Data CD-R vs Music CD-R

[ROF]

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.

Actually since discussing this subject I've been reading quite a few sites. One in particular is a High Bit Rate Comparison done with multiple encoders. In some cases, 256K or even less sounds better than 320K using the same encoder. 256K is relevant if you believe the graphs provided in this example.

[gadgetguy]

No, the discussion was about 320Kbps so any study that doesn't include that bitrate is irrelevant.

[piano632]

If we follow the "logic" on this thread, then a CD played on a $50 CD player should sound exactly like the same CD played on a $1,000 CD player. After all, bits are bits, as you say. So explain why the $1,000 player sounds so much better at playing the same bits.

I for one can hear the difference between CD-R media, cables, burn speeds, MP3/WAV, etc. MP3 is able to compress as much as it does by tossing out frequencies that supposedly people won't notice are missing.

[ROF]

Sorry I can't find any study that uses specifically 320K. I can say that 320K sounds good but is distinguishable from the source CD. Others have stated this is well. It's a scientific fact that this is true. I fail to see anyone posting something to the contrary of this fact. Anyone know of a study done using only 320K? If not the fact remains that there is a scientific difference between the 320K MP3 and a source CD Audio. It's also a fact that some normal humans can distinguish this difference. Unless anyone can post to something proving that wrong I stand by my point. MP3 is a lossy compression method which is distinguishable to normal human hearing no matter what encoder is used and no matter what bit rate it's sampled at.

[davideck]

If we follow the "logic" on this thread, then a CD played on a $50 CD player should sound exactly like the same CD played on a $1,000 CD player. After all, bits are bits, as you say. So explain why the $1,000 player sounds so much better at playing the same bits.

The quality of the D/A and the quality of the error management.

[ROF]

I for one can hear the difference between CD-R media, cables, burn speeds, MP3/WAV, etc. MP3 is able to compress as much as it does by tossing out frequencies that supposedly people won't notice are missing.

Not just one. I think that's four people now in this thread alone that can tell the difference. Maybe the phenomenon of being able to tell a good recording from a lossy recording is not just available in test subjects. As this thread continues on more and more people seem to say they can tell the difference. Mutants and trolls or whatever else some people choose to call those who can hear the difference you must know there is a difference and without superhuman hearing normal human beings can tell the difference.

[gadgetguy]

Neither side of this argument has offered scientific study data to sustain a claim of scientific fact, so it remains a matter of opinion/belief.

I think that's four people now in this thread alone that can tell the difference.

How many have accepted Cornucopia's challenge?

[smearbrick1]

If we follow the "logic" on this thread, then a CD played on a $50 CD player should sound exactly like the same CD played on a $1,000 CD player. After all, bits are bits, as you say. So explain why the $1,000 player sounds so much better at playing the same bits.

I for one can hear the difference between CD-R media, cables, burn speeds, MP3/WAV, etc. MP3 is able to compress as much as it does by tossing out frequencies that supposedly people won't notice are missing.

I can hear an difference in analog signals, but not digital.

I have a monster optical cable that ran about $58.00 and another optical cable that ran about $14.00. The difference in audio quality in my home theater system is nothing! Same goes for my coaxial digital outputs through the be-all end-all Monster Cable. No difference to the $14.00 AR brand coaxial digital cable.

In the end, it's all ones and zeros. How can you change one and zero. The fault would have to lie somewhere on the analog side of things. Somewhere in the D/A conversion, something would have to be different to change the resulting sounds. A CD-R copy (1:1) and the original will sound identical through a purely digital system. Unless the CD-R is faulty. But this is just rehashing what was said several times.

Anybody like pie?

[ROF]

I can hear an difference in analog signals, but not digital.

I have a monster optical cable that ran about $58.00 and another optical cable that ran about $14.00. The difference in audio quality in my home theater system is nothing! Same goes for my coaxial digital outputs through the be-all end-all Monster Cable. No difference to the $14.00 AR brand coaxial digital cable.

In the end, it's all ones and zeros. How can you change one and zero. The fault would have to lie somewhere on the analog side of things. Somewhere in the D/A conversion, something would have to be different to change the resulting sounds. A CD-R copy (1:1) and the original will sound identical through a purely digital system. Unless the CD-R is faulty. But this is just rehashing what was said several times.

Anybody like pie?

As far as cabling goes has anyone heard signal loss? I thank that's the difference. Like the MP3 discussion, some people can hear the difference, others can't, but it doesn't mean there isn't a difference. It has nothing to do with digital or analog when it comes to cabling and signal loss due to poor construction of the cable or the connectors.

I like pie.

[adam]

I think 1's sound better than 0's personally.

[smearbrick1]

I can hear an difference in analog signals, but not digital.

