Data CD-R vs Music CD-R

[adam]

have you ever seen anyone post in this thread that a bit is a bit is a bit, Digital is Digital

Yes but in reference to the same file burnt to Data versus Music CDRs where the audio file is in fact bitwise identical. No one said an mp3 file will be identical to the source wav, only that it will sound identical. In other words that any differences and/or inpurities will be so slight that to the human ear they are imperceptible. In some cases any difference at all is meaningful. When listening to music what you can't hear can't hurt you.

Sound Exactly like the original? Are you sure no one has said that MP3 is not a lossy compression scheme?

I do not see any discrepancy between those two notions whatsoever. It can sound like the original and still be lower quality because our ears cannot detect the difference. If I give you one jar containing 1000 identical marbles and another with 999 obviously there is a difference in quantity. But unless you are Rainman they still LOOK identical in quantity.

[Cornucopia]

@Adam

have you ever seen anyone post in this thread that a bit is a bit is a bit, Digital is Digital, or when Vitualis wrote:

I guarantee that you cannot provide one, or at least not one where I cannot prove "user error" (because I can encode exactly that same stretch of audio with MP3 and yet sound exactly like the original).

Sound Exactly like the original? Are you sure no one has said that MP3 is not a lossy compression scheme? I normally agree with alot of what you post but in this case I believe you are in error. Either that or "sounds exactly like" has a different meaning than what I'm used to.

It does have a different meaning.

You may not want to admit it, but humans have imperfect seeing and hearing mechanisms.
Recent technologies are just capitalizing on these imperfections to give you space/time shortcuts without you knowing it.
Some things you can read up if your interested:
Information Theory
Sampling Theory
Psychoacoustics (and Masking)
Perception Theory
Color Theory

That should keep you busy for a while.

"Sounds Exactly Like" to humans isn't the same thing as "Sounds Exactly Like" to a computer.

Scott

[ROF]

You really must not be paying attention. No one has said that MP3 is identical to Uncompressed audio, except maybe you when you are "paraphrasing" someone else's post.

I think you need to read some posts in this thread. when someone says that an MP3 sounds exactly like the original that's saying MP3 is a lossless encoding scheme. It's also saying that nobody will be able to distinguish between the two. It's been proven that are those who can tell the difference. I know I can. I know there are others even this thread who can. Yet there are those who won't admit there is a difference between any encoded MP3 and it's original source. It's a fact that there is.

On the other subject of Music CDs and Data CDs I must agree that I guess there is no difference. I thought there was but I put this to this test yesterday using TDK Music CD-R's and TDK Data CD-Rs. I don't hear the difference when recording the same music onto these different media. I know I stated earlier that there was a difference but I proved myself wrong by using equal media in both formats.

I also sent you a PM yesterday on a completely different subject matter.

[ROF]

If I give you one jar containing 1000 identical marbles and another with 999 obviously there is a difference in quantity. But unless you are Rainman they still LOOK identical in quantity.

Some people will be able to tell by weight there is a difference. Others will be able to tell by examining the mass. Others might be able to distinguish that there are more blue marbles than red marbles. If it's one thing I've come to conclusion about humans or most animals is never underestimate their capacity to perceive.

[adam]

ROF why are you so damn argumentative? I said "identical marbles" and I said "look" the same for a reason, to place limits on the analogy to force you to address the actual issue and not make excuses. You can't distinguish by color if they are identical; we are only "looking" so you cannot see weight; and the difference in mass is too sleight for our eyes to notice. That's the point!

We are talking about human senses. When we listen to music we are just using our ears and they are universally imperfect. Differences can exist in the digital embodiment of sound that the human ear, ANYONE'S human ear, simply cannot detect. Whether mp3 can do its job and still remain within this margin of error, I have no idea and again just don't care.

[smearbrick1]

For all intents and purposes, it can be generally stated that between Music CD-R and Data CD-R, there is no difference when comparing media of the same quality. The exception is price.

