Clint09 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I am not very knowledgeable on this sort of thing, but I was wondering how the 320 kbps mp3s of W(TA) fare in the world of sound quality.... is the actual cd better or worse in quality? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I am not very knowledgeable on this sort of thing, but I was wondering how the 320 kbps mp3s of W(TA) fare in the world of sound quality.... is the actual cd better or worse in quality?The CD will always be better, but the difference between it and properly ripped 320 kbps MP3s is indistinguishable to most humans. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clint09 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 The CD will always be better, but the difference between it and properly ripped 320 kbps MP3s is indistinguishable to most humans. Nonesuch described the mp3s as "audiophile quality" What does that mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Check out the links below - they may help answer your questions. Audio Files � types of What are CDA Files?What are FLAC files?What are Mp3 files?What are SHN files?What are WAV files? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nonesuch described the mp3s as "audiophile quality" What does that mean?It means they're as good as you're going to get from MP3s. I don't know if it's even possible to rip MP3s at a higher bitrate. Maybe it is, but the ripping software I'm familiar with tops out at 320 in their bitrate settings. MP3s are a compressed format, but at high bitrates like 320, it becomes virtually impossible for human ears to detect the compression that many people can discern at lower bitrates. Check out the links below - they may help answer your questions. Audio Files � types of What are CDA Files?What are FLAC files?What are Mp3 files?What are SHN files?What are WAV files?Also:What are OGG files? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clint09 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 It means they're as good as you're going to get from MP3s. I don't know if it's even possible to rip MP3s at a higher bitrate. Maybe it is, but the ripping software I'm familiar with tops out at 320 in their bitrate settings. MP3s are a compressed format, but at high bitrates like 320, it becomes virtually impossible for human ears to detect the compression that many people can discern at lower bitrates. Also:What are OGG Vorbis files? those sound pretty crisp though! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Maybe I should put that on the list. I have read about those files, but I don't think I have ever actually seen or heard them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Basically the rule of thumb for me is; if it's anything below 192 bitrate, then I will start hearing some loss in quality. Above that, there's VERY little difference. Yes, there is a slight difference in audible quality between 192 and 320, but it's really not noticeable unless you are listening with the best headphones ever known to man. But when you get down to 128 and below, there's definitely a noticeable difference.. Cymbal hits have sort of a "digital glitch" sound to them, and other louder sounds like distorted guitar start to blend together.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Maybe I should put that on the list. I have read about those files, but I don't think I have ever actually seen or heard them.Virtually all of my digital files are OGGs. If I had it to do over again, I might stick with MP3, but only because the oft-promised ubiquity of OGG never quite materialized. I naïvely assumed that OGG would quickly be supported by all of the major portable player manufacturers, but that didn't happen. You can get players that play OGG, but Apple has never added OGG support for the iPod (though you can replace the native firmware with third-party stuff and get them to work). That has kept me out of the iPod game all these years, and that's kinda too bad. Nonetheless, I love my OGGs. I'm not much of a user of portable players anyway -- most of my listening is done at work using Winamp, which supports OGG. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clint09 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Virtually all of my digital files are OGGs. If I had it to do over again, I might stick with MP3, but only because the oft-promised ubiquity of OGG never quite materialized. I naïvely assumed that OGG would quickly be supported by all of the major portable player manufacturers, but that didn't happen. You can get players that play OGG, but Apple has never added OGG support for the iPod (though you can replace the native firmware with third-party stuff and get them to work). That has kept me out of the iPod game all these years, and that's kinda too bad. Nonetheless, I love my OGGs. I'm not much of a user of portable players anyway -- most of my listening is done at work using Winamp, which supports OGG. What is it about Cds that make them better? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Virtually all of my digital files are OGGs. If I had it to do over again, I might stick with MP3, but only because the oft-promised ubiquity of OGG never quite materialized. I naïvely assumed that OGG would quickly be supported by all of the major portable player manufacturers, but that didn't happen. You can get players that play OGG, but Apple has never added OGG support for the iPod (though you can replace the native firmware with third-party stuff and get them to work). That has kept me out of the iPod game all these years, and that's kinda too bad. Nonetheless, I love my OGGs. I'm not much of a user of portable players anyway -- most of my listening is done at work using Winamp, which supports OGG. I recently got pissed off at WinAmp - so I am only using it to listen to FLAC files now. I am back to using Windows Media Player for everything else. What is it about Cds that make them better? Check out some of the links that were posted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 What is it about Cds that make them better?CDs are the source used to create compressed files (e.g., MP3s). MP3s are compressed versions of CD tracks, and are therefore, by their very nature, inferior copies of CD files, even at super-high bitrates. Simply put, CD tracks contain more information than compressed files. Though the aural differences between CD tracks and high-bitrate MP3s may be minimal to the point of indistinguishable, there is a lot more audio information on a CD than in a set of MP3s ripped from that CD. DVD-Audio and SACD are higher-capacity storage formats that offer even more audio information, and therefore can provide even higher quality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jlb1705 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 CDs are the source used to create compressed files (e.g., MP3s). MP3s are compressed versions of CD tracks, and are therefore, by their very nature, inferior copies of CD files, even at super-high bitrates. Simply put, CD tracks contain more information than compressed files. Though the aural differences between CD tracks and high-bitrate MP3s may be minimal to the point of indistinguishable, there is a lot more audio information on a CD than in a set of MP3s ripped from that CD. DVD-Audio and SACD are higher-capacity storage formats that offer even more audio information, and therefore can provide even higher quality. I've been in a similar (off-topic) discussion in another thread, but I'd like to add that I perceive very little difference between 320kbps VBR mp3s and FLAC or the source disc. I prefer to buy the disc because I like having a physical copy. I really don't play them though. I rip them to FLAC and make multiple backups for archival purposes, and then I convert the FLACs to high-quality mp3s for my iPod/laptop. Those are the files that I generally listen to. It's a lot of work to go through to get some mp3s on my player, but at least I know for sure that my lossy files are as close to source as possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 MP3s are a compressed format, but at high bitrates like 320, it becomes virtually impossible for human ears to detect the compression that many people can discern at lower bitrates.Yeah I was enjoying the mp3s the other day but my dog just groaned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
howdjadoo Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Check out an ABX test(Foobar) http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.