Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo MP3's vs. CD's

I've heard that the compressed mp3 is actually missing a lot of information that the original recording has.
How many of you have no problem listening to mp3's through you system?

This is a topic that comes up periodically. Last time Alan stated that in the tests he participated in, people were not able to tell the difference between cd/lp and high bitrate mp3.

I don't listen to compressed music on my Axioms, kinda defeats the purpose of having nice speakers. I leave MP3's for my cell/mp3 phone.

I've not had any issues with mp3's. They all sound just fine to me but perhaps I am not all that critical a listener. I have noticed that poorly recorded CD's sound so on my 80's, but I also could hear that on my M3's as well.

It really depends on how the mp3 was created. The higher the bit rate, the less information is missing from the track, the higher the perceived quality.

I remember reading a good idea - probably here - that involved making a CD with a single song, but with multiple mp3 bit rates, then playing the CD randomly in a "blind test" fashion, to see if you can tell what bit rate you're listening to without looking at the track number.

I only use mp3 for my (now old) portable player which I only use on planes - a decidedly less than perfect environment. Everything else is store is flac (fully lossless compression). Drive space is so cheap.

Why would you ever want to listen to lower quality recordings with such good speakers?

Try out a 128 bit mp3 for a song with a lot of high frequencies, cymbals and the like, then try a 256 or 320 bit file. I personally find that the dramatic increases in sound quality stop at about 192 bit, and it's pretty incremental after that.

What is "fully lossless compression"?

"Why would you ever want to listen to lower quality recordings with such good speakers?"

That's why I asked the question.

"FLAC reduces bandwidth and storage requirements without sacrificing the integrity of the audio source."

And the application of that is using a hardrive or can that also be used to burn cd's? What is the original source when using FLAC?

lossless means there is no compression, hence the term lossless.

That's incorrect, Randy. Lossless compression is still compression. The lossless means that no information is discarded by the compression algorithm. In other words, when the file is decompressed (which is done in real time during playback), the audio exactly matches the original.

I play flac files over my network, so yes, they're stored on a hard drive.

Of course, if you want the mp3 format, software such as JetAudio can create an mp3 file from a flac file. I do this to load my player.

OK they're stored on a hardrive but how do they get there?

From a computer.

Just like you can rip CDs to make mp3s, you can choose to create .flac files instead of .mp3.

Have a look here, here, and here.

There are plenty of player programs available. I like this one; it suits my needs. YMMV.

Read:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?

http://flac.sourceforge.net/

http://www.winamp.com/

You're welcome.

I don't want to! Here I am listening to a LP (ya know a record) and you fellows are doing this fancy new stuff

Sure, Bob; that's how "lossy" audio compression formats such as MP3 work. A large part of the digital data is removed in a way that in the best examples causes little or no audible loss of sound quality. For example, the CD format uses 44.1KHz sampling frequency X 16 bits X 2 channels = 1411.2 K bits/s. Even the highest MP3 rate of 320 Kbps therefore uses only a little over 20% of the total data. Nevertheless, the remarkable fact is that properly controlled blind listening tests have shown that this data compression can be inaudible, with the amount of compression that can be allowed varying with the specific music passages involved. As Alan pointed out, 320 Kbps has been shown to be audibly transparent. MP3s therefore aren't necessarily inferior in actually discernible sound quality.

I have all of my music stored in FLAC format on a 500 GB external drive... works great over the network.

For those storing their music in FLAC, what level of compression do you use? Does it Matter? I had no idea there was any choice until I started playing with Media Monkey.

This FLAC is new to me. Can you download these songs from a site on the internet such as I-Tunes, etc or do they have to be loaded onto the drive from CD's?

And I suppose that you need a special hookup to play a hard drive that my 2309 doesn't have.

Hi Bob, if you computer has a sound card all you need to do is plug in 1/8th stereo to RCA adapter, and plug it into one of the inputs of your AVR. If your computer isn't close to your AVR and you don't want wires all over your living room, but you have a wireless router in your house, look at getting a Squeezebox.

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html

Paul

Flac files are created from material on the original disc. It is a way of making your physical music collection avialable on computer.

Thanks for both of those answers. I figured it was from an original disk.

I think one last question. Playing these from the computer would be easier with a 2809 or a 3809 without spending $299 on a sqeezebox?

