I now understand why (some) people like the sound quality of MP3 ...

[Kuhlau]

Reading this blog post - and listening to a downloaded copy of Lily Allen's new album (don't ask) - I suddenly 'got' why people (younger people, that is) like MP3 ... despite its inferior sound quality.

As Ms Allen's mediocre pop pap passed into my ears through headphones, I thought:

a) Would I want this dynamically compressed, over-produced, disposable pop in high quality, anyway? And would I notice any difference?

b) Actually, it sounds fine in MP3. More than fine, in fact.

Your thoughts?

FK

[Diletante]

I use MP3 despite its inferior sound quality to, say, FLAC, because:

a) MP3 files are smaller. I don't consider only my disk space, but I'm also constantly transferring files from my desktop PC to my notebook PC, to my flash drive, my iPod... and bigger files mean waiting longer.

b) MP3 is more compatible with... everything. I can put my MP3 files in my flash drive and connect it to my mini-component or even my DVD player, I can make an MP3 disc and use it in a car audio system... Besides, I don't think FLAC is compatible with the iPod, is it?

So, I like MP3 because it's WAY more practical than the lossless formats.

[drogulus]

Reading this blog post - and listening to a downloaded copy of Lily Allen's new album (don't ask) - I suddenly 'got' why people (younger people, that is) like MP3 ... despite its inferior sound quality.

As Ms Allen's mediocre pop pap passed into my ears through headphones, I thought:

a) Would I want this dynamically compressed, over-produced, disposable pop in high quality, anyway? And would I notice any difference?

b) Actually, it sounds fine in MP3. More than fine, in fact.

Your thoughts?

FK

     In a) you have 2 questions. I think the answer to the first one is yes, you want lo- or mid-fi music at maximum quality because it will sound better much of the time. Not always, though, since I've found that sound improvements in the playback chain will cause you to reevaluate the SQ of many recordings. But in general the better you like the sound of something the better you'll like hearing it on the best equipment. This is only minimally affected by differences between mp3 and lossless files, if there is any detectable difference at all.

     The question of whether you will notice the difference depends on the quality of the mp3s, which can vary quite a bit. The days of 128 kbps downloads are gone, and everything I see now is 256 0r 320 CBR, and more and more V -0 VBR, which is qualitatively close to if not identical to 320 kbps at a smaller file size. It also depends to some extent on the nature of the program material. There are some kinds of music that demand lossless, and first on the list is harpsichord music. Also you should consider the difference in sensitivity to high frequencies, which declines with age, especially for males. This has the happy consequence of providing audiophiles as a class with more than average deafness in the area where mp3s are weakest. What do I conclude from that? Nothing really, I just like saying it.

     For b) I would make 2 points. First, at the rates mp3s are made at today, almost any music will sound good, with the exception of the most challenging stuff. You can go to Hydrogenaudio Forums and get plenty of info about listening tests and where the transparency threshold is currently. Here's a link to the LAME settings they are recommending.

     The second b) point is something I discovered by doing a huge amount of encoding and listening: mp3s don't really have a sound. I remember thinking that they must sound different since everyone said they did, but then I finally worked out that how mp3s really differ is rather subtle, so subtle that you either can't hear it at all or only notice it in a direct comparison. In ordinary usage they sound like the source. Maybe at one time this was not the case but it is now.

[Peregrine]

Reading this blog post - and listening to a downloaded copy of Lily Allen's new album (don't ask) - I suddenly 'got' why people (younger people, that is) like MP3 ... despite its inferior sound quality.

As Ms Allen's mediocre pop pap passed into my ears through headphones, I thought:

a) Would I want this dynamically compressed, over-produced, disposable pop in high quality, anyway? And would I notice any difference?

b) Actually, it sounds fine in MP3. More than fine, in fact.

Your thoughts?

FK

You're just sounding old, man.....

[drogulus]

Recommended encoder settings

This section describes the Hydrogenaudio recommended settings to be used with LAME for highest quality MP3 encoding. These settings require LAME 3.98 or later (the latest stable version is recommended).


Best quality: "archiving"

-b 320. This is the strongest setting for MP3, with the lowest risk of artifacts. With the exception of a few situations, quality is rarely better than the highest VBR profiles described below. However, 'archiving' music using a lossy format like MP3 is never recommended – no matter how transparent the resulting files might sound. The alternative is to use Lossless formats like WavPack, FLAC etc. that allow true archiving, bit for bit like on the original CD.

