Options
Sound quality between CD and downloaded song
CraigSteele2001
Posts: 971
Forum Member
✭✭
With more people nowadays downloading music from such as iTunes, I wondered if there was any noticable difference in sound quality to a song on a CD to the same song downloaded?
Does anyone know if this is true in any way?
Does anyone know if this is true in any way?
0
Comments
There are various bit rates used, the lower the bit rate the less the quality. At the higher bit rates you won't notice much difference.
But can you reliably tell which is which in double blind tests?.
Extremely few people can. Most who say they can, haven't done the test properly (or at all).
This test was not without its faults, but it's interesting because so many self-proclaimed "golden ears" took part...
http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
Rigorous listening tests (none of them at very high bitrates)...
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests
Official mp2/mp3/AAC listening test:
http://www.mp3-tech.org/programmer/docs/w2006.zip
Cheers,
David.
Yes but when playing this you know the source. Could you tell the difference in a double blind test?
Personally I can't tell the difference between 256k Mp3 and WAV, that's with pretty decent equipment and even if I could I'd have be really, really concentrating.
I haven't done a blind test cos there's only me here, and I'd be knocking into the furniture, but on certain tracks I can certainly tell the difference.
Having said that I mostly listen to MP3s nowadays, even on my Hi-Fis, just for the convenience.
For instance, a song I always think tests a Hi-Fi is 'Close to the Edge' by Yes, cos it's got very high pitched tweety stuff and very clear bass. Definitely sounds better on CD. But I admit the difference is not huge.
However there's nothing to stop me ripping my CDs again in some lossless format in the future, though whether I'll be bothered is another matter.
Can't do that with bought MP3s though.
It's in the car on an SD card
As is Starship Trooper, and a couple more Yes tracks.
Well there you go. You can't be all bad?
I've been a Yes fan for a LONG time - I even saw them once at Stoke Football Ground, although their set was cut short due to rain.
I then discovered that whilst most mp3 players will also play WMA files, rarely do they recognise the lossless version. So, I ended up copying my favourite tracks into mp3 as well.
I am prepared to concede that my deteriorating ears might not hear the difference, particularly in a car environment but, as with camera pictures, you can copy to a downgraded standard but you can't go the other way.
Let's imagine that I have just handed you an Orange. I tell you that a technique has been used which has removed 80% of the Orange in a way which is completely undetectable. Is that an attractive idea to you?
Why on earth would I wan't to take part in a blind test to hear conclusions that do not benefit me in any way? When I listen to music at CD bitrate (or higher) late at night I tend to fall asleep more when compared to MP3 listening. Does that prove anything? No - of course not. But can you prove that my nervous system does not react positively to the 80% of content that has not been removed!
Just to save 5 seconds of download time?
So your answer is presumably that you wouldn't be able to tell? Your opinion appears to be that it's only a concern with MP3's, because you've been told it's not a lossless system.
Does this mean you never watch TV any more?.
If such an imaginary orange existed, I don't see as it would be any problem?.
I do exactly the same and for the same reasons!
I believe with some of the file downloading sites you don't actually "own" the files at all, the money you pay is, in effect, a right to use fee that expires when you do!
I take photographs in RAW image format, convert them to loss-less TIFF and then create JPEGs from the TIFF files, because I can manipulate the TIFF files as much as I like without worrying about loss of quality unlike a JPEG image.
For some portable devices size is important, most the the apple devices do not have removable storage so carrying an iPOD touch on a trip there decisions to be made as to what to take!
Remember to that the quality of the headphones is important to. There's no point having the largest best quality files if your listening to then through cheap headphones!
All things being equal the CD will be slightly better but it will usually be hard to notice unless you do A/B switching on a high end Hi-Fi system.
But things are NOT equal. CD masters are often horribly compressed dynamically (so everything sounds loud, even if that wasn't the artist's intention) and in such cases, most cases, a 256 or 320Kbps mp3 is going to sound as good as the CD.