You've got me on that one. I have yet to see a good explanation of what the value of various different devices are in playing music. It may have to do with streaming music to various zones or sytems in your house.

You can still turn MP3, WMA, AAC, etc, into FLAC files as well, you just don't get the benefit of a compressed original and there is also no space saving benefit as the FLAC would be pretty much the same size as the MP3 file. To do this you would need to run the files through a converter program.

I have never tried a squeeze box, but for me the 3808 was very easy to get it to start streaming once connected to my network.

Another question.

My Cable provider has several Music channels. I listened briefly to all of them. The sound quality vried considerably from one channel to another. Made me wonder what Sirius or AM Radio would sould like. I've also heard commercials for HD Radio and have no idea what that is. And we also have streaming radio from the computer.

Are any of these thought to be any good for audio quality and how do any of them compare with each other?

Bob, HD radio is Hybrid Digital(not High Definition, as some misinterpret it). The benefit of the digital FM over the analog is that you either get it clear(no hiss, etc.)or you don't get it at all. If the signal would be too weak for digital reception the analog signal(probably somewhat noisy)might be available.

I use the default -5 compression. From what I’ve read higher compression rates take longer to encode and yield diminishing returns in terms of smaller compressed files size. Besides taking longer higher compression rates are suppose to be more labour intensive to decode and can cause playback issues on some portable players.

Fred, have you purchased the full version of Media Monkey? I’m using the free version right now but haven’t decided if I want to commit to the “Monkey” or not. I’ve already committed to storing all my CD rips as FLAC but still not sure what management software I’m going to use.

I am playing with the free version as well. Mine came up with a default compression level of 6.

The only features I have noticed in the pro version that I may use on the pro version are conversion on the fly and volume leveling.

I use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) to rip my CDs which probably explains the difference in default compression.

I was thinking I might want to use the “Multiple collections” and “AutoPlaylists” features of the full version seeing as AudialsOne has simply overwhelmed me with tracks (15,000 and counting) even though I’ve dialed it back quite a bit.

So I read some of the info on FLAC and find it interesting. So I need to find a step by step process on how to go about doing this. I'm still fairly computer iliterate. I don't burn cd's. I don't download music. I don't load an mp3 player.

It seems a good idea to get an external hard drive and have only music on there so I'll look into getting one.

Ripping to flac is simple.

1. Search for the Media Monkey site
2. Download and install free version
3. Put CD in the drive
4. Start Media Monkey and select rip from the tools menu
5. Choose Flac as the format and click OK.

Done.

Here is the “source” for flac.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tasks.html

What method(s) you choose to use to create flac files depends on your source. What you choose to use to listen to them depends on what features you want and ease of installation.

I use Exact Audio Copy to rip flac files from CD to have them backed-up and to play from the computer. There are easier programs to setup and use but I think this is the most accurate especially when trying to rip damaged disks.

For playback I use Media Monkey because of all it’s organizing features though many people prefer WinAmp for it’s simplicity.

It would be easier if your computer was close to your receiver, but the analog output from a computer sound card isn't normally hifi quality. A Squeezebox or similar device receives the digital sound file from your computer and does a better job of converting it to analog with it's own DAC.

Shane

As shane points out, things work best if the computer is close enough for a digital connection to the receiver. If it is not, then you do need to look at other options.

This is where things become unclear for me. There are now receivers with network connections on them. What does a squeeze box deliver that a networked receiver dosn't?

In my case, my HTPC sits right next to the receiver, so I do not have to worry about how to connect the two.

Oh so now I NEED a HTPC. Does it ever end?????????

Nope, but it keeps getting cheaper. I spent around $600 and it was that high because I did a custom build with a very quiet power supply. The motherboard has HDMI out and digital audio out (optical and coax) so I didn't need to spend extra on external sound and video cards.

The only thing missing is HDMI 1.3 support. I would imagine that there will be mother boards with this built in out soon.

Oh in that case I'll wait.

Thats probalby a good idea. Its taken Nvidea and AMD/ATI a long time to solve the protected path thing for audio and video. The first stand alone cards were released just before Christmas.

Just to chime in on the original question. I definitely am aware of the differences between a low bitrate MP3 verses an original CD or FLAC file on my MP3s. A lot of people who only or mostly use ipods and such seem to rip MP3s at 128KBS or so to save space and there is definitely a unique sound verses the original when played on quality speakers or head phones.

