What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
152 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i reduce my mp3s to 8bit sound so they all sound like arcade games. and i can fit 2,000 songs on my 128 meg ipod knock off.
- oceandead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, analog is still better than digital - in a way. The problem with analog is the medium(s) the signal is recorded on, not the signal itself. Analog, by definition, is a continuous, unbroken, physical quantity that represents sound.
Digital audio, however, is a series of "snapshots" that, when sequentially re-assembled, produces a fascimilie of the original sound. Most humans can hear up to a frequency of 20kHz. Nyquist theorum states that in order to retain correct frequency information, a sound must be sampled at at least twice the rate of the highest frequency to be recorded - in order to retain ALL of the frequency information, Nyquist states that the sound should be recorded at upwards of 10x the highest frequency to be recorded.
But wait, why is the standard 44.1kHz instead of 40kHz, you ask? Because although you do not lose any (so-called) "desirable" info when recording at twice the rate of the highest frequency to be recorded - you sometimes *gain* unwanted info. This unwanted info is known as aliasing frequencies and can show up as white noise or other unwanted sounds. To get around this, the Shannon Limit states that by "oversampling" you can push the unwanted noise above the limit of human hearing (hence the 44.1kHz). Quasi-pro and pro standards most often use anywhere between a 350kHz and a 700kHz sample-rate.
The above deals with sample rates and how it affects fidelity. But how does bit-rate affect fidelity?
We all know what bit-rate (or wordlength) does. Ok, so we have a whole ***** of samples (44,100 of em per second), right? Well, for each of those samples we can use a certain number of values (0's and 1's) to "describe" the sample. If we have 1 bit per sample there are only two possible values for that sample, 0 and 1. If we have 16-bits per sample, we can have 65,536 values (and so on).
When representing an audio signal with 8-bits, the fascimile of the original is very limited in detail with only 256 values available. When representing the same signal with 16-bits, or 65,536 values available, the amount of detail captured much more closely duplicates the original signal.
You can almost think of it as the number of colors on your monitor. 8-bits is only 256 colors. Pretty crappy picture right? But 24-bits is 16, 777, 216 colors. That's a lot of colors ;)
Bit-rate also corresponds directly to the maximum dynamic range (S/N ratio).
8-bit: 48dB S/N
12-bit: 72dB S/N
16-bit: 96dB S/N
20-bit: 120dB S/N
24-bit: 144dB S/N
While analog is still a "better" signal, the nature of the signal (the mediums it is stored on) negate any positives of using the signal. Though digital is probably a (overall) less accurate signal - it's discrete nature (you can store it on better mediums, in different audio and file formats) make it a net positive.
As for compression - any lossy compression is bad. You've already lost some info merely by it being digital (though it is arguable whether or not the loss matters as it is still *at least* 16-bit 44.1kHz). However, with a lossy compression scheme - you lose even more info (and more important info, too). Most lossy compression schemes use what is known as a "psychoacoustic" algorithm - meaning that certain frequencies (usually very high and/or very low) are cut out entirely. That is why cymbals sound like ***** on a 128kbps mp3, aac, or other lossy format. The fact that you may not be able to hear what is lost at 256kbps or 320kbps doesn't matter - you still aren't getting what you would on a CD.
Now, if it is worth it to you to lose that info in order to gain convenience, that's fine but don't bust on the author for letting you, or people who don't know, know. Especially since there are a few lossless compression algorithms (codecs) out there - Shorten (.shn) is one but it is proprietary (though there are freeware tools)- FLAC (free lossless audio codec) is another (and is completely open). - lokai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't consider myself an audiophile by any means, but I can certainly distinguish a difference between a 128kbps AAC-encoded song and a 192kbps MP3, both on my stereo and my iPod. The difference between a 192kbps MP3 and a VBR MP3 using LAME's encoder is even more obvious to me, again both on my iPod and stereo.
A person with a decent set of headphones or a half-decent stereo should notice the difference between 128kbps and a higher bitrate. I will agree that the music is probably just fine to listen to for most people at 128kbps AAC, but I know that I am missing out on higher quality going that route, especially if I am playing my iPod through my car or stereo speakers. - chrishill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i prefer 192kbps for listening to on my home hi-fi, I 'can' tell the difference between 128 and 192 on a reasonable setup, and I'm not talking a megabucks audiophile hi-fi. On my GoGear 128 is more than good enough, 112 is probably the lowest I'd go for portable audio.