I have a monster optical cable that ran about $58.00 and another optical cable that ran about $14.00. The difference in audio quality in my home theater system is nothing! Same goes for my coaxial digital outputs through the be-all end-all Monster Cable. No difference to the $14.00 AR brand coaxial digital cable.

In the end, it's all ones and zeros. How can you change one and zero. The fault would have to lie somewhere on the analog side of things. Somewhere in the D/A conversion, something would have to be different to change the resulting sounds. A CD-R copy (1:1) and the original will sound identical through a purely digital system. Unless the CD-R is faulty. But this is just rehashing what was said several times.

Anybody like pie?

As far as cabling goes has anyone heard signal loss? I thank that's the difference. Like the MP3 discussion, some people can hear the difference, others can't, but it doesn't mean there isn't a difference. It has nothing to do with digital or analog when it comes to cabling and signal loss due to poor construction of the cable or the connectors.

I like pie.

Signal lost over fiberoptics? Really? Braided copper I can see, but fiberoptics?

Just like using the microwave while surfing the web wirelessly. Stupid Hot Pockets!

[ROF]

Signal lost over fiberoptics? Really? Braided copper I can see, but fiberoptics?

Yes. At work we use something called an OWL to detect optical signal loss.

[Jester700]

Sounds like some people have no idea what "double blind", "ABX", and "placebo effect" are. Tests have shown that even people who swear they can tell a difference between cables, amps, whatever sometimes CANNOT reliably pick it out of an ABX lineup. Of course, it depends on the differences, but cables, media, 320k MP3 vs. PCM - these are subtle things.

So when someone says "oh, yeah, there's a difference" and you can't hear it, don't assume they're golden eared. They might instead be fooling themselves. Sometimes, they ARE golden ears. The point is, on subtle stuff you need a lot of ABX trials to really know.

[lordsmurf]

I think 1's sound better than 0's personally.

Who are you Mr. Funny Man, and what have you done with the real adam?

[Noahtuck]

I think 1's sound better than 0's personally.

I don't know man...
I always thought it had to do with how evenly the 0's were spaced :P

I think 1's sound better than 0's personally.

Who are you Mr. Funny Man, and what have you done with the real adam?

Yeah, wuz up ?? 2nd time in one thread :P

[vitualis]

As I stated before ROF, lots of people think that THEY can HEAR the difference. But that doesn't mean that they are right. Placebo.

There is no study of any quality that have demonstrated that anyone or any cohort of people could consistently tell the difference between source and 320 kbit/s MP3. YOUR TWO ARTICLES show the same thing. I'm not even sure what they hell you are going on about.

Most studies show that people can't tell the difference between 256 kbit/s MP3 and 320 kbit/s MP3.

As before ROF, since you have claimed that you can distinctly hear the difference between 320 kbit/s MP3 and source on everything you've encoded, then surely you can provide just ONE example. ONE WHERE YOU THINK THAT THERE IS A MARKED DIFFERENCE.

I can then provide a simple blinded test for you with those samples to see if you can REALLY tell the difference.

The placebo effect is really and common. It alone accounts for the sales for all those "battery enhancer" stickers. In many drug trials, the placebo arm often get significant side effects as well! (even though there is no active ingredient). Wishful thinking is common and unless you can prove otherwise, your superhuman hearing is nothing more than wishful thinking.

ROF, I have shown you a way to WIN your argument. Provide proof. It should be easy since you have already claimed that all your 320 kbit/s MP3s sound distinctly different from source. Even if I can't hear the difference, then if you are right, then surely it should be easy for you to prove to the world on a blinded test of your aural superiority.

Are you game?

Regards.

[vitualis]

Actually since discussing this subject I've been reading quite a few sites. One in particular is a High Bit Rate Comparison done with multiple encoders. In some cases, 256K or even less sounds better than 320K using the same encoder. 256K is relevant if you believe the graphs provided in this example.

ROF, you really are a troll. That site is 6 years old. You are looking at a comparison of MP3 encoders from six years ago?

In addition, looking at spectral analyses don't tell you a whole lot about what it actually sounded like with MP3 algorithms as it WILL distort it. Whether it sounds the same to human ears is not something that can be determined by looking at subtle changes on a spectral analysis.

Regards.

[ROF]

Sorry, I've provided proof. You've chosen to ignore it. Date it. Call names. Ask for me to violate the law. I can't provide examples because doing so would require me to post online a portion of an audio CD. I don't have a recording studio in my house so I can't provide a non-copyrighted example. I'd need to get permission from the artist. Any artist in their right mind would agree that my reason for asking is moronic since MP3 is a proven lossy encoding scheme. You can't seem to understand that. I don't understand why but I can't make that any more clear to you. I've asked you to provide one example where 100% of the group can not tell the difference. You haven't provided a single example. You just keep asking me to violate the law. Where's your test that proves that MP3 is not a lossy compression method where all humans can't tell the difference? I have yet to see or hear it.

