What's new

MP3 & Higher-end Audio (1 Viewer)

Camp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 3, 1999
Messages
2,301
Dave,

I didn't intend to label anyone as "snobbish" -please don't take it that way.

As handy as CD jukeboxes are they can't compete to the ease of use (and speed) of MP3 software. I have both: a 400 disc changer and a PC connected to my HT with over 4000 songs.

I use the disc changer when I want to do serious listening and the MP3s when I want background music. The speed with which I can get the mp3s up and playing (and hearing exactly what I want) is the major convenience. Doing that with the disc changer is a waste of time.
 

ThomasL

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 13, 2001
Messages
963
I'd just like to chime in as someone who is neither an audiophile or someone with a huge CD collection (we have about 80-90 CDs). I've found MP3 to be extremely useful in and around my computers both at home and at the office. While I could go out and buy a 80GB hard drive for my home office and probably fit every CD on the drive in WAV format, I've found that encoding them using LAME using the 'extreme' preset option, I've managed to put them into a much smaller space and they sound the same to me as playing them on the downstairs CD player. So, I've managed to save myself the cost of getting a cd changer for my home office or getting a bigger hard drive. In addition to this, I can now burn about 7 CDs onto one data CD and bring it into work and listen to those CDs at work. This was the main reason I did it. This is much easier than bringing, say, 35 CDs with me in my briefcase. I can now bring the equivalent on 5-6 data CD-RWs.

So, I guess it really is a matter of convenience but it's important to not underestimate that in real life.

cheers,


--tom
 

Paul Seyfarth

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
133
If you want to play MP3's why not just get a dvd player that plays MP3 CD, and connect it to your highend stuff?
 

Rhett_Y

Screenwriter
Joined
May 23, 2001
Messages
1,265
Here is what I am doing. Putting all my cds on a server in mp3 format insane settings, and using it for background music through out my house. Still have a cd change that I occasionally use........I havent got int sacd or dvd-a for one reason. NOT enough titles in the genra of music that I listen too..............Sure they sound great, but there are not enough titles for me yet. When they do get up and there is a single format maybe then I will jump on board but not until then! I love the mp3 format..........does it compete with sacd/dvd-a no, but for what I want it to do. it works great, if want to listen to a cd, I just pop the bad boy out and play it!!!!
R~
 

ChrisJJ

Agent
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
33
I'm sure I'm going to get flogged for suggesting this, but MP3ing a vinyl collection can be a good thing.
First off, here is a link regarding MP3 quality:
http://www.r3mix.net/
Be sure to scan the Myths section which covers many of the prior posts. Using Lame and the --r3mix parameter, I get about 10-1 compression vs. WAV, and I have A-B'd a ripped CD vs. the original and I could not discern a difference on my equipment. YMMV, but I suggest trying the test before writing off the format entirely. Even if you find it isn't perfect, it is very close to CD quality and miles above radio, non-digital TV or analog tape.
Now, lets face it. Vinyl sounds excellent, but it is a major hassle to deal with. It is a bulky, fragile, short medium and it is played on bulky, fragile, difficult and sensitive machinery. Every time you play a record you degrade the sound, it is mechanical. Every time you pull a record from the sleeve you risk scratches and introducing pops and clicks and that charming 33 1/3 rhythm section.
So take that vinyl, clean it well and set everything up very carefully once. Rip and encode the vinyl. Sort it carefully into directories, splitting the tracks using software like CFB Software's LP Ripper tool. I have been doing this and in a very short time I have regained enjoyment of the hundreds of records that collected dust for too long.
I will say that I am not yet getting rid of the vinyl because my computer sound card has very sub-par ADCs :frowning: and I'm not satisfied with the sound. This is a fixable problem of a cheap sound card, not a flaw in MP3 compression. I plan on upgrading the ADCs:D, and re-ripping the vinyl. At that point, to the limits of my equipment, I can hear the vinyl any time, quickly, conveniently, and the same EVERY time. No degradation. No record cleaning. No getting up every 20 minutes to flip sides.
Let me disclaim this by noting that my system (only?!?) amounts to about $3500 of audio components/amps/speakers. Some folks have a Link Removed that costs this much, and I won't suggest this applies to them.
Chris-looking-for-an-asbestos-coat-JJ ;)
 

Tom.le

Agent
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Messages
34
So how does everyone feel about vinyl vs. SACD or DVD-A? Do you think these formats are a step backwards in sound reproduction?
I think what's giving MP3s a bad name is the fact that every person with a computer can now be a sound engineer. No more high-end studios, no more quality audio equipment. So now you have 10 year old kids and amateur audio listeners deciding on what sound levels and compression sound good on their $9 3" speakers. Not understanding the advanced or even the standard options of the many MP3 compression programs out there. When done right by someone who knows what they're doing, they can sound pretty darn good.
 

CharlesKT

Auditioning
Joined
Mar 8, 2003
Messages
6
I would like to know if anyone has any experience with the Onkyo TX-NR900 and the new Net-tune feature. This is the main feature driving my purchase of this receiver and I have heard mixed (negative) reviews regarding how Net-tune actually works. Please advise...
 

Brett DiMichele

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
3,181
Real Name
Brett
Boy I sure hope SACD doesn't become the dominant format..
I don't own anything from Sony and I sure as hell don't
want to use thier proprietary technology! :)
Heh!
 