- dstart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://flac.sourceforge.net
- webguy2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The issue I have with this, is the inconsistency of the use of Kilobits and Kilobytes. Now, I'm fully aware of the difference, but many people are not. If you are going to compare downloads to audio CDs, then at least use the same conversions
- nc0onc0o, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've saved thousands of dollars over my life because I have bad hearing. I can't tell the the difference between a $100 amplifier and a $1000 amplifier. Same goes for receivers, CD players, speakers, and other equipment. Noticing the 'flaws' in 128kb music is a curse, not a blessing
- hordak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I USED to be happy with 128KB for years until I realized how lifeless some music had become to me. There's just something missing at that 128kb bitrate - perhaps something in the audio spectrum you can't hear consciously, and it could be those items which aren't consciously noticeable that make the song richer.
Take this for example. A few years ago I took voice lessons, and my voice teacher had this weird devices that played harmonic tones all at once. She would ask me if I could hear a particular tone, and I would say "no." It wasn't until after some practice (sometimes minutes and other times days or weeks) that I could hear the tone she was pointing out. Sure enough, it was there even if I couldn't consciously notice it right away.
So, now I encode my tracks at 192kb, VBR. Life is good now!
Good article. DIGG++ - Craig1394, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't beleive there still dumbasses that make 128k mp3's. I see this kind of crap on IRC alot still. 128k is bad enough as a free file, but to pay for that *****, screw that!
- drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2128 kbps mp3 isn't very high quality. iTunes uses AAC, which is higher quality. I personally with they used 160 kbps.
- drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"That article is full of misinterpretations and stupidity. For one they compare AAC, MP3, and WMA. Different codecs encode different ways, rendering a comparison useless. It isn't like any casual user would notice anyway. Without good hearing, cables, speakers, and sound system there is no noticable difference. And JPeg? I'm not willing to trust a publication that can't write an acronym properly."
So right. That guy's an no-it-all idiot. Really, he knows nothing. JPEG can be just as good quality as "lossless" encoding. 128 kbs isn't that bad. So long as it's AAC. He doesn't seem to understand how these formats work. AAC is much more advanced than CD format, and that's the main reason the file size is so small. Is he going to say lossless encoding such as FLAC or apple lossless are bad just because their small? Give me a break. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I encode most of my music at 192kbps AAC, and the really good stuff at 320. It's still a long way off CD, which is itself a long way off vinyl. It seems we're going in reverse as far as sound quality goes."
This is how I know you are a pretentious twit.
"I occasionally do a clean install of the OS on my Mac, I find it keeps the computer running fast, and every time I do it and put those tracks I bought back in iTunes, it assumes I'm transferring those protected AAC files and there's a strict limit set by the DRM for that. I only have a couple more goes at that and the DRM will make the songs I bought unavailable to me. And what then? I have to buy them again? For doing maintenance on my Mac? Thanks Apple."
There's nothing that stops you from burning your songs to CD/DVD, then copying them back to a fresh install of OS X and reauthorizing them for playback. Be sure to de-authorize your computer before you wipe it, but after that there is absolutely no negative effect to doing what you describe. You don't even have to de-authorize the computer, really. You can de-authorize all machines and then just re-authorize the ones you want again (up to 5).
You sound like one of those people who have no idea what they are talking about but insist they are always right. - macslut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's good to see so many people here posting that 128kbps is crap. It almost brings a tear to my eyes. I remember back a few years ago trying to convince people that they should really encode at higher bitrates and writing to many vendors who labeled 128kbps as "CD quality" (I hated that).
Personally, I think there's a world of difference between 128kbps and 192kbps for AAC, and even more so for MP3s at those rates. Really, it's just a little more of a download and a little more space on the drive.
192kbps MP3s have become the standard on P2Ps, I would like to see it higher there, but as far as iTMS, 128kbps AAC is too darn low. When I ripped my CD collection, I chose 192kbps AAC with the idea that I would rip again when HE-AAC came out or when I could rip my entire collection as lossless to a single drive.
As for why people don't use OGG...
It probably has to do with the lack/poor support on iTunes/iPods and no offerings on iTMS. That's a good 75+% of the industry right there that ain't going OGG. Meanwhile on P2Ps MP3s overwhelmingly dominate. Also maybe, regardless of quality/bitrate ratio, most people don't use OGG because without corporate backed marketing, they have yet to even hear of it. - michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I encode most of my music at 192kbps AAC, and the really good stuff at 320. It's still a long way off CD, which is itself a long way off vinyl. It seems we're going in reverse as far as sound quality goes.