Others besides myself have stated in this thread they can tell the difference. The placebo is you. I'm done arguing this. The scientific fact is that there is a difference. That at any bit rate MP3 is a lossy encoding method. Doesn't matter if the encoder is 2 days old or 100 years old. It's a lossy encoding scheme. Some people can tell the difference. If you can't, fine. I'm done. The scientific facts are on my side. There is only one winner in this arguement.

MP3 is inferior at all bit rates. Sorry if you can't hear that.

[Noahtuck]

Ask for me to violate the law.

Ahh the hypocrisy of it all

[lordsmurf]

FYI, the origin of the "one brand of CD-R can sound better than another" crap, from what I've been able to research, was nothing more than YAMAHA propaganda.

Wires is probably MONSTER propaganda.

MP3 inferiority is largely a myth proliferated by dumb net nerds. Usually isolated to people that type stuff like "u r kewl".

And you'll notice that most people that believe in one of these myths, believe in them all. Again, it stems from the personality of the person. Either they are gullible/naive, or they feel the need to exert false superiority ("my ears are better than your ears").

[mattso]

Sorry, I've provided proof. You've chosen to ignore it. Date it. Call names. Ask for me to violate the law. I can't provide examples because doing so would require me to post online a portion of an audio CD. I don't have a recording studio in my house so I can't provide a non-copyrighted example. I'd need to get permission from the artist. Any artist in their right mind would agree that my reason for asking is moronic since MP3 is a proven lossy encoding scheme. You can't seem to understand that. I don't understand why but I can't make that any more clear to you. I've asked you to provide one example where 100% of the group can not tell the difference. You haven't provided a single example. You just keep asking me to violate the law.

Man, you're obsessed with this "law" shit, ain't ya? Have you ever jay-walked? Have you ever shot an amber light? Have you ever ... SMOKED A JOINT???

Remember, laws are different depending what country you're in. They're not absolute "a priori". So, in other words, "The Law" is quite arbitrary & relative, and change all the time. Depends how the "privileged few" feel at the time. You won't go to hell if you "break" The Law.

Relax, bro!

[lordsmurf]

Academic tests (which this is) should qualify for fair use, even under the most anal-retentive interpretations. Excerpts are surely allowed.

[whitejremiah]

i will say this, a 320k/s mp3 is NOT identiacal to the original source...never will be, however, it is close enough for 99% of people im sure......i personally back up my music cd's to flac...not because i can hear the differance between them and a 320k/s mp3, but because i wanna keep the original discs safe...at all times...meaning if i break a backup...scratch it, whatever, i want to restore it from a 1:1 source as the original.....as for signal loss across digital cable....well, its there for sure.....you know this for sure if you have ever had your cable internet hiccup on you for a second or two then it's fine again...thats one example, so yes, it can and does happen......for the most part though, even with video and/or audio, its relatively unnoticeable....its a LOT more noticeable in analog cables, particularly lower end analog cables....and as far as the "tests" that ROF keeps linking to....maybe you should link to something thats more accurate as far as what types of codecs people use TODAY...not six years ago, its not so much the age of the tests, its the fact that there are much better compression schemes around these days than what was available six years ago...im sure, you who can hear the differance between a 320k/s mp3 and a pressed cd will appreciate the differance between a 320k/s mp3 which was made 6 years ago with now outdated codecs, and one that was made recently with more accurate codecs.........

[Jester700]

as for signal loss across digital cable....well, its there for sure.....you know this for sure if you have ever had your cable internet hiccup on you for a second or two then it's fine again...thats one example, so yes, it can and does happen......for the most part though, even with video and/or audio, its relatively unnoticeable....its a LOT more noticeable in analog cables, particularly lower end analog cables

There are many parts to the "internet cable" puzzle; you can't be sure that your hiccup had anything to do with cable losses. As for analog/digital, a major benefit of digital transmission is that it CAN suffer losses and can be reconstructed to EXACTLY the same signal. That is, any differences after reconstruction are not only "unnoticeable", but immeasurable. That's because it doesn't matter how much loss there is or how much noise gets in the line, provided that error correction can reconstruct the signal bit-for-bit. Analog cannot do this; every loss or additional noise is measurable and potentially audible/visible.

[vitualis]

i will say this, a 320k/s mp3 is NOT identiacal to the original source...never will be, however, it is close enough for 99% of people im sure......i personally back up my music cd's to flac...not because i can hear the differance between them and a 320k/s mp3, but because i wanna keep the original discs safe...at all times...meaning if i break a backup...scratch it, whatever, i want to restore it from a 1:1 source as the original.....