High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening

-V0 (~245 kbps), -V1 (~225 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V3 (~175 kbps) are recommended. These settings will normally produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people can't distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are rare.
Portable: background noise and low bitrate requirement, small sizes

-V4 (~165 kbps), -V5 (~130 kbps) or -V6 (~115 kbps) are recommended. -V6 produces an "acceptable" quality, while -V4 should be close to perceptual transparency.

Very low bitrate, small sizes: eg. for voice, radio, mono encoding etc.

For very low bitrates, up to 100kbps, ABR is most often the best solution. Use --abr <bitrate> (e.g. --abr 80).


VBR (variable bitrate) settings

VBR: variable bitrate mode. Use variable bitrate modes when the goal is to achieve a fixed level of quality using the lowest possible bitrate.

VBR is best used to target a specific quality level, instead of a specific bitrate. The final file size of a VBR encode is less predictable than with ABR, but the quality is usually better.

Unlike other MP3 encoders which do VBR encoding based on predictions of output quality, LAME's default VBR method tests the actual output quality to ensure the desired quality level is always achieved.

Usage: -V(number) where number is 0-9, 0 being highest quality, 9 being the lowest.

                                                                                     

     I depart from these recs because I archive losslessly and use V -0 for portables. That means my standard is higher. Not because I hear anything wrong, but because I don't ever want to.

[Ciel_Rouge]

I suppose the most interesting part is which instruments demand lossless - the harpsichord has been mentioned. But how about the organ?

As for the quality itself, Deutsche Grammophon provides 320 kbps downloads for a reason - this is the best size/quality ratio for the classical. Other kinds of music may not demand such a high bitrate and may easily settle for 192 kbps. Still, I suppose this part is something to be discussed by listeners of other genres like ethnic, jazz etc.

[Kuhlau]

Drogulus, I think I may have laid myself open to misunderstanding.

I'm not preaching against MP3 as a file format - I have literally thousands of such files, in a wide variety of sizes and bitrates, and am generally happy with the sound quality versus the trade-off of convenience (portability, storage, etc). Having said this, FLAC is my creed these days.

The point I was trying to make is that it no longer surprises me that today's young are satisfied with (and in blind testing, seem to prefer) the sound quality of MP3. Ms Allen's latest offering convinced me that a lossy format is more than adequate for many kinds of contemporary pop music - I very much doubt that hearing the studio master of the album would prove any more revealing (or rewarding) than hearing the tracks as MP3s.

As for you, Peregrine, zip it!

FK

[Que]

High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening

-V0 (~245 kbps), -V1 (~225 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V3 (~175 kbps) are recommended. These settings will normally produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people can't distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are rare.

Maybe do a test with harpsichord music, differences will become immediately apparent - to me at least.
Also quite sensitive to "lower rate MP3 conversion": violin music and vocal music.

Q

[DavidRoss]

Yes, FK, you are correct.

When I was testing codecs and bitrates to determine an acceptable tradeoff between sound quality and file size for iPod playback (settling on LAME@320), I found complex orchestral music with vocals to be most revealing of compression artifacts.

[haydnguy]

If I understand what Kuhlau is saying, I think the point being, "what difference does it make if your listening to Brittney Spears" (or most any types of pop music). The other thing (which I'm speculating about here), is that if you don't have great "listening equipment", what difference does it make either? If the stereo your listening on is average, are you going to really here the subtle differences anyway?   

[mahler10th]

ON the UK Channel 5 Programme "The Gadget Show" about three years ago, they tested audio mp3 v audio cd and had a bunch of musicians listen without prior knowledge of what formats they were exposed to.  All they had to do was to figure out which one they liked best, all formats played through some highbrow hardware.
The MP3 format was a surprise hit.

[DavidRoss]

If I understand what Kuhlau is saying, I think the point being, "what difference does it make if your listening to Brittney Spears" (or most any types of pop music). The other thing (which I'm speculating about here), is that if you don't have great "listening equipment", what difference does it make either? If the stereo your listening on is average, are you going to really here the subtle differences anyway?  

Kuhlau's point is that most pop recordings are (1) made in a studio and not a "real" acoustic environment, (2) made with electronic instruments that have no "real" sound anyway, and (3) are recorded so "hot" with so much compression that even the masters have very limited dynamic and tonal ranges ... so there is very little dropoff in quality between the CD recordings and the highly compressed low bitrate mp3 & mp4 files.

And your point, that crappy playback equipment is less revealing--especially of subtle differences (though the difference between 320kbps LAME and 128kbps iTunes files of decently recorded music is not subtle)--is also correct.

[Kuhlau]

Bang on, David. That's my point, exactly.

FK