mp3 sucks

[jalcide]

You're right, I'm stating unscientific and 100% subjective opinion.

I also admit my most recent observations are lossless vs poorly and/or double transcoded audio.

That said, the kind of music I listen to is tantamount to a bombardment of carefully crafted, but somewhat monotonous transients; a transient torture test. Almost like a 7 minute test loop.

Small, but consistent changes to audio (like in a process like transcoding) may be getting pronounced when the source is at a high RMS, transient rich and has long passages of similar sound.

The audio doesn't null, after all. That "not nulling" in a relatively unchanging and relentless way, is probably more detectable (than with a rock ballad, pop, hip-hop, jazz and classical).

I suspect the MP3 spec was not tested with this kind of "extreme transients and relatively monotonous passages" music in mind.

I feel it's in the transients that I notice it. And when I did notice it was when I wasn't actively thinking about it and therefore mostly immune from placebo effects.

(I always ripped at 320 and "best." Most variable, but a few non-variable.)

As a producer of some of these genres myself, I can say there are plugins used during the mix process (e.g., console emulation) that are unquestionably audible and that, if nulled, would probably produce a deeper null than an mp3 against its lossless source.

Not sure, but it'd be an interesting test. I suspect they'd, at the very least, be comparable in level.

[mementus]

How does CODEC TOOLBOX by Sonnox work?

It's that it encodes the file in real time so that you can mix listening to the mp3?

[mementus]

[chk071]

I know it sucks because of how it compresses the data, but I never realized how much until I just put a quick demo of a track of mine into mp3 format over .wav so I wouldn't take 20 minutes to upload it on my terrible internet.

I'd rather just wait 20 minutes if it means people hear the track how it's meant to sound lol

I mean I guess you can't really make it out on most headsets on the go, but really? Do people just not care or don't notice?

TBH, i never noticed. I even listened to it A/B on some good speakers once, and couldn't notice a difference. Have you tried a blind test?

Honestly, everything, say, from 192 kb/s variable bit rate, or 320 kb/s constant bit rate, i have a hard time believing that people would sense a difference. After all, these codecs were developed to take away as little as possible from the audible content, and the people developing are no fools either. I know that some believe that humans can hear ultrasonic and all that... but, let's stick to the facts for now. Why would MP3 have become such a industry standard, if it would be obviously noticable, that there is a reduction in quality? TBH, i already have to laugh when people argue that you can't judge the sound of an analog synth on Youtube, because of the reduction in audio quality. I mean... seriously... that's a pretty weak excuse. If you can't judge a synth character from that, then you won't be able to judge it, if you stood in front of it, and played it through an amplifier.

[chaosWyrM]

this again?

look...the bottom line is that mp3 at 192 and above is perfectly fine for nearly all applications. listening environment and equipment will deteriorate the sound quality long before the compression does.

anyone who says they can tell the difference between a 192 mp3 and a wav on their pos beats on the subway is a bald faced liar.

similarly....anyone who says they can hear the difference listening at ultra high decibels on the house system dancing in a crowded club is also a liar.

unless youre using super high quality cans on fairly high end equipment in a very quiet environment....you have no chance at all at hearing a difference between high bit rate mp3s and lossless files.

mp3 sucks???? mp3 is f'ing awesome.

look at these file size comparisons:


Uncompressed raw CD format 51 mb
Lossless FLAC compression 36 mb
LAME encoded MP3 (320kbps) 11.6 mb
LAME encoded MP3 (192kbps avg.) 7.1 mb

you cant argue with the size efficiency to sound quality ratio. the audio quality between the 7.1mb 192kpbs file and the 51mb uncompressed file is nearly identical. the 51mb file size over the 7.1mb or even the 11.6mb file size is a laughable waste of space for almost zero gain in quality.

you may hear the slightest difference between 192 and 320 (but probably not)...but just about all the difference between the mp3s and the other formats is inaudible anyway. you may be able to see it on a scope...but you sure as shit wont hear it. and thats BEFORE factoring in equipment and listening environment degradation.

