"Michael Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I never do. I equate MDLP to 292k, MDLP2 to 192 or 256k, MDLP4 to 96k. At
>>those levels, MD sounds better on each.
>
>I've read that standard ATRAC is 292 Kbps. Why do you say "192 or
>256k" for MDLP2 - which rate is actually used for MDLP2?
I'm saying that I equate MDLP2 to those two levels of MP3. I guess I should
just say "256k" so that there is no confusion.
>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.
>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. Granted, I have one
of the best headphone systems you can get, but IMO that confirms what I've
been saying all along -- on lower-end equipment or in portable environments,
these differences aren't really that important. But they do exist.
>Bitrates can be deceptive -- I've heard 224 Kbps that sounds as bad
>as 128 Kbps (actually I suspect it was re-compressed).
That's completely true (and one of my other complaints about MP3).
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>You are too forgiving -- have you tried to trade 30 albums at a time
>on MD versus MP3 -- when including titles? Titling is one of the
>biggest glaring flaws of MD versus MP3.
Sorry, I don't trade MDs -- I respect artists' copyrights. But that's
another story that we should probably avoid getting into on the list for the
1000th time ;)
>MDs are a dead-end for trades and each time you do copy an MD you
>lose the titling and introduce another generation of lossy
>compression -- unlike MP3s. With MP3s, once you have a copy of the
>album, you can trade it bit-for-bit with much less effort than
>copying one MD to another, because the titles are transferred
>inherently as the ID3 tag part of the MP3 file -- no lossy
>compression, and no need to manually re-add the titles...
After reading the above, it's clear why we disagree on this issue -- you use
MD more for trading, etc. In that context, I can understand your
frustration. Since I use MD to record my own stuff, I never have those
problems.
> When considering copying albums, MD is a comparatively poor quality
Only if you're copying MD to MD, generation after generation. If you're
copying directly from CD, or even 1st-generation, MD is superior in quality.
>MP3 technology is now in its 1st generation and has huge growth
>potential.
MP3 is far from being in its 1st generation. MP2 itself was an earlier
generation, and even among MP3 encoders, we've seen many generations. We've
also seen many different implementations of MP3 over the past 6 years or so.
MP3 is every bit as "mature" as MD is, if not more so considering the
efforts put into it from many different companies and individuals (both
software and hardware).
>The people who are satisfied with today's approach to MD titling are
>those who have not gotten into large collections of music where
>managing tracks and albums becomes a major issue.
That's neither a fair nor accurate statement.
>I would say that the best MP3s have the potential to sound overall
>more high-fidelity than ordinary vinyl-based systems.
See the other thread ;) Sure the very best MP3 can sound better than a $75
turntable and 10-year-old uncared for records (which is the average vinyl
system anymore LOL).
>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?
>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 am starting to hallucinate lossy-compression artifacts on my
>prerecorded CDs, like an audiophile at a symphony concert who hears
>clipping.
LOL! That's actually really funny ;)
> I reject the idea that computers sound inferior to a home stereo.
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.
>Audibly so? Here is where we can have a true debate. Here is a way we
>can sort ourselves into groups. Who here says that MD is audibly
>inferior to CD? Not me, not many others.
True, but that doesn't make it so. My headphone amp has two inputs. I have
CD hooked into one, and MD into the other. I've done blind tests where I
played a CD and an MD of that CD at the same time with identical output
levels, and had someone else switch between the inputs. In a couple seconds
I could pick out which was CD and which was MD. The MD simply didn't have as
good sound as the original CD, no matter what album/music I compared. The
only genre where the difference was slight was standard mass-market pop/rock
stuff, and that's because of the bad recording/production that's normally
used.
>If you are aiming for CD quality and consider MD to sound inferior to
>CD, then I have no discussion with you (so to speak). My goal is
>humbler than yours: I consider MD to sound as good as CD, and my goal
>is simply to make MP3 sound "MD-quality" rather than "CD-quality".
Understood.
>To do this, the most practical approach is to simply encode MP3 at
>the same rate as MD's ATRAC.
Again, I would disagree, since from my listening comparisons, I feel that
ATRAC is superior encoding. But that's another issue altogether.
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.
Granted, I have a headphone system that is better than 99% of people. If
there are differences, I'll be able to hear them ;) But if I *couldn't* hear
a difference, I'd qualify my outcome by adding "on this system." People all
the time compare MP3 bitrates or MD vs. MP3 using a computer and some crappy
Sony headphones, and claim that that means there is no difference. Or they
claim that 128k MP3s are "CD-quality" when they're
listening through their computers using the $50 speakers they got when they
bought the computer. Or people compare their $1000 CD-based home stereo with
a friends cheap record player, or some LP system they heard 20 years ago,
and claim that vinyl is inferior to CD. Or they listen to SACD vs. CD and
say that there is no difference. Is it because there is no difference? No,
it's because the other parts of the listening line (amp,
speakers/headphones, environment, their ears) weren't good enough to present
the differences. I just think people should be a bit more careful about
throwing the phrase "no difference in sound quality" around without
qualifying it. That's really the whole point of my whole position over the
past couple days ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
