Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater MP3 vs Lossless Compression - the proof

Wow! This was exactly the kind of debate I was hoping for.

BrenR, you mentioned that you were surprised at how little was lost when you compared the differences in the two formats. To me that sounded like a lot, but maybe that's just because I have a hard time imagining what the song would sound like without those bits. When you play the two versions back to back, how noticable is the difference to you?

In reply to:

---

If you'd like to put your encoder where your mouth is
---------
To much coffee today?

---

Nah, it just sounds accusatory... doesn't have the same ring as "put your money where your mouth is"... that's all that was meant.

What I'm trying to do? It's purely for educational reasons... we know MP3s sound quite a bit like the original file, but what IS missing? What's the difference between them? Rather than using a bunch of flowery prose, I used some basic digital audio manipulation to actually hear the difference.

Everyone plays MP3s, but no one gives any thought to how they're compressed, and if you're not part of the team that designs the psychoacoustical model, you'll probably never understand what's rejected. Kind of cool to be able to see what's not in the compressed file.

Bren R.

In reply to:

---

b) I'd suggest you try it with LAME and the --alt-presets. It's far better than the fraunhofer stuff now(except at very low bitrates), and it's been proven to be through ABX testing time and time again.

---

Again, if anyone else has a copy of LAME and some time on their hands, I'll supply the original WAV and take back the MP3 and make a comparison. This wasn't meant as a "who's got the best MP3 encoder" thread, but if there's some interest, what the hell? Never hurts to learn... good discussion material at the next Star Trek convention, too!

In reply to:

---

Up to 192k, if I listen enough, I can ABX 16/16 times the original from the MP3.

---

Bro and I did the same testing between MP3 (his collection of downloaded material from Napster - as a practise, I don't download music, no... really - at most I have 50 MP3s - mostly deleted old punk vinyl and if Artificial Life want, I'll give them the $3 that their vinyl EP used to sell for)... back to the story, single blind A-B-C comparisons between MP3, CD-quality AIFF (raw rip of a CD) and "some Apple thing" (how I refer to anything on the Mac)... I could spot the MP3 (128-256kbps) every time, he played about 30 songs, but the "Apple thing" I couldn't distinguish from a full CD-quality AIFF. (I find out later the "Apple thing" is Apple's lossless codec. That cheater. )

But as I've mentioned before, I'm highly sensitive to digital artifacts, both in audio and video. Watching a BetaSX tape, especially speed-adjusted (slo-mo) drives me apesh*t.

Bren R.

Yeah, I've noticed "artifacts" in mp3's that I've listened to, but was never sure if it was just a problem with the encoding or a fundamental weakness of the standard itself. Of course, I've never listened to any that were encoded at better than 256kbs though, and most of them were 128 or so. Also, I've only listened to them in the car, on the computer, or through headphones. Never on a nice system, since I don't even have one... yet.

In reply to:

---

BrenR, you mentioned that you were surprised at how little was lost when you compared the differences in the two formats. To me that sounded like a lot, but maybe that's just because I have a hard time imagining what the song would sound like without those bits.

---

It may sound like a lot, but it's really only some harmonics and sibilance on the vocal track, the shaker and the drums, the instruments are nearly spot-on identical.

If I get some time I'll post an MP3 of that part of the original track for comparison.

As for side by side listening, they're close, but I can tell which is which, same as any MP3. Is the WAV 7x better like the file size would lead you to believe? Of course not.

Bren R.

In reply to:

---

Nah, it just sounds accusatory... doesn't have the same ring as "put your money where your mouth is"... that's all that was meant.

---

Sorry. I tend to get my guard up a little to fast around here these days!


All I know is this, if someone can show me a better way, I'm all for it! I would hate to go down the road of ripping everything again but if I have to, I'm in. Problem is I have gone down this road to many times in the past and nothing every beats what I do now in terms of quality, file size etc etc............at least to my ear. Is the MP3 format outdated?, dam straight it is but what do I turn to that will play on my computer, my Denon 2815 and the MP3 stacker I have in my van? lol That is one of my problems! I bought into this format long ago but nothing has come along yet that makes me want to switch.