I re-ripped all my CDs to FLAC when I bought M60s and also re-ripped anything lower to 256KBs MP3s for my MP3 player. I'm honestly not sure if I can tell the difference at 256kbs. Sometimes I thought I could, but it was questionable and it wasn't blind A/B testing so it may have just been my mind. In any case, I'm sticking with flack for my speaker applications for the peace of mind.

I can't tell the difference between a 320 kb/sec mp3 and a FLAC. Perhaps with really high end gear you can. I suspect any differences would be to do with dynamics and soundstage.

I still rip my CDs to FLAC though, and my vinyl, because I don't like the idea of losing anything from the original, and I have the diskspace.

For Nero users there is a free plugin on the web that lets you burn FLAC files back to audio CD format.

A nice tool for people who like to use FLAC files.

Yes, I use it to burn compilation CDs for the car.

So how large is your FLAC collection?

I'm now up to about 13k music files on my PC. of those about 3.5k are now FLAC but I'm in the process of going through everything and re ripping, downloading to FLAC format.drive space is becoming an issue, who would have thunk 2 terabytes wouldn't be enough space for video & audio files!! If you're looking for a player, i recommend Foobar. I've found its given me the best sound when outputting to my PC speakers or to my M60's/QS4's. I'm constantly impressed how well my Receiver can "surroundize" some of the songs.

Well, this is my first post as a new owner of a pair of M80s, so hello.

Anyways, I'm running a Squeezebox duet hooked up to my 3808ci (had the SB prior). All my music is stored on a Linux box in the bedroom, encoded in FLAC (compression level 8). I encoded to lossless when I lost all my MP3s ripped via Exact Audio Copy.

Another good reason to go lossless is that if a new format comes out, you can transcode to the new format without any degradation in quality. Converting a format that's compressed to another compressed format will result in degraded quality. The alternative would be popping in all your CDs again to rip to the new format. . .done that, been there. Not a fun experience.

If you haven't checked it out yet, look at dBpoweramp. It will let you rip to FLAC, tag your music from four different sources (including Album art), and comes with a utility to transcode all your music to other formats. It's not free but was worth the fifty bucks for me personally.

Whatever ripper you choose, makes sure it does "secure" rips. Do it once the right way. Unless you periodically enjoy ripping your library for weeks on end.

Long run I would love to have all lossless on a hard disk or via stream once that day comes just not to have to wonder, however, Rhapsody connection via 3808 was definitely listenable, whereas running a decent iRiver or Samsung (or Sandisk) portable player into the HT system with Rhapsody content was interesting but honestly was no cigar, and running the Sandisk into the car audio with decent speakers was no contest in comparison to HD Radio, which mostly seems to beat analog audio by a fair margin.

If you encode at a reasonable bitrate with a proper encoder(this is key), you'll never notice.

I would, however, use a better codec. MP3 is over 20 years old. Use Vorbis, or Musepack; anything performs better than MP3. A lot of modern players are starting to support these codecs. My Rio Karma supported Vorbis and FLAC since 2004. They do much better on blind listening tests than MP3 at lower bitrates, and at typical bitrates do much better on test clips that MP3 fails miserably on.

It wasn't until I modified a PCM1716 based D/A converter with a good output stage & linear power supply that I could really tell a difference between certain MP3s and the original file. Even after I did this, a good LAME --preset standard MP3 vs. the original WAV was something I could not determine with better than 12/16 in a blind test, and neither could a lot of the people listening. This is on a good system in a decently treated room, so I wouldn't go nuts about it.

With the D/A in this yamaha receiver I had before, none of that mattered. It was like a veil. This current D/A had a 4558 IC for the output stage, which is like a distortion pedal(probably why it's so often used in distortion pedals!), and masked lots of artifacts present in 128k material. The new DAC with new output stage, new film coupling caps from PCM1716 to output IC, bypass caps on output stage, and new PSU cost $115! When I saw a PCM1716 based DAC going for $79.99, I knew it'd be worth the time to open it up. It beats a lot of the audiophile esoterica nonsense I've seen going for $1500-$5k & up in standalone CD players that use 5 year old D/A chips and output stages with 5532s from 1976.