Hi

I don't want this to turn into a MP3 vs CD Audio argument I'm after the opinions of those who insist they can hear the difference between the two. (and I'm talking high quality encoded Mp3's not 128kbps for example)

With mp3 "technology" continuing to expand with newer encoders being developed (for example LAME which is updated almost daily) is the quality of Mp3 improving despite the fact it uses "lossy compression" techniques. LAME certainly claims quite a few quality related improvements in each new version of their encoder.

I'm interested if any of the more experienced members have or could try encoding their favourite song from CD using the latest version of LAME with a high quality bitrate e.g 192kbps+ and doing an unbiased comparison. Maybe this would make a good side competition for a CAASQ event?

Any opinions or other points of discussion?

Paul

bah cmon guys

im interested to know the opinions of others wether these claimed improvements in quality with newer encoders is acctually justified.

some of the older members who instantly spit at the suggestions of mp3 being no different to cd quality.. how long ago was it that you really tested this ? Id like to know if in your opinion the general quality of Mp3's have improved with time.

again im not trying to start Mp3 vs CD Audio argument.

It happens that I have a number of songs where I have both the actual CD and the 192k MP3 version downloaded from the net. As a matter of fact there aren't too much SQ differences between the two, however the CD version sounds "smoother". Over a long period of time on high volume my ears are slightly more comfortable with the CD version (if you know what I mean). Personally I can't find too much differences between the two but if you are really picky then you can certainly pick it up.

Oh, one more thing to add, the 192k ones sound much better than those 128k ones IMO. They are much "smoother" than the 128k ones already (just not 100% up to an actual CD version yet)

Oh, one more thing to add, the 192k ones sound much better than those 128k ones IMO. They are much "smoother" than the 128k ones already (just not 100% up to an actual CD version yet)

Although encoders are getting better, the problem is not many mp3s are getting encoded with this improved technology. I can definetly tell a difference between a 192kps mp3 and a cd. The cd is overall warmer and sounds full, while the mp3 sounds flat especially in the lower frequencies. The problem is all my music and i mean all come from mp3s, but if the music i listened to was accesible id definetly be buying the cds.

this is one of my points, when people say Mp3's suck.. their quality is bad half the time is because the mp3 has been downloaded from the net. you have no idea which encoder was used or how long ago it was done.

This is definitely true. There were all sorts of bugs and problems with the ISO standard, the decent encoders (Lame and to a lesser degree, certain fraunhofer codecs) deviate from this to improve quality. Fraunhofer themselves have highly tweaked their codecs to improve quality. (encoders such as Xing, Q design, Blade, etc are not recommended at all)

Now as Blitz said, Lame is still being developed - and there has been a lot of work done with ABX listening tests to improve quality. (resulted in the alt presets in 3.90 etc)

By "high quality" and "newer technology", I think Blitz :wink: means Mp3s encoded with Lame (3.90 or later, which came out in December 2001) with one of the presets: --alt-preset extreme (IMO recommended) or --alt-preset standard (still tuned for quality, slightly less space) or --alt-preset insane (but this is a constant 320kbit/s mp3, rather than a variable bit rate mp3).

It is common to hear the difference between some dodgily (encoded by xing or one of the other bad encoders) encoded 192 constant bitrate and the original, but it is very hard (impossible in some cases) to hear the difference between the original and a quality mp3.

But if you want to make accurate comparisons, then you will need to use software that allows you to do an ABX listening test to remove any psychological bias you may have. Also make sure you are comparing files that you have encoded and that there are no volume differences between them.

http://lame.sourceforge.net/
http://mitiok.ma.cx/
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/
http://www.replaygain.org/
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
http://www.foobar2000.org/
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/

Of course people may also want to try other formats, such as ogg, aac, mpc, or even lossless formats such as flac etc

Also, I should point out that "lossy compression" does not neccesarily result in reduced audible sound quality. This is not just an "well in theory that may be the case, but in practise it isn't true" thing. In time you will see. Sure the lossy compression methods used today may not be 100% transparent, but this does not mean it is not possible.