Adam.Gonsman

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
132
The problem with MP3 is not only that it throws out information during the compression process, but it can also introduce artifacts into the sound. This is do the the algorithm used for the compression. Regardless of quality settings, you can potentially introduce distortion do to this.
As for why high end equipment doesn't introduce MP3 abilities even for the sake of convenience is that you don't buy high end equipment for convenience. When you shell out 2 or 3 or 10 grand for a pre-pro, you're doing it to get the absolute purist virgin signal you can from your media and over to the amps. Everything else, including convenience is a secondary concern.
People who have that kind of money, if they do want convenience, have no problems shelling out another 2 or 3 grand for a terabyte or two of disk space to house their entire collection in pure unaltered PCM format. Think of it this way, everybody in the upper end of the audio market takes the time and expense to mate $2k and $4k (or more) cd players...er...I mean CD transports to the high end equipment. It doesn't make sense to mate a $500 CD carousel to such a system. Why then complain that it's not overly useful or practical to mate a $300 MP3 device or an $800 Dell to your $3k pre/pro.
It's a very express conflict of interest. Convenience or not.
Now for us mere mortals who don't have terabytes of space but do care about audio quality, I would highly suggest that all of you with HTPC's, and all those who want to rip your CD's into some format to store that you check out Ogg Vorbis. It's superior to MP3 in every way, better quality and smaller files. There are Ogg players available for relatively every operating system. Even Winamp supports Ogg.
Ogg Vorbis Home Page
And if you're interested in Ogg and need a good encoder, try CDex which is probably about the best free encoder available for both Ogg and Mp3.
So flame away all you MP3 supporters. I got my asbestos undies on today. I'm ready :)
 

Jeff Kohn

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 29, 2001
Messages
680
I evaluated Ogg, Lame MP3, and MusePack (MPC) on my HTPC (sending a LPCM signal to the 1066 through a good soundcard). At high enough bitrates they're all pretty much transparent in most cases, though there is always the chance of hitting on of those problem cases where the music contains some characteristic that chokes the encoder and causes an artifact.

In the end, I went with Monkey's Audio because I like the idea of a lossless format for long-term archiving. It does take up more space than the lossy formats, but with current disc prices I don't find this to be much of an issue. Classical CD's compress pretty well, usually between 200-300MB per hour (sometimes a little more). Rock/metal CD's often don't fare as well, taking up 300-500MB/hour. But I like the peace of mind that comes from knowing I have a perfect copy that can even be used to create a backup CD if something happens to the original. Also, the ability to rip a single-file image/cue with APL's for each track is nice for concept albums or other albums with seamless track transitions (something you can't do with VBR formats). Lossless encoding also has the advantage that you can transcode to other formats without the loss in quality comes from multiple generations of lossy encoding. For instance, if I want to transcode to MP3 for my portable player, I'm not going to suffer the quality loss that I would get going from Ogg or Musepack to MP3.
 

ernie.bin

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
143
I use my computer as my jukebox, hooked up via optical line to my denon 1802 and paradigm studio60s now.

I encode my own mp3s from cd, usually at 256vbr w/ lame and it still sounds excellent. For me, it's convience. I'm at my machine quite often, it stores all my albums so that anything I want to hear is just a few clicks away rather than me finding and changing cds.

I see the addition of mp3 support to be a very cool feature for those who want the convience. I know it's not an audiophile format, but it can sound very good, and without critical listening, can often not be noticed if done properly.

I've been eyeing monkey's audio as well, but I'm reluctant to suck up the extra drive space due to how well properly encoded mp3s have been serving me so far.

The studio 60s do easily reveal poorly encoded mp3s though. the artifacts do become more apparent with good equipment.
 

Michael R Price

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
1,591
I must say the r3mix.net website is quite interesting but it holds a quite extreme viewpoint and the part with the "myths" is quite silly IMO. There's also the thing with them just assuming 256k/s is "CD quality"... and the "threshold of transparency." As you decrease the amount of compression the music suddenly becomes identical to a CD? I have always been impressed by MP3's convenience but I've always been skeptical about the sound quality. What is it about the better encoding programs (such as LAME?) that make them sound better? (I haven't listened to any truly well encoded MP3s.)
Sure, I'm all for hi-fi equipment supporting compressed formats as long as it doesn't degrade their quality playing other formats. :)
 

Thomas_Berg

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
1,422
Location
Dallas
Real Name
Thomas
if you want mp3's (which i personally despise), the best encoder by FAR is LAME. the best CD ripping program is found at www.exactaudiocopy.de - there's been many comparison tests using other ripping prgms and encoders, and the general consensus amongst A/V and computer savvy people is that these two are the best available.
now, if you're a picky sound freak like me, you'll never want to even touch an mp3 encoder, and you will only use lossless compression algorithms like APE (www.monkeysaudio.com) or FLAC or SHN. i'd MUCH rather see integrated processing support for one or more of these formats, since they compress the wav files without ANY loss of sound whatsoever. they are like 'zip files' for wavs and work beautifully.
if you have any doubts about lossless compression (like i initially had), do a blind comparison between some compressed tracks and the same songs in wav format. there is no difference... you'll see exactly why lossless compression is so cool! :)
 

Philip Hamm

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 1999
Messages
6,874
I've abandoned my 600+ title CD collection for SACD because SACD sounds so much better.
I can't even comprehend basing my music choices on a format rather than the music itself. I have old crappy MP3s from one of my favorite artists that they distributed (legally) on the web years ago that I listen to because I love the music.

Anyway, my opinion is that advances in bandwidth, hard disk, and RAM technology will cause lossy compression to be nominalized, while lossless forumlas gain prominence. Then we'll see this kind of integration. MP3 is a first step only. Computerized music has a ways to go.
 

Greg_R

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
1,996
Location
Portland, OR
Real Name
Greg
Unfortunately MP3 is the most widely supported format so I will continue to use it. What else plays on my Audiotron, PC, iPod & car MP3 deck? 256kB VBR (LAME) works fine in these environments. If I want to listen critically I'll use the CD...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,610
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top