OT: MP3 and Classical music

[Vatz Relham]

Seems like the portable CD (walkman) type player is being slowly replaced by the MP3 player (ipod's etc)
I am thinking of buying an MP3 player but don't want to sacrifice sound quality.
What MP3 Bit rate is the closest to standard CD quality sound?
MP3 128kbps
MP3 192kbps
MP3 256kbps
MP3 320kbps

Thanks,
Vatz

[Leo K]

I was told that MP3 192kps and up is CD quality.

I love my iPod by the way!!

[michaelw]

Years ago, when I was very skeptical about MP3 there was a test in a very serious journal, where amateurs and professionals from the
music business compared CD, 128bit MP3 and 256bit MP3. Result: Some even found 128bit better than CD, but at 256 there was no statistical significance
that the difference could be felt.
Later I started to like my Creative Zen and the iPods and instead of MP3 I used AAC at 128 or 160 and WMA at 160 bit. This seems to be comparable to MP3 196 and is considered as very good, but not always CD-like.
When I get very new Mahler CD's I sample at 196 MP3 now, since general compatibility of MP3 is better than for AAC and WMA, and for some special CD's I apply 256 (but that's not scientifically based).

Michael

[michaelw]

Addendum: I think that 128 MP3 is not good enough, so I use minimum 160 for Jazz or Rock music. And, of course, the higher the sampling rate the closer you are to CD. In terms of memory: at 128 you have about 1 MB for 1 minute, at CD quality you have 10 MB for one minute. Apple Lossless format, to be considered as identical to CD costs 5 MB for a minute.

Michael

[Vatz Relham]

Michael, Leo, Thanks for the feed back!

That brings up another question.
How much memory would be needed to hold a complete Mahler cycle aprx 11-15 CD's sampled at MP3 192k?
I was thinking of getting an 8GB player and leaving enough space for a complete Mahler cycle permanatly on it, and then using the rest of the memory for other classical, Jazz, Rock, etc.

Maybe 8GB isn't enough? And are hard drive players like Zen and iPOD better than Flash memory players like Sandisk?
This stuff is all new to me.

Thanks,
Vatz

[sperlsco]

Seems like the portable CD (walkman) type player is being slowly replaced by the MP3 player (ipod's etc)
I am thinking of buying an MP3 player but don't want to sacrifice sound quality.
What MP3 Bit rate is the closest to standard CD quality sound?
MP3 128kbps
MP3 192kbps
MP3 256kbps
MP3 320kbps

Thanks,
Vatz

Fact:  The higher the bit rate, the closer you are to duplicating the information on the CD.  So theoretically, a higher bit rate is a better quality sound.  Of course a higher bit rate causes a larger file size, which takes up more hard drive (or flash memory) space. 

Now all that said, I have read summaries of studies that indicate that people cannot reliably distinguish between certain higher bit rates of MP3's (or AAC, OGG, WMA,...) and the original CD's.  The best compromise for MP3 file size and quality is to use variable bit rate files (which is generally what I use).  An MP3 compression program (which is free) will do this by analyzing the amount of sound information in the original CD file and changing the bit rate used at any piece of sound (i.e. more complex music => higher bit rate, less complex information => lower bit rate).  Therefore, a vbr file will potentially use bit rates between 128 to 320 Kbps, while a 192 file will be all 192.   The downside to vbr files is that it takes longer to convert/rip files because of the analysis done by the software program.  So if you plan to rip a bunch of your CD's, time may be a consideration. 

All of this can get rather complicated, so I am going to stop here.  I generally rip my CD's using a LAME decoder with a quality level of Alt-Preset-Extreme (approx. vbr 256) and sometimes Alt-Preset-Standard (approx. vbr 192).  On headphones, I do not discern a difference between these rips and the original CD's.  On speakers, though, I still like CD's (or better yet, SACD).  Most of my equipment is mid-level budget quality (Denon 28XX receivers, NHT bookshelf speakers, Sennheiser 595 headphones, Creative MP3 players, NO heaphone amp), so higher quality components may make a difference. 

[sperlsco]

Michael, Leo, Thanks for the feed back!

That brings up another question.
How much memory would be needed to hold a complete Mahler cycle aprx 11-15 CD's sampled at MP3 192k?
I was thinking of getting an 8GB player and leaving enough space for a complete Mahler cycle permanatly on it, and then using the rest of the memory for other classical, Jazz, Rock, etc.

Maybe 8GB isn't enough? And are hard drive players like Zen and iPOD better than Flash memory players like Sandisk?
This stuff is all new to me.

Thanks,
Vatz

You can easily fit an entire Mahler cycle on an 8GB player and have plenty of room for other music.  Just off the top of my head, I would estimate that a Mahler cycle might take 1Gb or so at 192.  The main advantages of the Flash memory players are the size and the fact that you have no moving parts.  A hard drive can be susceptible to break-down if gets tussled about too much.  The hard drive ones can hold MUCH more music of course.  I have a 60GB Creative Zen (HDD) player and a 4GB Zen V Plus (Flash).  I run with the Flash player and use the hard drive player for anything involving less shaking.  I really like having a huge selection of music from which to choose, but even the 60GB player does not hold enough music for me!!!  It may be that some of the larger (i.e. HDD) players can have better electronics.  I notice a tighter, more defined bottom-end on my HDD player. 