[elxsound]

this again?

If it seems familiar, its because its a necro thread.

Anyway, yes MP3 sucks. Yes I can hear a difference in the right setting, but context is everything. There are times I want to hear every nuance of a recording that does get lost in lossy formats.

I don't spend all day in train (I only commute in Manhattan, which has noisy trains so it could be compressed to 96 and I wouldn't hear a difference), I don't buy overpriced shitty Beats headphones (instead I bought overpriced shitty Bower & Wilkens headphones). I don't listen to music at ultra high decibels as much as I can help it.

Context is everything.


@mementus

you might be better off starting a separate thread...

I don't own Codec Toolbox, but I would imagine its similar to the Codec option on Ozone 7. The idea is to give you a preview of the lossy format to check the mix and prepare/master against rounding errors. The cool thing about it (Ozone 7) is that you can actually listen to what is being stripped out (so again it helps you prepare your mixes if needed).

[chaosWyrM]

this again?

If it seems familiar, its because its a necro thread.

Anyway, yes MP3 sucks. Yes I can hear a difference in the right setting, but context is everything. There are times I want to hear every nuance of a recording that does get lost in lossy formats.

"in the right setting" is the key there. "the right setting" to hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a lossless format is a setting specifically designed to allow you to hear the difference....end even then...you still probably cant tell.

i dont for a second believe you, or in fact anyone, can hear the difference under normal listening conditions.

and those "nuances" that get lost in lossy formats...are inaudible anyway. unless youre a dog or something...you literally cant hear the difference.

[elxsound]

this again?

If it seems familiar, its because its a necro thread.

Anyway, yes MP3 sucks. Yes I can hear a difference in the right setting, but context is everything. There are times I want to hear every nuance of a recording that does get lost in lossy formats.

"in the right setting" is the key there. "the right setting" to hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a lossless format is a setting specifically designed to allow you to hear the difference....end even then...you still probably cant tell.

i dont for a second believe you, or in fact anyone, can hear the difference under normal listening conditions.

and those "nuances" that get lost in lossy formats...are inaudible anyway. unless youre a dog or something...you literally cant hear the difference.

Bla bla bla.

I get it. You can't tell the difference so you think no one can.

Not much to argue then.

[chaosWyrM]

this again?

If it seems familiar, its because its a necro thread.

Anyway, yes MP3 sucks. Yes I can hear a difference in the right setting, but context is everything. There are times I want to hear every nuance of a recording that does get lost in lossy formats.

"in the right setting" is the key there. "the right setting" to hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a lossless format is a setting specifically designed to allow you to hear the difference....end even then...you still probably cant tell.

i dont for a second believe you, or in fact anyone, can hear the difference under normal listening conditions.

and those "nuances" that get lost in lossy formats...are inaudible anyway. unless youre a dog or something...you literally cant hear the difference.

Bla bla bla.

I get it. You can't tell the difference so you think no one can.

Not much to argue then.

bla bla bla.

i get it. you think youre the one guy on earth with "golden ears" (like every one else who claims they can hear the difference)...even though science says theres no such thing, even though blind test after blind test after blind test has shown that no one can tell the difference....even though its plain to see on a graph that the differences occur in ranges that human beings cant hear.

not much to argue then.

[chk071]

this again?

If it seems familiar, its because its a necro thread.

Anyway, yes MP3 sucks. Yes I can hear a difference in the right setting, but context is everything. There are times I want to hear every nuance of a recording that does get lost in lossy formats.

"in the right setting" is the key there. "the right setting" to hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a lossless format is a setting specifically designed to allow you to hear the difference....end even then...you still probably cant tell.

i dont for a second believe you, or in fact anyone, can hear the difference under normal listening conditions.

and those "nuances" that get lost in lossy formats...are inaudible anyway. unless youre a dog or something...you literally cant hear the difference.

Bla bla bla.

I get it. You can't tell the difference so you think no one can.

Not much to argue then.

Thing is, without doing a real blind test, either of our statements isn't really worth much. And, i'm sure that 99 % would fail in a blind test. Of course, that is an assumption now too, maybe i should actually prepare something.

