>>My blindfold headphone tests between WAV and MP3 CBR showed no
>>audible difference between 224 Kbps MP3 and the input .wav, with the
>>encoder I used. I have top-percentile hearing and know how to use the
>>gear.
>
>I don't mean this in any negative way, but maybe your equipment isn't "good"
>enough? (I mean, as I'm sure you understand, that in order to hear the
>differences you need equipment capable of reproducing those differences).
>You say you have "top-percentile" hearing, but my experience is that on my
>system, when I play MD and 256k MP3, even my friends who aren't into audio
>can tell the difference in a blind comparison.
My gear is plenty good enough. If super-extreme gear is needed to tell the
difference (which I doubt is the case), that would not concern me.
>>I consider 224 Kbps to be practically perfect even for critical
>>headphone listening in a quiet environment.
>
>Wow, I would have to completely disagree. I have a problem with even MD for
>"critical" headphone listening in a quiet environment.
>>You should also acknowledge that most people do not have the ability
>>to plug in a computer keyboard to type in titles. My setup is more
>>typical -- I have a $330 brand new top of the line Sony 900 portable,
>>yet Sony expects me to use the jog dial to spend 15 minutes
>>laboriously titling tracks -- the included Xitel "digital" interface
>>is the perfect example of digital hype versus digital reality that
>>falls short of potential.
>
>But that's not a fair comparison. With MP3 you have a computer -- in fact,
>you MUST have a computer. The computer is what lets you do the titling. You
>can't even enter titles on a portable MP3 player if you wanted to. At least
>your 900 lets you enter titles. If you had a home MD deck, you could enter
>titles much more easily. Not as easily as downloading from the 'net, true.
>But it's at least doable.
I do have a good Sony home MD deck with dedicated letter buttons and no
keyboard. It is a major pain in the ass to enter titles. After the 30th MD
or so, I quit because it was much too difficult and time-consuming.
>What we're getting into here is what Larry brought up -- a very good point
>that you're mixing comparisons: MD is a storage platform, MP3 and ATRAC are
>compression algorithms. It's not a sound comparison to compare MD with MP3.
I have consistently differentiated between compression algs and storage media,
which is all obvious to anyone with any real comprehension of the
technologies.
>You can compare the quality of MP3 with the quality of ATRAC, or the
>features/abilities of MD as a storage and recording medium vs. those of SS
>MP3 players vs. HD-based MP3 players vs. CD-based MP3 players, etc.
As I have done.
>That said, I still don't get the whole need to title. If titling MDs was as
>easy as downloading titles from CDDB, I might do it every once in a while,
>but it wouldn't significantly improve my MD experience. YMMV, of course.
Titling is a touted feature of MD and is nice, and is always inherent in MP3s
(with or even without ID3 tagging).
>>Feel free to slam other people's MP3s, but I don't believe you could
>>tell my 224 Kbps MP3s apart from the CD in a critical headphone
>>listening test.
>
>I'll take that challenge any day ;) I think you need to specify what you
>mean by "critical headphone listening" -- what headphones? What amps? What
>playback sources?
A laptop PC with good sound capability, $100 headphones, using a .wav vs. mp3
of the wav, Winamp with no EQ, keyboard shortcuts, difficult source material.
>>If *I* can't reliably tell the difference, then the difference is
>>insignificant to the general population. The way you put it, the
>>difference is very blatant, so I am open minded and would like to
>>hear your tests myself.
>
>Again, I would agree that "the difference is insignificant to the general
>population." That's the allure to all compression-based technologies:
>smaller storage with comparable sound to most people. But I'm not most
>people, and my equipment isn't the normal consumer-grade stuff. So I do hear
>the difference, and friends that I have done demos for have also been able
>to tell the difference.
I think your A/B test is mis-conducted.
>Even the best computer audio system can't compare to a good home stereo.
>There is just too much junk in the signal path in a computer. CD drives in
>computers are cheap (even the better ones use inferior transports), the
>cabling, etc. is generally unshielded which makes a difference in an
>environment with so much interference, the output stages are inexpensive,
>the DACs are generally poor. Even if you get one of the high-end sound
>cards, you're still dealing with all the other issues. Yes, you can get very
>good sound out of a computer, but nowhere near a good home stereo.
This reveals our differences. I would be perfectly happy with an excellent
computer-based audio system. I'm into what the audiphiles call "mid-fi"
(which to normal people would be considered very hi-fi).
>My headphone amp has two inputs. I have
>CD hooked into one, and MD into the other.
My A/B setup is much more fair. There are too many variables in your setup.
You're not A/B'ing ATRAC vs. uncompressed, alone; you're comparing two
different playback audio-components (the output of a CD deck and MD deck).
You should use a single DAC. My .wav vs .mp3 A/B test is much more fair.
My diagnosis is that your CD reader and DAC system is better than your MD
reader and DAC system. With my Sony home CD deck and MD deck, the MD deck has
a better DAC than the CD deck. Using your unfair A/B setup driven by my home
components, your friends might conclude that MD sounds better than CD.
>>My goal is simply to make MP3 sound "MD-quality" rather than "CD-quality".
>
>Understood.
>One of my big pet peeves, and this is apart from our discussion, Michael (I
>was reminded of it by those articles you posted) is when someone makes a
>statement about two formats or two encodings or two bitrates being
>"comparable," when the truth is that they simply don't have equipment
>capable of revealing the differences. When people can't hear a difference,
>and then make the blanket statement that no one can hear the difference, it
>irks me.
For someone with such expertise with high-end audio gear, you've sure set up
an unfair A/B test. If your CD and MD decks are digitally connected, use the
DAC in the MD deck to process the CD as well, then take the output always from
the MD deck.
My tests predict that if your gear is decently good, you'd find that MD sounds
the same as the CD to your friends in critical headphone tests, and that 256
or 320 Kbps MP3s would also have that same potential. Your friends could not
differentiate when source A is playing from when source B is playing, or tell
which one is MD.
-- Michael Hoffman
http://www.amptone.com/audio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
