Page 1 of 3
#1
I just downloaded a few albums off of Amazon and am disappointed with the quality. The songs sound extremely compressed. When downloading a full album, I expect CD quality, is that too much to ask for?
#2
If it isn't specified as such, then yes it is. iTunes at least used to be 128kbps, then they upgraded to 256kbps I think. The highest an MP3 can go is 320kbps; CD-quality lossless WAV or FLAC files are 1,411kbps.
#3
Yes.
If you want CD quality, just buy the CD. At least you know you've got a back-up if your computer decides to delete everything.
Quote by Renka
OddOneOut is an Essex S&M mistress and not a pirate or a computer program.

#4
Pretty much that. ^ (above OddOneblah, whatever her username is.)

They can't contain as much information basically.
#5
Quote by blue_strat
If it isn't specified as such, then yes it is. iTunes at least used to be 128kbps, then they upgraded to 256kbps I think. The highest an MP3 can go is 320kbps; CD-quality lossless WAV or FLAC files are 1,411kbps.

I can render mp3's at 450kbps, and I'm sure there's something higher.
#6
see i have a theory, that very soon. CD's will only belong to music lovers. yeah there is alot of people who like music but there is not so many who is passionate about it but those who are will buy the cd's.

the reason they sound so bad is beacuse it is a form of punishment for buying the mp3 and not the cd...although at least you did buy the mp3 and not get it from some other source....
Come listen to some of my songs:

My Music
#7
MP3's suck. I regret having most of my music on mp3s, and not having enough money to buy CDs. Otherwise I would.
#8
Quote by OddOneOut
Yes.
If you want CD quality, just buy the CD. At least you know you've got a back-up if your computer decides to delete everything.


It was such a good deal though. Now I see why they are cheap, they are crap.
#9
Quote by stratkat
I can render mp3's at 450kbps, and I'm sure there's something higher.

yeah but it gets to a point where it defeats the purpose of compressing the track in the first place.
#10
Quote by stratkat
I can render mp3's at 450kbps, and I'm sure there's something higher.

Ah, apparently:
Non-standard bit rates up to 640 kbit/s can be achieved with the LAME encoder and the freeformat option, although few MP3 players can play those files.

Still, lossless ftw.
#12
put simply, cd qual = treble + mids + bass.

MP3 qual = mids

it all gets stripped.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#13
It makes absolutely no sense to expect CD quality from mp3s. Of course they sound compressed. They are compressed. It is a compressed format.

Most people can hardly tell the difference though.
#14
Quote by werty22
Most people can hardly tell the difference though.



Out of these, who could?
Quote by diofan88
Life's too short to drink cheap beer.
Quote by beadhangingOne
Every band is a lotr metal band. Metal is like Guile's theme for Lotr.
Quote by mcjosh
Whoever thinks Japan deserved the tsunami in any way should just go away and fucking die alone.
#16
They don't sound too bad with a good pair of headphones and some equalizing.

But, nothing beats a CD, of course.

If you're gonna buy, might as well buy a CD. I mean, you get the booklet too.

Granted, some albums have terrible booklets. I hate it when there are no liner notes and artwork and stuff.
#17
I haven't ever paid for a download (naughty...) but if I did I think I'd expect it in some higher-fidelity format like FLAC....

I'm rather old and have wonky ears anyway...MP3 sounds just fine to me on my car stereo where I do most of my listening. Still, with relatively "lossless" formats available I'm surprised they would be giving you a poor-quality download.
#18
Wait, you bought an album from Amazon?? If I were going to pay, Id buy CDs.


Why you sittin here complainin about spending money on a mp3 album when you could have just spent that money on what you wanted (a CD)?
YELLOWFRIZBEE s FreezerBurn


Stepco's Master
|Colowomble 2016|PSN=yellowfrizbee| + UG Community Radio|
#19
If I was gunna download a song legally, I'd get one from iTunes or the Zune Marketplace, at least they have higher quality MP3's than Amazon, or those websites that offer free MP3's. I have found some good quality torrented mp3's but if I want better CD's are the way to go for me
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
#21
Quote by sporkman7
Well for reference, a 2:38 song i exported to MP3 is 3.2 Megabytes at 160kbps. The same song is 42 megabytes at 2116.8kbps in AIF format (Apple's uncompressed format). MP3 is generally very compressed.