[mementus]

I can hear the difference btw mp3 and wav. (with in-ear only)
I can also hear that, in my op, SC sounds really bad and it is so strange that the most spread music platform sounds so bad.
Finally I make a reson.

@elxsound Appreciated.

[risome]

I know it sucks because of how it compresses the data, but I never realized how much until I just put a quick demo of a track of mine into mp3 format over .wav so I wouldn't take 20 minutes to upload it on my terrible internet.

I'd rather just wait 20 minutes if it means people hear the track how it's meant to sound lol

I mean I guess you can't really make it out on most headsets on the go, but really? Do people just not care or don't notice?

How ironic because thats exactly what it was invented for(the fast transfer of large files when speeds were slow) .Then kids got the internet and the rest is history

[cron]

this again?

If it seems familiar, its because its a necro thread.

Anyway, yes MP3 sucks. Yes I can hear a difference in the right setting, but context is everything. There are times I want to hear every nuance of a recording that does get lost in lossy formats.

"in the right setting" is the key there. "the right setting" to hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a lossless format is a setting specifically designed to allow you to hear the difference....end even then...you still probably cant tell.

i dont for a second believe you, or in fact anyone, can hear the difference under normal listening conditions.

and those "nuances" that get lost in lossy formats...are inaudible anyway. unless youre a dog or something...you literally cant hear the difference.

Bla bla bla.

I get it. You can't tell the difference so you think no one can.

Not much to argue then.

Not strictly nobody. AFAIK there's a small handful of 5 or 6 golden eared people (including one absolutely remarkable individual) who reliably pass a double blind. This group (but mostly the one aforementioned person) has been just about solely responsible for the further tuning of LAME's psychoacoustic component for years.

You too can pass a double blind test. Foobar + ABX comparator component. Take a WAV from your personal selection and encode it as 320Kbps MP3 or one of the higher 'V' presets with a LAME encoder. Get ABXing. Simple and free if you're a Windows user. But you won't. Because you can't/don't want to know that you can't.

I called for ABX results to be mandatory when discussing the failings of a codec early on this thread (not to mention many similar threads in many places). Come there none, every time.

you may hear the slightest difference between 192 and 320 (but probably not)

IMO the sensible goal to aim for with MP3 encoding is complete perceptual transparency to the original. If you hear an artifact, you've encoded it incorrectly and need to change the bitrate and/or encoder settings. Obviously "correctly" is a rather slippy term because it varies from one person to the next. But still, good/better/best isn't something we should be talking about with MP3 IMO.

SC was mentioned earlier, and yeah it's encoding is a heap of shit. 128kbps MP3. Even Youtube beats it with 128k AAC, and it previously slaughtered it with 192k AAC (not a million miles away from what iTunes sells) before Google nerfed the HD sound settings and standardised to 128k across all video sizes.

[fmr]

bla bla bla.

i get it. you think youre the one guy on earth with "golden ears" (like every one else who claims they can hear the difference)...even though science says theres no such thing, even though blind test after blind test after blind test has shown that no one can tell the difference....even though its plain to see on a graph that the differences occur in ranges that human beings cant hear.

not much to argue then.

I ripped many of my CDs to create my iTunes library. I used the iTunes MP3 encoder (which is from Fraunhoffer). I have been told that the Lame encoder produces better results, but nevertheless. I always create 320 MP3, but for the Mahler Symphonies, and similar works, which are very complex music, I used the lossless. Inadvertently, I ripped one of the CDs at 320. When I was listening, I noticed something wasn't right. I couldn't explain that, because (I thought) they were ripped with the lossless encoder. I checked, and it wasn't.

So, yeah, with proper speakers, and in good listening environment, MP3 compression CAN BE noticeable, depending on the type of music, and how well you know the original recording. But for the vast majority, yeah, I can agree that MP3 is more than enough, even in a good listening environment.

[mementus]

What is a good format to use when importing to SC or YT?
Do you export a wav or else from your DAW?