In the case of MP3 audio - To each his own. You think you can hear a difference? Fine. I won't argue. I don't have your ears. Yet I would not make a general statement that the sound quality is transparent for everyone.

[ROF]

ROF why are you so damn argumentative? I said "identical marbles" and I said "look" the same for a reason, to place limits on the analogy to force you to address the actual issue and not make excuses. You can't distinguish by color if they are identical; we are only "looking" so you cannot see weight; and the difference in mass is too sleight for our eyes to notice. That's the point!

We are talking about human senses. When we listen to music we are just using our ears and they are universally imperfect. Differences can exist in the digital embodiment of sound that the human ear, ANYONE'S human ear, simply cannot detect. Whether mp3 can do its job and still remain within this margin of error, I have no idea and again just don't care.

My point exactly. Which was why I tried to just leave the arguement back a page or two ago. Back to the marbles though it might look different to some people because 1 marble is missing. Never underestimate anyones ability to perceive a difference in anything when there is in fact a difference. (999 Vs. 1000 Marbles) The same goes for MP3 and CD Audio. There is a difference. It's a fact that there is a difference. They do not sound exactly alike. To some people they may but to others they do not for the simple reason because they aren't alike. You must care at least a little bit. You are actually trying to argue that nobody can perceive the difference because all human hearing is the same.

[ROF]

For all intents and purposes, it can be generally stated that between Music CD-R and Data CD-R, there is no difference when comparing media of the same quality. The exception is price.

On that point I can now agree wholeheartedly even when burning said CDs with MusicMatch Jukebox.

[adam]

You are actually trying to argue that nobody can perceive the difference because all human hearing is the same.

Thank you for clarifying what my point is, for some reason I thought I had an entirely different one. I am soooo done with this thread.

[hech54]

I have a question:
Why do musicians (like myself) EQ the shit out of their amplifiers, add effects, compressors, sustain, flange, echo, chorus, etc etc etc....and yet we do not dare change the bass and treble on our stereo/hi fi systems (except our cars) for fear of corrupting or altering the original recording in any way?
The same people do or do not believe in buying the re-mastered version of their favorite recording....depending on their tastes.

I personally grew out of LOUD music very early and opted for quality sound instead....but that doesn't mean that I think I cannot be fooled by a high bitrate MP3 vs. the original CD.

[Cornucopia]

Now that we've dispensed with the sidetracks, is anybody actually interested in taking this test? I'll leave it up for a week.

Scott

[Cornucopia]

I have a question:
Why do musicians (like myself) EQ the shit out of their amplifiers, add effects, compressors, sustain, flange, echo, chorus, etc etc etc....and yet we do not dare change the bass and treble on our stereo/hi fi systems (except our cars) for fear of corrupting or altering the original recording in any way?
The same people do or do not believe in buying the re-mastered version of their favorite recording....depending on their tastes.

I personally grew out of LOUD music very early and opted for quality sound instead....but that doesn't mean that I think I cannot be fooled by a high bitrate MP3 vs. the original CD.

(Being a musician myself)
I consider it the difference between Music Production and Music Reproduction. With the one, you want to mold the sound to create a particular mood, with the other you don't want anything to change the way the recorded sound creates the same mood.

The remastering thing has more to do with Nostalgia or the limits of Artistic License (and/or who owns the IP--maybe not the artists anymore).

As an audio engineer, I value my hearing, have it tested regularly, and have hearing protectors whenever I go to a concert that might get too loud, or if I were to play with musicians that can't back down. If/When I do a PA gig, I won't allow it to go consistently/continuously much above 89dbSPL at BOH (back of house). And I cringe and feel sad about all those kids who will be hard of hearing or deaf when they're middle age parents because of the rediculous overdriven BOOM of their cars and 'blasters.
Yet, I'm not boastful enough to deceive myself into believing that I can hear the difference between CD and high-bitrate compression.

