". . .the music contained in these computer files [MP3's] represents less than 10 percent of the original music on the CDs. In its journey from CD to MP3 player, the music has been compressed by eliminating data that computer analysis deems redundant, squeezed down until it fits through the Internet pipeline."
Is this real, or the last ploy of the music industry?
The mention of bad-sounding digitized music reminds of something from a piece of the "synthetic music" from the book Brave New World. If Huxley (the author) had a chance to listen to an MP3 recording, he'd probably see what his supposedly fictional concept had become.
Yes, it's real, but how do you think the file size gets compressed by about a factor of 10?
However, the average person won't notice a difference, especially if they are listening in a car or while listening through earbuds.
MP3s are referred to as a 'lossy' format because of that. Unless you're a serious listener, it won't matter, though.
You can have different bit rates to encode the music also. Thats why I never buy digital music online, I always "rip" directly from disk. I choose a higher bit rate for my listening pleasure. BTW most home stereo's don't reproduce what is on a CD either. I have listened to wonderful music on a pair of speakers that were $40,000 each and it was fabulous, I heard things I didn't know were there. WMA is thought to be a better codec for compression, higher fidelity with lower file size. Its only downfall is that it is not as universal as MP3.
If you encode/decode the same file a few times, it sounds terrible because each time you encode it, more of the first file is lost.
MP3's are a great idea for listening to music on portable devices in non-critical scenarios, but certainly are not meant for listening in a high-end environment.
A CD is sampled at 44.1 khz at 16 bit resolution which results in a data rate of 44100 x 16 x 2 = 1,411,200 bits/second. The average MP3 is encoded at 128,000 bits/second. Something has to be removed to be able to store all that audio.
As the the "internet pipeline" comment... The internet is a transmission medium and nothing more. You can transfer any sampling rate audio through it, including uncompressed audio. It is just compressed to save space and download speeds.
why would you encode more than once?
-- Modified on 8/15/2007 6:42:45 AM
Z, unfortunately there is a compression that does take place. At one time in my life, I could probably hear the diff better than I can now - but I still hear it.. I have friends that swear that they can hear the difference... and prefer the old amplifiers as they believe that the harmonics and overtones do add this "richness" and "fullness" to the music. On a good day, I do know what they mean. It is real! but on the otherhand, I do hot miss the hiss of the old tape decks, or the "scratchiness" of the albums. When solid state hit the hi-fi market, the same was said... and I heard it argued that Klystron (vacuum) tubes were a better amplification system....
Personally, it was a trade off, and I have to admit - on a long plane ride - being able to switch back and forth between Mahler, and Green Day or Crosby Stills Nash and Young, or Carrie Underwood... well, I love the ability to carry an entire musical library with me... so, I am ok with the trade off... but yea, some can tell the difference... and now, the good news!
As you get older - your ability to actually hear the nuiances in music decreases (personally I am about to the level of "feeling the bass drum!"). Seriously, the ability to hear higher frequencies falls off starting in about the 4th decade of life. The loss is mostly in the higher frequencies (3kHz and above). Remember that hearing is geared to the frequencies most commonly found in human speech (kinda an evolutionary thing). So, listening to Stravinsky becomes less and less enjoyable the older ya get (not that it was enjoyable as a teenager!lol!).... So, as you get older, the ability to hear these nuances becomes less and less...
Now, to the next bit of good news, there are some mega file formats that are being experimented with to provide you with more of the data generated in the recording of music. The Philadelphia Philharmonic Orchestra has made some of these files available (for a small fee) on their web site.... you may wish to explore and see if you can detect a difference... all kidding aside... I can hear a difference... and I am not the best music listener...
sadly, when I was told this, I was more saddened than anything else... and least you think that this is limited to MP3's - they compress files to put them onto the CDs as well, just not as much.
Truly wish I did not know this.
-- Modified on 8/15/2007 8:21:37 AM
I agree with your friends. Try this. Run a cd player through a tube amp and the difference is startling. All the higher quality of the CD without the scratch of vinyl. As I recall the cutoff levels for tubes are gradual not sharp like with semiconductors so it is more natural to the ear.
-- Modified on 8/16/2007 7:15:32 AM
BizzaroSuperdude - yes, but this is the nature of taking something that is analog (infinitely fine variations) and converting it to something digital (discrete values). With CDs, the Sony and Phillips engineers did an exceptionally fine job, that all but the most fanatical are happy with. I would not lose sleep over it.
filmat11
zinaval said ". . .'the music contained in these computer files [MP3's] represents less than 10 percent of the original music on the CDs.' ...Is this real, or the last ploy of the music industry?"
It may be 10% of the data, but as others have said, it is not 10% of the music. The compression is done in such a way that most of the musical experience remains, even if some is lost. However, you are at the mercy of whoever created the digital file and the sampling rate/quality they chose to use. There is a trade-off between audio quality and file size (the "no free lunch" rule).
That being said, when I was a kid, a lot of music was sold on audio cassettes. I don't have the facts at hand, but I would wager that the fidelity of pre-recorded cassettes in the 70s and 80s was worse than the typical digital track found at the iTunes Music Store. Personally, I always thought cassettes sucked, but millions of people were happy with them. That is until they stretched, got tangled or simply wore out - something your iTunes track won't do.
Picking up on some other comments, Apple actually uses AAC encoding for its iTunes store, not MP3. AAC is generally considered to have greater fidelity at a given bit rate than MP3. Typical iTunes tracks are encoded at 128k bits per second (kbps), but Apple recently announced that it will sell some copy-protection-free music encoded at 256 kbps for $1.29. This is the bit rate at which I rip my own CDs and I have been very pleased (like SilkinChicago I rarely buy music online and prefer to digitize it myself using iTunes).
filmat11
-- Modified on 8/15/2007 3:00:21 PM
I tried using Itunes to rip and it took fooooorrrreeevverrrrrr. If you want to use your music on a pod, rip it with something else in MP3 format and then let Itunes convert it to AAC.
I can rip a typical CD in about 5 minutes, and my computer isn't the latest nor the fastest.
If you rip into MP3, and then to AAC, then isn't that two lossy compressions? If you do rip to MP3 using some other program, why not just import those MP3's into iTunes?
...you can get that down to hearing 1% or 2% from 10% of the original music. This isn't the days of 8 track, so listening to music bareback is an unnecessary risk. One out of ten people will suffer from hearing AIDS. Lets do a walk-a-thon real soon.
