@black_rectangle wrote:
128 belongs in the era of dial-up internet and memory measured in MB. It’s over.
Well said, B-R. But hey, at least it isn’t this bad . . . yet.
@black_rectangle wrote:
“So your standard is whether or not there are glaringly obvious compression artifacts?”
My standard is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test.
“That’s a mighty low standard.”
I do not think so. Tried it?
“You lose something with 128 kbps.”
Yes.
“Frequency range is restricted.”
Yes.
“Complex overtones are left out. Spatial effects flatten out.”
There might be some compression artefacts. Have you done any ABXing? Tapeworm, have you done any ABXing? If you or Tapeworm have done any ABXing with –V5 encodes made from LAME 3.98.4, then you both will know how much compression artefacts we are talking about in this thread. And, Tapeworm, you will then be able to verify if these compression artefacts make –V5 sound like 8-track tapes.
‘If all you care is that it doesn’t sound awful–that cymbals don’t squelch as they do at lower bitrates–then OK, it’s “very good.”’
With lossy encoders, no matter how high the bit rate, there will always be compression artefacts.
“By 2008 standards. What a triumph.”
It does not have to be 2008 standards. It could be 2011 standards if you ABX now.
“But you are just not getting the music as it was supposed to sound.”
Well, one could say that just by using a lossy encoder, one is just not getting the music as it was supposed to sound. So what it comes down to is ABXing it to see if one can tolerate the compression artefacts.
“Play the music with a better bitrate, or lossless, and the difference from 128 is obvious.”
I have ABXed it—compared the lossy files against uncompressed WAVs. Can you and Tapeworm claim the same? The difference is not that obvious. With some music, yes. With the vast majority of music, probably no.
“The original post was about sound quality.”
The second post was about sound quality.
“I wouldn’t judge sound quality from 128 kbps.”
When ABXing, you are always comparing it to an uncompressed WAV.
“Hydrogen Audio is saying very clearly that IF you are listening to your music over background noise, 128 kbps can be adequate.”
Yes. This is what I wanted to say.
“Meanwhile, folks who are listening through stock earbuds are losing more from the cheapo earbuds than they are from the compression.”
No disagreement here.
“But I listen through IEMs that block a lot of background noise and reproduce the file with some accuracy. Why would I want to get a high-quality playback of a file that is at best passable, when I have enough GB to have higher fidelity?”
Well, there is always –V3 or higher quality standards.
“128 belongs in the era of dial-up internet and memory measured in MB.”
Well, yes. Memory now is relatively inexpensive. But the claim that started all this was made by JK98: “128 kbps mp3 files don’t sound so good.” I disagree with this statement.
@marvin_martian wrote:
@contrapuntal wrote:
Well, all my encodes are at -V3 and -V0. I am only saying that should someone chooses -V5, it is not like they are going to immediately soil their underwear and need a defibrillator because of the huge amounts of compression artefacts.
Let’s be realistic here…many of the people in this forum have done their encoding with either the Windows Media Player encoder or the iTunes encoder…and both are inferior to LAME. So in that circumstance, the lower bitrates may be more suspect.
I do not know which MP3 encoders are used with Windows Media Player 11 or 12 as the default.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Player#Version_11:
“Windows Media Player 10, which is downloadable for Windows XP and part of Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 includes the Fraunhofer MP3 ACM codec for ripping to MP3 format. Because of licensing restrictions, Windows Media Player 11 includes only an MP3 decoder, not an ACM encoder.[16]”
According to http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mp3-128-1/results.htm, the iTunes, Fraunhofer, LAME, and Helix encoders “are all tied so there is no quality winner.” I, however, agree that some of the individuals in this forum might have used low-quality encoders.
@contrapuntal wrote:
But the claim that started all this was made by JK98: “128 kbps mp3 files don’t sound so good.” I disagree with this statement.
JK98 says, “128kbps .mp3 files don’t sound so good.”
Black-Rectangle agrees with this statement.
Tapeworm agrees with this statement.
Contrapuntal disagrees with this statement.
OK, so you disagree. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Can we get back on-topic now or at least start a completely new thread on the subject?
And by the way, it’s spelled compression _ artifact _, not artefact.
@tapeworm wrote:
“Can we get back on-topic now or at least start a completely new thread on the subject?”
Tapeworm, thank you for agreeing to not make any more posts in this thread.
MP3s at 128 kbps do not sound so good.
JK98 agrees with this statement.
Black-Rectangle agrees with this statement.
Tapeworm agrees with this statement.
gwk1967 agrees with this statement.
Contrapuntal disagrees with this statement.
Hydrogenaudio disagrees with this statement.
An ABC/HR test disagrees with this statement.
Sebastian Mares disagrees with this statement.
“And by the way, it’s spelled compression artifact , not artefact. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact:
“A compression artifact (or artefact) is a noticeable distortion of media (including images, audio, and video) caused by the application of lossy data compression.”
@gwk1967 wrote:
It doesn’t matter if the combined populations of India and China unanimously disagree that MP3s at 128kbps “do not sound so good”. That doesn’t make the people in this thread (me included) wrong when we say it doesn’t sound good TO US.
It does not matter if evidence is presented that shows that MP3s at 128 kbps can sound good. There will always be individuals that ignore evidence and stick with their beliefs. Why? Because it is easier to do this than to investigate for themselves. I listened to 128-kbps MP3s before. They sound terrible. Contrapuntal, you are wrong. We do not have to ABX any files. End of story.
Well, gwk1967, in a way, you are correct. Everyone’s tolerance of compression artefacts is different. Everyone’s ability to hear these compression artefacts is different. But not everyone is willing to take that extra step to investigate.
Not everyone is willing to say to themselves: “Wait a minute. Maybe that ******* Contrapuntal might be correct. Just for laughs, I am going to ABX some of these files and see for myself just how much of these compression artefacts are present. This is something new, so it is going to take some time and effort.”
gwk1967, I know you will never do any ABXing. So this thread is for those individuals with an open mind who want to learn something new-- those who are willing to admit to themselves that there is a tiny chance that they might be wrong. Humility. What a concept.
A very wise man once said:
Never get in a pissing match with a beer drinker.
OK gentlemen let’s try to keep thing civil. There is no real need for the pointless arguments. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Some people prefer higher bit rates and some prefer lower bit rates. Please try to keep the thread on topic and avoid pointless arguments with those whose opinions differ from your own.
Forum Admin
slotmonsta
Thanks Slotmonsta,
My opinion, and the only one that counts for me, is that my 45 year old ears can’t really tell the difference unless I am using high quality phones and actually concentrating on looking for it.
Hell, I grew up on Albums and cassette tapes. We regularly had cracks and pops in our music, or a nice huge HISS in the backgournd while playing cassettes.
As a teenager, I was not an audiophile, I did not handle my albums with white gloves. Cracks, Pops and Hiss were a part of life.
Technology has indeed improved. When I started RIPPING my music 128Kps was considered the acceptable between quality and size.
I have amassed a large amount of music. While Ripping a new CD doesn’t take long when spread over years of purchases. Having to go back and RE-RIP everything I own is not worth it for me since I rarely listen to music in an environment that would allow me to perceive a huge difference.
The amount of work required to re-encode all my tracks is not worth it for me. When I get new music, I do rip it at a higher bitrate since I do have memory space, but I am not about to re-rip everything I already ripped at 128.