[Vatz Relham]

Scott,

Thanks very much for your advice! And I actually understand some of it.

Right now I'm leaning towards an 8Gb flash memory player, I like the idea of the vbr process, I think the latest WMP 10 (Windows Media Player) does have the capacity to convert files using vbr.

The only thing I don't like in this whole process is the time involved on the PC making the transfers to the MP3 player, but I suppose the pay off is having lots of music at your fingetips anytime you want, until you get bored with your selections, then it's back on the PC.

Vatz
 

[chris]

When I bought my new iPod I decided to have some fun and rip and blindly compared MP3s (of MTT's Mahler's 2nd) from 128, 160, 192, 256, and 320 and compared them on a decent surround sound system, my car, and a pair of low-ish end quality headphones (Phillips, $40, don't know the model).   

In my personal opinion, the only time I heard a difference was at 128 because it sounded distorted in the loud segments (mainly the thundering drum rolls in the last movement).   160 sounded quite better - no distortion....but from there on up, I personally could not tell a difference.   I've heard one gripe with high end headphones (in the over $100 range) and they really bring out the flaws in compression.   

My wife claims the 128 rips didn't sound any worse than the 160 and I have a friend who will not rip below 256....it's all in the ear of the beholder.

If you don't use VBR as Scott said, just rip the same CD at a bunch of different bitrates and compare wherever you'll listen to music.   I haven't dabbled in that because my collection is pretty much completely uploaded and I won't be reripping anytime soon. 

Ripping CDs is tedious, especially since CDDB isn't very friendly with classical music. 

Scott's estimate of a gig is about right....I made an MP3 CD (700 mb) and was able to fit the first through the seventh at either 160 or 192 (I am 99% sure 192).   So even if you rip at a high bitrate like 320, you're still not even going to fill a quarter of an 8 gig player.

I have an 80 gig iPod and I think the large capacity ones make people go crazy....mine has fourteen M2s thirteen M9s, seventeen Beethoven 9ths, six Ring Cycles, four Bruckner cycles....stick with an 8 gig, you'll spend more time listening and less time deciding.   

[DennisW]

If you have the player storage capacity, definitely try 192kbs or higher. 160 is acceptable in some things; 128 just barely so. Comparing 192 to 256 or 320, I can often not really tell much of a difference, but comparing 128 to 192, I can definitely hear the quality difference.

[Vatz Relham]

Chris, Dennis, Thanks for your advice.

Looks like lots of people have already gone through the process of figuring out all this MP3 business, seems like it's worth while in the end, so I will eventually pick one up.

Chris, you cracked me up with the amount of stuff you got on your iPOD, especially the six Ring cycles, I only have 2 on CD and one on DVD to choose from, but I can see how a person can go nuts with this stuff. Better to limit yourself as you suggest.

Thanks again to all for your advice.
Vatz
 

[chris]

I was browsing my local library and found an "MP3 for Dummies" book - they really do have one of those for everything.    I checked it out but haven't read it yet, I've found those books to be helpful in general though....so it may be worth a look if you are interested in some of the technical parts.

[Amphissa]

MP3 is a "lossy" format. Like jpg graphics, the lower the rez, the more is lost. For example, let's say you start with a decent quality visual image, say 300 dpi or more. With jpg pictures, if you are viewing on a computer monitor, you won't notice much degradation from the original at mid-rez, because the resolution of a monitor is only around 100 dpi (more or less). But if you are wanting to print the image in a publication or project it on a screen, you would notice it.

With audio, your audio playback is the deciding factor. It all pretty much depends on the sound system you plan to listen through. If you listen through little headphones or your average ordinary car speakers or a boom box or ordinary computer speakers, mid-rez is fine. If you listen through a quality stereo system, mid-rez will have hard edges, less transparency, and suffer from loss of dynamic range. If you have a for-real hi end audio system, mp3 sux, so don't bother. It will hurt to listen to it.

Just as with jpg images, once the detail is lost, it cannot be recovered, and recompressing into another mp3, even one that is set for higher rez, will actually further degrade the audio.

Which is why I never download low rez, and avoid mp3 whenever possible as my original source. If I have a high-rez original (like the CD original), I can always rip and burn low rez mp3s for other purposes. But if all I have is a crappy low rez mp3, it is of very limited usefulness. I still do all my serious listening through a quality stereo system.

[Vatz Relham]

Amphissa,

Thanks for the input, I understand what your saying, due to the limited sound quality of MP3 files a good sound system will reveal it's limitations. My interest in MP3 is for ripping CD's to an MP3 player and listening with Sennheiser PX100 headphones which sound very good with a Sony discman. I'm just trying to understand if I make the switch to MP3 will I loose anything in sound quality compared to what I'm used to for portable use. I know some people hook up their iPOD's to thier home sound system, that doesn't interest me, nor am I interested in downloading from the internet.

I appreciate all the advice, it really helps me better understand this new technology, and make better choices.

Vatz 

   

[chris]

Vatz,

I didn't even think about this, does your discman play MP3 CDs?    It seems that a few years ago that became a somewhat standard feature.   If it does, you could carry around an entire Mahler cycle on just two discs.   If you're content with the size of your discman (ie, don't necessarily want something smaller than your wallet) you could just make a few of those without the investment in a player.

Chris