I was lucky enough to be sent a few 320Kbps mp3s of classical-pop type tracks (good singer, real orchestra) after the final mix but before the CD mastering. The mp3s are of noticeably better quality than the final CD version, which is horribly compressed dynamically, losing many of the delicate nuances of the artist(s) performance.
There are far greater effects on the final sound quality than the tiny differences between 320K mp3s and CDs. The main exceptions would be high quality performances and masters of classical music released by the likes of Deutsche Grammophon, and if you are lucky Decca or Sony Classical when played on a high quality hi-fi system. They do not use the obnoxious practices prevalent in the Cowell-esque CD making industry (including his so-called classical stars).
No - that's what you are saying.
I am saying that Music and the effect that Music has on human beings is a fairly complex matter. You seem to be saying that because you are unable to explain what is in the missing 80%, and what it's importance is, you will simply cast it aside.
The Orange with 80% missing - apparently undetectable - is of no importance to you.
What other areas of life are so trivial to you? What about romance. If a partner decides to reduce their love for you to a level that is detectable (the equivalent of 16 Kbps ) - and then raises it just above that level - it that OK in your world?
Is this an over reaction? After all it's only music we are discussing here. :rolleyes:
It really does make a difference, especially on complex choral works - you can hear obvious glitches at the lower rate.
On my cinema system, which has a rather more costly sound setup, I sometimes play concerts from the Proms, the ones on BBC2 tend to be in 5.1 format and they can sometimes sound a bit bad actually.
One of the problems in having a good system is that poor sources sound much worse.
WHERE THE BLOODY HELL WAS BERNARD'S BASSLINE?
It was rolled off below 90Hz which sounded AWFUL!
Is it noticeable? That depends a lot on the type of music, the compression and the algorithm used, on what the music is played and also a persons tolerance of progressively poorer quality recordings.
IMO though iTunes downloads have less to do with quality (or the lack thereof) and more to do with convenience, and cherry-picking tracks rather than playing albums, and folk forgetting that other methods such as home rips exist.
Nigel asked you if you could tell the difference in a double-blind test. You avoided answering that- twice! He drew the conclusion- as did I- that you didn't answer because it would require admitting that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a true double-blind. :rolleyes:
The orange analogy is flawed. An orange is food- food has nutritional value (or lack of) and thus there is more to consider than just the pleasure (i.e. sense) of eating it.
Music- or rather, music reproduction- is *all* about how it's perceived and experienced by the listener. That's it. It's a means to an end. That's not to trivialise it, or make it shallow- arguably the opposite, as music is purely and only about how it is received in peoples' minds. If one genuinely can't perceive the difference in reproduction, then in effect, there *is* no difference.
Of course, other factors come into play as well; for some people, putting on a record and reading the sleeve while they listen may hold more appeal (and enhance pleasure- or even perceived quality) more than an otherwise identical reproduction music on its own might.
That's a perfectly legitimate feeling, it just doesn't prove anything about the sound quality in itself.
Similarly, someone might enjoy uncompressed music more than compressed simply because they *know* it's uncompressed- even if they'd be unable to tell the difference in a double-blind test. But the latter implies that if we were able to secretly swap the uncompressed source for the compressed one, then that listener would be unable to tell the difference.
Audiophiles have a notorious reputation for buying into overpriced pseudoscientific guff and coming up with excuses against double-blind testing that would require them to admit (as much- in fact, probably more- to themselves as to anyone else) that they couldn't tell the difference and their preference wasn't founded in "rational" absolute sound-quality.
Let me emphasise- I'm *not* claiming that sound quality and listening pleasure can't be improved by replacing a crappy, low-quality system with one that's audibly better. Of course they can. I'm saying that *if* an audiophile can't tell the difference in a properly-conducted double-blind test between two systems, then it's meaningless to argue that one has higher sound quality, regardless of any "scientific" rationale. Scientific instruments measure sound waves and the like, but they don't "listen" to music- which is its only (and noble) purpose- only people do that.