Scott

[dphirschler]

Everybody with any sence (and somehow now even ROF) already knows that the music on "computer" CDRs is the same as music on "music" CDRs. I know I don't need to take that test. As someone said WAAY earlier in this thread, you can put the same data on magnetic zip disks and it will still be identical.

How mp3 got thrown into this mess of a thread I will never know. I am amazed that this thread has gone this long. So much mis-information!


Darryl

[hech54]

I have a question:
Why do musicians (like myself) EQ the shit out of their amplifiers, add effects, compressors, sustain, flange, echo, chorus, etc etc etc....and yet we do not dare change the bass and treble on our stereo/hi fi systems (except our cars) for fear of corrupting or altering the original recording in any way?
The same people do or do not believe in buying the re-mastered version of their favorite recording....depending on their tastes.

I personally grew out of LOUD music very early and opted for quality sound instead....but that doesn't mean that I think I cannot be fooled by a high bitrate MP3 vs. the original CD.

(Being a musician myself)
I consider it the difference between Music Production and Music Reproduction. With the one, you want to mold the sound to create a particular mood, with the other you don't want anything to change the way the recorded sound creates the same mood.

The remastering thing has more to do with Nostalgia or the limits of Artistic License (and/or who owns the IP--maybe not the artists anymore).

As an audio engineer, I value my hearing, have it tested regularly, and have hearing protectors whenever I go to a concert that might get too loud, or if I were to play with musicians that can't back down. If/When I do a PA gig, I won't allow it to go consistently/continuously much above 89dbSPL at BOH (back of house). And I cringe and feel sad about all those kids who will be hard of hearing or deaf when they're middle age parents because of the rediculous overdriven BOOM of their cars and 'blasters.
Yet, I'm not boastful enough to deceive myself into believing that I can hear the difference between CD and high-bitrate compression.

Scott

Acceptable.
But...even I admit that in my car I usually hike up the treble a bit(luckily my hearing has survived almost intact though through no preventative measures of my own)but I lower the bass simply because I know that these factory car speakers cannot do my ears justice....and that is with a CD.
My point was....many people are guilty of adding a bit of bass or treble here and there...but when it comes to the arguement of CD vs. MP3....the enhancement factor(for your own listening pleasure) is not an option.

[Cornucopia]

Funny, ain't it?

Scott

[lumis]

lets get this thread going again..

PI IS EXACTLY 3.0!

[iLuvLandingStrips]

As for 320 kbit/s MP3, unless there is a problem during the encoding, it is transparent with the source. I don't care how good your ears are, if you are human, you won't be able to tell the difference.

You are kidding right? While I generally agree that 320K recorded MP3s sound fine, there is a distinct difference between the original CD and the ripped(320K) MP3 version.

Distinct? You have no idea what you are talking about.
You must do some really poor encoding to distinguish a "distinct difference".

[vitualis]

Look, ROF is clearly rather trollish.

This is what YOU said ROF:

"You are kidding right? While I generally agree that 320 K recorded MP3s sound fine, there is a distinct diference between the original CD and ripped (320K) MP3 version".

Now, I assume that when you say "distinct difference", you are talking about audible difference. This is absolute bullshit and I maintain this to be so unless you can provide a SINGLE example. Yes, ROF, that's all you have to do, provide a SINGLE example.

When I said that it will sound exactly the same, that is exactly what I mean. It will sound exactly the same. By "sound" it implicitly means "with your ears". Not with computer analysis. Not visually with spectral analysis. Of course, it is different to the "real" source audio. The point of the psychoacoustic compression algorithm is that it takes advantage of the physiological limitations of the human ear into account.

I have pretty good ears and I have NEVER heard a 320 kbit/s MP3 sound distinguishable from source when encoded with a good encoder... unless the artifact is from something else (most commonly, RIPPING artifacts). Only very rarely will I hear an encoding artifact in a 256 kbit/s CBR clip. I can almost always hear encoding artifacts at 128 kbit/s (if it is music).

