MP3 sound quality

[tsenfw 10+ year member]

Say you have mp3's that are encoded at 320kb/s. Which would yield better sound quality. Just burning them to disk and play them as mp3's, or using a program that converts them to wav format and burns a normal audio cd for you?

I always assumed they would be the same quality but now I'm wondering about the mp3 decoding process on my HU.

Even if there is a difference I bet it's not percievable by a human ear, but I'd like to know anyways.

Click to read more...

 

[pensacol 10+ year member]

MP3 is a lossy format. You can play them as MP3's or convert them and burn them to as a WAV on an audio cd and they will be the same quality.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

Even if there is a difference I bet it's not percievable by a human ear,

It is.

Once you've compressed down to MP3, there's no bringing that quality back. It's all downhill from there...

Which is why I prefer lossless compression such as FLAC //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

It is.
Once you've compressed down to MP3, there's no bringing that quality back. It's all downhill from there...

Which is why I prefer lossless compression such as FLAC //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Exactly. If you're going to burn it into CD audio why not just copy the CD without any compression at all. Then you rip that copy and make some mp3s.

 

[mdillon 10+ year member]

you lose over 90 percent of your music when compressed to mp3. the compression program drops what it "feels" is not necessary.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

you lose over 90 percent of your music when compressed to mp3. the compression program drops what it "feels" is not necessary.

Uhhhh, yeah......

 

[wvufootball 10+ year member]

I run Osx, can someone send me a couple songs in FLAC form, I would love to hear it. Do I need a program to burn it?

 

[60ndown 10+ year member]

in a dead quiet room maybe its noticeable, at 70 mph i doubt youd notice.

 

[ARSkemp 10+ year member]

most of you are assuming he has a physical cd already, right?

he says he starts out with a 320kb/s mp3. In which case their shouldn't be any audible difference between burning to wav for the cd or burning an mp3 disc.

 

[tsenfw 10+ year member]

most of you are assuming he has a physical cd already, right?
he says he starts out with a 320kb/s mp3. In which case their shouldn't be any audible difference between burning to wav for the cd or burning an mp3 disc.

Yeah. exactly. I completely understand that mp3 is a lossy format.

No one reads the orginal post. I'm talking about starting out with only the mp3 and if theres a SQ difference from just burning them as mp3's or burning as a normal cd.

There probably is not but there is things to consider:

The way a HU decodes the mp3s as it plays them.

The tendency of audio burning programs equalizing volume of tracks and process in which it decodes the mp3 back to wav format.

 

[IgnoreMe 5,000+ posts]

Yeah. exactly. I completely understand that mp3 is a lossy format.
No one reads the orginal post. I'm talking about starting out with only the mp3 and if theres a SQ difference from just burning them as mp3's or burning as a normal cd.

There probably is not but there is things to consider:

The way a HU decodes the mp3s as it plays them.

The tendency of audio burning programs equalizing volume of tracks and process in which it decodes the mp3 back to wav format.

i know when nero would convert my mp3's to .wav's so that they could be burned it would introduce all types of bullshit in them.

what i started doing was using Exact Audio Copy to decode my mp3's to .wav. this keeps the mp3 file sounding the same, even though its a .wav now instead of an mp3, and then using nero to burn the .wav to a cd. IME, i dont want nero converting anything, just burning to the cd.

either that, or i just make an mp3 disc and fit 7 albums on a cd lol. both have the same quality IME.

 

[vehementSPL 10+ year member]

honestly I personally can't tell the sq difference between a mp3 that is over 196kb/s and VERY VERY little as long as it is 128 but it drops like a rock after that (granted I have a bass machine and not a sq car and I am sure it would be much more noticeable with a sq car

 

[-Snowrider- 10+ year member]

Most people will not be able to tell the difference between a song that is 128 or a song that is higher.

 

[mile098 10+ year member]

mp3 are for crap type music, r'n'b rap and shit like that(no ofense to anyone i listen mostly to that too)..for jazz, opera, classical, 'guitar based' music go with audio....maybe just me, but who the fuk cares what 17kHz sound like when theres a kw of power hitting in the trunk

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

Most people will not be able to tell the difference between a song that is 128 or a song that is higher.

The difference between 128 kbps mp3 and what?? Higher mp3s?? I must not be most people because I can definintely tell the difference between 128 CBR and a good VBR mp3.