud enough but from what i understand the majority of people can't tell the difference either. that doesn't seem too optimistic in terms of a standard lossless codec and more hardware to support it any time soon imo.
> 
> i'd use flac to backup my cds, and in turn stream it from my server - but for anything not at home mp3 is more than good enough.
> 
> i do honestly wonder how many of you have done a 320kbps cbr mp3 vs flac at normal listening volume on your normal equipment, blind test? i just really think the circumstances where the differences are readily apparent are actually pretty small, and am surprised to see so many making it sound so common and second nature. from what i have read it's rare for the human ear to be able to hear those ranges anyway?



May I ask you which source, amplifier and headphones/monitor have you used to listen the tracks?


----------



## majestic12 (Dec 29, 2011)

A lot of music simply hasn't been recorded well and sounds like crap regardless of how it was ripped.  I don't have golden ears but generally I feel I can tell the difference between a 128kbps rip and a lossless one.  Is MP3 quality that bad though?  It's convenient and easy; the vast majority of consumers don't care about the difference.  I cringed when I heard that my brother-in-law ripped all of his CDs in 128kbps MP3s and threw out the CD collection afterward.  While it kills me a little bit inside, he has no issues with it and likes having his collection consolidated.

I'll try out a variety of formats and bitrates when I get to re-audition a set of STAX SR-009s next week.  I suspect the differences to be barely noticeable once I hit around 320kbps, which is what the majority of my collection has been ripped in.


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 29, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *Compression has nothing to do with "loudness."* Loudness is determined through amplifying.  Almost all music you buy is based on Red Book (16-bit, 44.1 KHz) and that includes MP3s.  Almost everything higher quality than that is sourced from DVD Audio but DVD Audio never got any market acceptance because of its DRM and the fact that a better disc doesn't necessarily mean better audio.
> 
> MP3 has a maximum of *320 Kbps*.  DVD-Audio 24-bit, 96 KHz, 6 channels?  *13,824 Kbps* and I'm not joking.  8 minute long songs uncompressed in RIFF WAVE format are over 800 MiB in size.  A single song could not fit on a Red Book CD.



Hahaha.. wow... 

Do you know what compression is? Again - not trying to be offensive, serious question. 

I know how big a good quality file is too by the way, one of our 2 min songs is 500MB.



FordGT90Concept said:


> *Compression doesn't matter so long as it is lossless.  Compression done right only effects the file size and nothing else. *



What?  When I said compression I meant compression during the mastering stage of the recording... I don't think we're talking about the same type of compression. 



pantherx12 said:


> I can hear the difference even if I don't know the bit rate before hand
> 
> When my friends come round and play music on my speakers I can tell straight away if it's a 128, to put it simply it sounds flatter, can hear digital noise and the bass lacks the same punch that my lossless files have.
> 
> ...



Yes.

Yes.

Yes.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Dec 29, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> Many people assume that just because an audio format like WAV is uncompressed it will always sound better than compressed audio but this isnt exactely true. Its all about the quality of the recording or production in the first place and the quality of the speakers its being played back through.
> 
> I worked in the music industry for many years, have produced music and worked for record labels and download stores (wont be name dropping here) I have even performed live compressed audio files for many years at events and have no personal issue with them. The louder the rigs played on the less it appeared to matter as human ears were doing natural compression on the music due to the massive decibel levels the speakers were belting out
> 
> ...



I have to agree here Take me I'm a huge RUSH fan and when my album list hits Vapor Trails i have to skip it,The worst  sounding album .Not Them (They have a dubbed one in the new box set in 5.1)VT for short ....has this underline hum to hit if you listen to it with headphones or real loud.It is the feedback dub track on the album and its from Geds bass amp.Gonna try finding the new 5.1 redubed in flac.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Dec 29, 2011)

+1 to RUSH. I put on my CD player the Chronicles compilation listening through my Senn cans so no crappy MP3s...


----------



## digibucc (Dec 29, 2011)

well there is an obvious difference between 128 and 320/flac in most cases. Where i find it much less obvious is 320 cbr vs flac.


----------



## acerace (Dec 29, 2011)

Interesting thread. But sadly, my ear is not good as three years ago. Lot of electronic music with maximum volume killed my hearing a little.


----------



## twicksisted (Dec 29, 2011)

I used to be an audiophile then I took a bassline to the ear!


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 29, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> I can hear the difference even if I don't know the bit rate before hand
> 
> When my friends come round and play music on my speakers I can tell straight away if it's a 128, to put it simply it sounds flatter, can hear digital noise and the bass lacks the same punch that my lossless files have.
> 
> ...


I really would like to do a test of some sort. The trouble is I don't seem to have "music memory". Say I play a track from a CD, and then the same thing, only encoded into 128kbit mp3. Let's say I'd only listen to the first ten seconds of the track. By the time I start playing the other version I wouldn't remember how the first one sounded like. lol


----------



## Sinzia (Dec 29, 2011)

I use both, FLAC for the media server/htpc/bd-rip machine, and 320 mp3 for my portables, due to size.

Using DBpoweramp to rip a CD and have it save both at the same time saves a lot of time.


----------



## radrok (Dec 29, 2011)

160GB Portables FTW  (Cowon x7)


----------