I maintain that your claim that there is a "distinct difference" (again, the only context that makes sense in your arguments is an "audible" difference) is either bull or user error. Sorry, ROF, but you are not fooling anyone.

Regards.

[vitualis]

The same goes for MP3 and CD Audio. There is a difference. It's a fact that there is a difference. They do not sound exactly alike. To some people they may but to others they do not for the simple reason because they aren't alike. You must care at least a little bit. You are actually trying to argue that nobody can perceive the difference because all human hearing is the same.

No, we are arguing that nobody can perceive the difference between, really, in the best studies, nobody CAN perceive the difference.

We are all different but we are all still human, with human senses with certain human limitations.

If you really can hear a "distinct difference", then you a a mutant with superhuman hearing and should immediately volunteer yourself for medical research.

Regards.

[ROF]

Now, I assume that when you say "distinct difference", you are talking about audible difference. This is absolute bullshit and I maintain this to be so unless you can provide a SINGLE example. Yes, ROF, that's all you have to do, provide a SINGLE example.

27% of the people can tell the difference. I provided two examples where at least a quarter of the test subjects were able to tell the difference. In both the conclusions were that some people could tell the difference. They aren't mutants, they can just tell the difference. Just because you can't doesn't give you the right to call me a troll or a mutant. I find that disrespectful since your arguement is based on ignoring the scientific fact that there is a difference.

[mattso]

27% of the people can tell the difference. I provided two examples where at least a quarter of the test subjects were able to tell the difference. In both the conclusions were that some people could tell the difference. They aren't mutants, they can just tell the difference. Just because you can't doesn't give you the right to call me a troll or a mutant. I find that disrespectful since your arguement is based on ignoring the scientific fact that there is a difference.

But I think this all started when you told everybody to buy "music" CDRs, not "data" CDRs.

I'm pretty much a lurker around here mostly, but I can see that you are always sticking up for the "establishment". I think that's why a lot of people has an antagonism towards you.

My worldly experience is, most people hate the "establishment"... and all the societal bullshit that goes with it.

Yes, the "Pro-Establishmentarianists" are definitely seen as "mutants" in many many circles...

[ROF]

But I think this all started when you told everybody to buy "music" CDRs, not "data" CDRs.

I'm pretty much a lurker around here mostly, but I can see that you are always sticking up for the "establishment". I think that's why a lot of people has an antagonism towards you.

My worldly experience is, most people hate the "establishment"... and all the societal bullshit that goes with it.

Yes, the "Pro-Establishmentarianists" are definitely seen as "mutants" in many many circles...

Establishments are what define humans. Shall we go back to living in trees without a language or a soceity? While I accept your assessment for certain individuals which is why I generally ignore those who troll I would think moderators would be above this sort of behavior. Perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, it's been generally accepted by myself and many others that when I initially said that Data CDs and Music CDs produce different quality I was wrong. I've stated that. I would hope that ends that discussion as far as I'm concerned. I made a statement, I tested my statement, I realized it was in error. I admitted I was wrong.

The problem is that scientific fact and testing by multiple people has proven that there are in fact a significant number of people who can tell the difference between an MP3 and CD Audio. Can anyone provide a test where 100% of the people can not tell the difference? Can anyone prove there isn't a difference? The problem is that when faced with testing results and scientific facts Vitualis has decided to choose name calling instead of facing up to the fact that he is wrong.

[frankmaster100]

I was really just browsing the site, looking for something interesting to read, and man, did I find it. Four pages of utterly useless jabber. It started out talking about music CD-R's sounding better than data CD-R's, and now you're arguing about MP3's and raw CD music? Ok, I'm not going to pretend to be a pro on any of this stuff, but I do have a little common sense. Enough to tell that there is confusion as to what is being argued.

FACT: MP3's ARE of LOWER quality than raw CD audio, as it is a lossy compression format. (whether you can hear it or not.)

FICTION: An MP3 ripped at xxx bitrate sounds better on a music CD-R than an MP3 ripped at the SAME xxx bitrate on a data CD-R.