Yes, MP3 is not bit identical. No one has been confused about this except ROF trying to say that I am. If you want bit identical back ups, use FLAC or even Apple's lossless version of AAC.

I don't use MP3 to back up my CDs. I use MP3 so that I can listen to my music on an MP3 player. It is a single generation backup. If I want the original, I go back to source on the CD. 320 kbit/s MP3 on a good quality encoder (Lame or Fraunhofer) is transparent to source ... meaning you cannot hear the difference on any sound system with human EARS.

In fact, I personally think that 320 kbit/s CBR MP3 is overkill. Any number of VBR encoding methods for MP3 will yield transparent or pretty damn close to transparent at much more efficient bitrates.

and as far as the "tests" that ROF keeps linking to....maybe you should link to something thats more accurate as far as what types of codecs people use TODAY...not six years ago, its not so much the age of the tests, its the fact that there are much better compression schemes around these days than what was available six years ago...im sure, you who can hear the differance between a 320k/s mp3 and a pressed cd will appreciate the differance between a 320k/s mp3 which was made 6 years ago with now outdated codecs, and one that was made recently with more accurate codecs.........

Look at here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=55

This forum is populated with nutcases ( ) who spend all their time testing the quality of various settings of various audio codecs.

Regards.

[frankmaster100]

What's a CD? And why does it need back-up?

[garryheather]

Come back the wax cylinder, all is forgiven.

[piano632]

320 kbit/s MP3 on a good quality encoder (Lame or Fraunhofer) is transparent to source ... meaning you cannot hear the difference on any sound system with human EARS.

Guess I must have dog ears then. And I don't need a $10,000 audio system to hear it either. I can hear it just the same with the built-in sound card on my PC and a decent pair of headphones. I have used both of the MP3 encoders mentioned and neither of them sounds quite like the original WAV file even at 320 kbps. There is some loss of depth and frequency response, sense of presence, and just more of an overall synthetic sound to it.

I am currently using Monkey's Audio lossless compression for my music files, and even on the Extra High compression setting it still requires an average of 800 kbps, so how is it possible for an MP3 using 320 kbps or less to be "transparent to source"? Do the other 480+ kbps just magically create themselves when you play back an MP3? This is like saying MPEG2 video compression is indistinguishable from uncompresssed digital video.

Now, onto why the exact same bits can sound different:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm

"Digital audio systems however are different because they use both the data and the timing of the clock to reproduce the original recording. The data stream is transferred "real-time." The timing must match the original sample-rate used when the recording was made to accurately re-create the analog signal. The data words are clocked into the D/A converter at this constant rate. Both the frequency and the jitter of the clock can affect the accuracy of the reproduction. The frequency, if not accurate, can cause pitch and speed of the music to change, and in some systems cause drop-outs if there is no data available when it is expected. Jitter manifests itself as frequency modulation, which can be audible as well... In my own reference system I have made improvements that I know for a fact did not reduce the jitter more than one or two nanoseconds, and yet the improvement was clearly audible. There is a growing set of anecdotal evidence that indicates that some jitter spectra may be audible well below 1 nanosecond."

"Lossy compression includes MP3, AAC and others. Lossy compression techniques can reduce the file size by more than ten to one. These are generally not interesting for an audiophile system, and mostly are useful for portable music, like iPod's, MP3 players, etc. Lossless (I think LOSSY is meant here) compression always eliminates some of the music, such as the quieter passages that are coincident with loud passages. The thinking is that these quieter passages will not be missed in the average music system. In a decent audiophile system, however, lossy compression usually causes a loss of detail, image and soundstage depth and width."

[adam]

Well then, it looks like we have someone willing to take Cornucopia's test.

[whitejremiah]

in general, the 400+k/s (which can actually be less...ive seen some audio compress down to like 350k/s in ape.......not on a regular basis though) gets thrown out, mostly its stuff like extremely high and extremely low frequencies that MOST people can't hear........to MOST people, a 320k/s mp3 IS tranparent to THEIR ears..........i cant say that i blame you for using lossless, heck thats what i use for mine, too.........but to be quite honest, at least to me, i cant really tell a differance...if i had a bit of a better audio setup, though, and i had the volume cranked up relatively loud (can't do that anyhow, cuz i live in an aparment....) there's a chance that MAYBE i could hear a SLIGHT differance........this would be true at least for stuff that's hard for mp3 to deal with, such as classical music............now for the question of the day, can anyone tell the differance between an original audio book on cd and a 320k/s mp3 rip of that......J/K dont wanna make the thread another six pages long.....