As for the iTunes store, I'd buy a track if I really couldn't find it anywhere else, but whole albums?
No way. I occasionally do a clean install of the OS on my Mac, I find it keeps the computer running fast, and every time I do it and put those tracks I bought back in iTunes, it assumes I'm transferring those protected AAC files and there's a strict limit set by the DRM for that. I only have a couple more goes at that and the DRM will make the songs I bought unavailable to me. And what then? I have to buy them again? For doing maintenance on my Mac? Thanks Apple."
You do realize that you can deauthorize a computer each time you wipe it, right? So before you wipe your computer, you just deauthorize it. It no longer counts towards your limit. Then you authorize again when you reinstall. Also, once you do reach your limit of five, there is a deauthorize all button on your account screen. So, no, they don't prevent you from reinstalling the OS a dozen times as your post states. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My notes: I'd have to agree 128KBps music is poor and just shouldn't be sold. The article could have been writen better, though. I'm not an audiophile, just a music lover thats pretty picky about his his music sounds. I'm slowling becoming one (an audiophile) though. I run the mixer/soundboard at my Church, among other sound-related tasks. So I've really trained my hearing to be able to focus on certain sounds/voices and pull them out of the rest. You know, like those really really quiet harmonys sometimes in songs that have other people singing, but you're not supposed to notice the other voice? Well, I notice and can easily pick out that other voice, compared to quite a few I've asked that can't.
"I've saved thousands of dollars over my life because I have bad hearing. I can't tell the the difference between a $100 amplifier and a $1000 amplifier. Same goes for receivers, CD players, speakers, and other equipment. Noticing the 'flaws' in 128kb music is a curse, not a blessing"
Mmm.. I can't say as I'd agree. I'd much rather be able to hear the full-range and deatils and such for high-qaulity music than NOT to be able to tell the difference with 128KBps. Being tone deaf is not a blessing!
"I am an audiophile, and i encode my music either at 100% VBR MP3s, or will use a lossless compression, depending on the medium that the music is on. I stream my music wirelessly to my Bose, so I need high quality."
Audiophiles use Bose? :P
Josh - BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"PROOF that 128 kbps AAC is the same quality as 192 kbps MP3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Design_limitations_of_MP3"
So what? Even 192k doesn't compare to CD audio. Lossy is lossy. - jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't consider myself an audiophile, but I can tell the difference between 128 and 192 kbps MP3 on my iPod. I'm not sure about higher bitrates.
- gaius_baltar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1128 kbps AAC is better and less lossy than MP3 at the same bitrate. I encode all my other stuff at 192.
- FaNtAsMa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1128kbps music is generally good enough for me, but if I have a choice, I like 192kbps and above. It's not like 128kbps music is so bad that you can't listen to it.. it's just that you CAN tell the difference between it and 192kbps music.
- nidude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"No Highs, No Lows, Must be Bose"
Audiophile indeed. - jamkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm lucky enough to be able to afford full iTunes store prices for the music I want, and especially feel obligated to do so for artists I know are not rolling in big record deal dough. However, I have often found myself buying the iTunes songs, then deleting them and buying them again on allofmp3.com b/c there I can choose the bitrate and encoding type. Now I hardly consider myself average in this respect and suspect a lot of hard core music listeners (probably people that make up a disproportionate % of the music purchasing power) go straight to something like allofmp3.com, skipping the "totally legal" iTunes route, simply b/c there they can't get the quality they want (or feel they deserve) from iTunes.
Perhaps Apple doesn't want to use up the hard drive space that a flexible rip methodology scheme like allofmp3 has would require. Or perhaps as others have implied in the comments here, they think most users don't care. My suggestion to Apple (not that they're listening) is that they survey their highest usage customers to see if they want better bitrate options and if they would be willing to pay more for such alternatives. That's how allofmp3 does it, they charge by the MB; so the higher quality you go, the more you pay. - Zukunft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1192kbps all day every day.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some people will buy anything. 128 in any format sucks and when you add DRM, it only makes it suck more. I know you can deauthorize and reauthorize but if I'm paying for it you can stick that in a smelly dark place. But again, some people will pay for anything and it shows when the shysters of the world are riding around in Mercedes and Lexus's laughing all the way to the bank to deposit your money.
- ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iTunes is good enough for most customers, because MOST people, can't hear it, or just don't care. "Who cares, it was only a buck!"
A few stores are already selling flac. Flac can handle higher bit and sampling rates, a supports up to eight channels. My favorite store is:
http://musicishere.com/
They got the flaccy goodness. - CritterNYC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The quality of the encoder has quite a bit to do with the quality of the MP3 as well. For example, a 128kb MP3 encoded with LAME will sound better than a 192kb MP3 encoded with most media player software. Encoding an MP3 with LAME using the -V 2 --vbr-new (variable bitrate, new algorithm, ~170-210 kb result) switch is indistinguishable from the uncompressed version to most people. And it won't lock you into an iPod like AAC will.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1128kbps MP3's sound bad to me. It's easy to tell that they've lost quality from the original. I like the .wma format better, but at 128kbps it's still too low. I prefer 160kbps as a minimum for wma and higher for MP3. However, I don't buy any music online, so I can choose how I encode my CD's. Since hard drive space is so cheap, I just go for wma lossless. Your speakers/headphones and soundcard definitely make a difference, though I tend to think anything sounds *better* on high quality stuff. You can't tell as easily on low quality setups because everything sounds bad ;)
- motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FLAC baby, yeah!
I have over 400GB of live Zeppelin shows in FLAC. Nothing else can compare. - DenZ88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple probably figures that if theyre going to pack their ipods with cheap little earbuds, they could probably get away with sending poor quality audio. Same with any other music distributor/ mp3 player manufacturers like Sony.
If you really don't care about getting crap audio quality, you might as well go pirate all your songs off limewire. Otherwise, you might as well run to the record store and buy quality cds. - stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ephekt: I like my music all the same format and all the same bitrate, I find this near-impossible to do by pirating. Yes for things I just want to try I will pirate, but usually allofmp3.com is better for me.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i didnt read the article but i absolutely agree that 128kb encoded bitrate music is a rip off for sure.
- pwrstick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1128KB sucks. That's not news!
- jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For those saying that 128kbps AAC is better than 128kbps LAME MP3, you might want to look at this http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm They are all basically the same quality.
- ephekt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0128 and 192 are crap. If you're interested in quality mp3s you need to check out the LAME VBR presets. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
- matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0not if its free :)
- jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When we also have articles about people loosing their hearing from playing their portable music too loud, I don't think that most people care about audio quality.
Personally I rip at 224kbps just because I've had my ipod for 3 years and its still only half full. I got the room, I figure I might as well use it! - electic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wait a second...I have been under a rock...people pay for music?
- sgprecords, on 10/05/2008, -0/+0Ok, 128 mp3 is good for most, (not for me. I prefer 192 mp3), but what´s interesting is that you pay for 128 aac at iTunes store (should be like 192 mp3) and you get something similar to 160 mp3. But, if you use iTunes to compress at 128 aac at any computer, the results are like 192 mp3. Conclusion: iTunes store is not compressing well tracks. Perhaps they use a quick method. I prefer mp3sparks quality, but they´re not legal. I won´t buy again at iTunes store until you can get the quality you pay for. Any other legal store for the people outside US?
- vick04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys are missing the point. Your paying for it why settle for less?
- gmax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is so lame. i think the author just discovered lossy compression and was hit by the "by-golly-im-so-stupid-i-couldnt-tell-the-difference-between-a-cd-and-an-mp3-before" moment. jeez.
- ephekt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Free crap is still crap. ;)
- stimpack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0allofmp3.com choose your bitrate and format, no DRM, screw the others.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This story completely ignores the fact that music on CDs is horribly compressed as well, but in a different way. Sound engineers usually push up the levels so nearly everything is in the high end of the scale, reducing the dynamic range of music down near vinyl levels or worse.
- ephekt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"allofmp3.com choose your bitrate and format, no DRM, screw the others."
Hahaha
If you're buying from allof mp3 you're a fool. You're essentially paying for everyone else is getting for free, and you're still not helping the artists out _at all._ allofmp3 doesn't give a dime to the artists; you're paying to pirate music. Brilliant!
If you're going to pirate something, you might as well do it for free. And yes, you can get good quality music for free… if you’re not brain dead. - elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i can't tell too well on an ipod with the earbuds but on my home speakers its night and day. that is to say, i pass a blind test with 100% accuracy. my library is 192k minimum, and i generally shoot for 256+ if i can find it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is