FACT. MP3's ripped at the same bit rate, from the same source are exactly the same whether on music or data CD's.

ONE MORE FACT: If you take a data CD, and make a 1:1 copy of a factory pressed, commercial CD, purchased at your local Media Play, (NOT RIPPED TO AN MP3 FIRST, BUT COPIED 1 TO 1), not only will it SOUND EXACTLY the same as the 1st CD, in all reality, it IS exactly the same as the 1st CD. 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's, no matter what media they're on. That was what some people with common sense at the beginning of this thread tried to point out.

Sorry for butting in on a conversation I had nothign to do with, but I just couldn't help myself.

[lordsmurf]

27% of the people can tell the difference. I provided two examples where at least a quarter of the test subjects were able to tell the difference.

Like any other user based test, when something is really close, many of them guess. Your margin of error is probably like 25% for something like this. And that's assuming the test was under controlled circumstances, which I doubt, because I think the tester is too biased to objectively view the data.

[ROF]

Even with a 25% margin of error that makes it so that still 2% - 52% can hear the difference. A significant number indeed. Remember when you introduce margin of error it's both a plus and minus along the same scale.

Is there any tests where 100% of the subjects say they can't tell the difference? Is there any tests proving there isn't a difference? If not than my point is correct that there are indeed normal human beings who can tell the difference.

[smearbrick1]

Even with a 25% margin of error that makes it so that still 2% - 52% can hear the difference. A significant number indeed. Remember when you introduce margin of error it's both a plus and minus along the same scale.

Is there any tests where 100% of the subjects say they can't tell the difference? Is there any tests proving there isn't a difference? If not than my point is correct that there are indeed normal human beings who can tell the difference.

Ok... I've defended you enough. Is it not enough that most people have given you the benefit of the doubt with your rantings or supernatural hearing? I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but you don't have to try and convert 100% of the people on this site to your beliefs. State your case and move on.

You've stated your case. You argued. You lost.

Move on.

[ROF]

Ok... I've defended you enough. Is it not enough that most people have given you the benefit of the doubt with your rantings or supernatural hearing? I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but you don't have to try and convert 100% of the people on this site to your beliefs. State your case and move on.

You've stated your case. You argued. You lost.

Move on.

Show me where I lost. I said people can tell the difference. I provided examples where people can tell the difference. People in this thread have said they can tell the difference some going as far as to suggest a preferred format for compression over MP3. I can tell the difference. It's a scientific fact that there is a difference.

I've far from lost. Unless proven otherwise that 100% of humans can't tell the difference I've won. I've asked several times now for people to provide something to prove that 100% of people can not tell the difference. Instead I get name calling, told to move on, and so forth. I tried to leave once by simply allowing the wrong side to win but since being spurred back into defending my position I've provided examples. So far nobody has posted anything contrary to it. If you can post test results where 100% of the population can not tell the difference than I might be proven wrong. If not please move along yourself. Thank you.

[MJPollard]

Actually, ROF, the real winners here are those of us who refuse to argue with you, as we recognize the fact that -- to quote the old adage -- there is no value in engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[ROF]

Actually, ROF, the real winners here are those of us who refuse to argue with you, as we recognize the fact that -- to quote the old adage -- there is no value in engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Thanks again for proving my point troll.

[gadgetguy]

From the first "example" you sited.

When comparing CD vs 256Kbps and 320Kbps MP3, however, one listener actually preferred the MP3 - it sounded brighter, while the other found no difference. Neither listener could tell the difference between 256Kbps and 320Kbps MP3.

Of course, a sample audience of 2 is hardly conclusive.

The second "example" also does not prove your stance. The MP3 encoding at the highest bitrate of the test received a score of 4.9. With 30 subjects that means that 29 people rated it a 5 (indistinguishable) and 1 person rated it a 4. But this was at a highest bitrate of 256, not the 320 that's been discussed here, so it proves nothing for this discussion.