If someone wants to say that a MP3 is technically flawed, you will get no argument out of me as I agree it's not perfect, but when it's done right, it isn't bad. MP3's at 160 and lower are not worth the time of day if you ask me. 192 is darn good and 256 has a little bit more going on then 192 but not by much. As I stated before, 320 is overkill and I know it but to me it's the truest reproduction I can get as far as a MP3 goes.

In reply to:

---

I've never listened to any that were encoded at better than 256kbs though, and most of them were 128 or so.

---

Say this with me 3 times.................128 is not CD quality! lol :-) Some putz made that statement years ago and it stuck. Most 128 and 160 MP3's that I have heard all seem to lack something.

I remember I ripped a track called Return Of the Mack by Mark Morrison. Not my type of music but the wife likes it and well It's a decent funky tune with lots of bass etc. Anyway, I ripped it at 128kbs and it sounded like crap. My sub was sitting there looking at me all confused! Had no real midrange, no nothing. I then ripped it at 160 and it was better but flat...............my sub was still feeling left out. Again at 192kbs and it came to life. Sub was feeling it but still not happy. Now this is the part I still don't get but is one of the main reasons I bought into 320kbs. I re-ripped it at 320kbs and my sub came alive! I did a check with my sound meter and everything and at 320kbs and at the same volume I was getting much better bass from my sub and my mains. Now this example is song specific and must have something to do with the original recording but I figure better safe then no bass!........................so everything gets done at 320kbs.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh crap. Now I have that dam song in my head............................

Streem thread dejavuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu....................................

Return Of The Mack
Mark Morrison
Album: Return Of The Mack

Oh, oo-o-oh, come on, ooh, yeah
Well I tried to tell you so (yes, I did)
But I guess you didn't know, as I said the story goes
Baby, now I got the flow
'Cos I knew it from the start
Baby, when you broke my heart
That I had to come again, and show you that I'm real

(You lied to me) all those times I said that I love you
(You lied to me) yes, I tried, yes, I tried
(You lied to me) even though you know I'd die for you
(You lied to me) yes, I cried, yes, I cried

1-(Return of the Mack) it is
(Return of the Mack) come on
(Return of the Mack) oh my God
(You know that I'll be back) here I am
(Return of the Mack) once again
(Return of the Mack) pump up the world
(Return of the Mack) watch my flow
(You know that I'll be back) here I go

So I'm back up in the game
Running things to keep my swing
Letting all the people know
That I'm back to run the show
'Cos what you did, you know, was wrong
And all the nasty things you've done
So, baby, listen carefully
While I sing my come-back song

2-(You lied to me) 'cos she said she'd never turn on me
(You lied to me) but you did, but you do
(You lied to me) all these pains you said I'd never feel
(You lied to me) but I do, but I do, do, do

(Return of the Mack) here it is
(Return of the Mack) hold on
(Return of the Mack) don't you know
(You know that I'll be back) here I go
(Return of the Mack) oh little girl
(Return of the Mack) wants my pearl
(Return of the Mack) up and down
(You know that I'll be back) round and round
(rpt 2, 1)

(You know that I'll be back) don't you know

(Return of the Mack) here it is
(Return of the Mack) hold on
(Return of the Mack) be strong
(You know that I'll be back) here I go
(Return of the Mack) my little girl
(Return of the Mack) wants my pearl
(Return of the Mack) up and down
(You know that I'll be back) round and round

In reply to:

---

Sorry. I tend to get my guard up a little to fast around here these days!
(snip)
If someone wants to say that a MP3 is technically flawed, you will get no argument out of me as I agree it's not perfect, but when it's done right, it isn't bad.

---

The funny part is, we're arguing the same point from different angles...

"No, you idiot, let's attack the lizardmen with daggers!"
'No, you fool... I say we slay them with arrows'
*fight erupts, Lizardmen fall over their treasure laughing*

Again, I was surprised at how little is lost in the translation. MP3 is outdated (look how fast it came out on the tail of MP2s) and now that it's almost a trade name and has an installed base of, like, 8 billion players, there have been no major changes to it.

Bren R.

The "Apple thing" is called aac. I've found it to sound much much better than an mp3 (both at 192kbps).