I bet the uncompressed version sounds really good though.
#22
I hate MP3s too. I'm sure it's not long before a new format is released to make all our hardware obsolete again. Thinking now sound quality for the average listener is worse than the late 60s stereophonic vinyl.

I wish you could order DVDs with any track from a certain label, for the $1 per song price.
#23
Quote by hriday_hazarika
They don't sound too bad with a good pair of headphones and some equalizing.

But, nothing beats a CD, of course.


Vinyl beats a CD. Easily.
#24
It's cheaper to buy most CDs used through Amazon than to download from iTunes.
Epiphone Dot
DIY Esquire w/Neovin Power Rock pickup
Vox AC30VR 212
Arion MTE-1 (LED clipping diodes added)
Vox Tonelab LE
Roland SDE1000 delay

Quote by DaMarsbarPerson
By high-gain I don't mean stupid stuff. I just mean styles like Motley Crue or Iron Maiden
#25
Quote by Tempoe

I wish you could order DVDs with any track from a certain label, for the $1 per song price.


Quote by MakinLattes
dwelling on past mishaps is for the weak. you must stride into the future, unabashed and prepared to fuck up yet again.
#26
In this day and age where you can fit a terabyte of data into such a minuscule space, I'm surprised that the majority of audio is still encoded in 16-bit resolution in the first place. Honestly, there are people out there who've got 10,000 songs on their iPods or whatever, but none of them actually listen to more than 10% of it, ever. Why have 10,000 shitty quality songs that you don't listen to when you could have 1000 hi-fi songs that you do listen to? I mean, even many cheap home-quality USB/Firewire interfaces can export WAV files in 24-bit resolution, 96kHz sampling rate, and 2422kpbs (or something close to this figure, I forget exactly) bitrate. Then most studio-quality interfaces and breakout boxes can sample at 192kHz. Heck, SONAR 8 can export 64-bit floating point WAV files.

But of course, apparently quantity beats quality in this day and age. And I suppose manufacturers and software companies understand that most people couldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not their music is high fidelity or not. Someone should design players for audiophiles. And studios and artists should actually bother using studio equipment to its full potential... Besides high resolution in the editing, mixing and mastering processes, what's the point in having a 24-bit, 192kHz interface when it'll just end up being exported to 16-bit, 128kbps, 44.1kHz resolution?
Standard Strat
Jackson WRMG
Parker DF724

Axe-Fx Standard
Carvin DCM1000L

Mesa Trad. Slant Recto 4x12 (UK V30s)
Custom Horiz. 2x12 (Commonwealth 12s)
#27
Quote by BobDetroit
Vinyl beats a CD. Easily.


I haven't a gramophone, hence, I am in no position to adequately discuss this matter.

But, what is it about vinyl that makes people love it so much? Do they like the crackly sound? Is it, I daresay, the nostalgia or novelty factor?

I'd imagine most modern records wouldn't sound too "good" with vinyl.
Last edited by hriday_hazarika at Aug 26, 2010,
#28
Quote by Karlboy

But of course, apparently quantity beats quality in this day and age. And I suppose manufacturers and software companies understand that most people couldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not their music is high fidelity or not. Someone should design players for audiophiles. And studios and artists should actually bother using studio equipment to its full potential... Besides high resolution in the editing, mixing and mastering processes, what's the point in having a 24-bit, 192kHz interface when it'll just end up being exported to 16-bit, 128kbps, 44.1kHz resolution?



Because you can always compress, but you can't decompress. Are you seriously implying that MP3 is the only medium available?


Edit: And there is plenty of audiophile equipment out there. Just be willing to pay for it.
Quote by MakinLattes
dwelling on past mishaps is for the weak. you must stride into the future, unabashed and prepared to fuck up yet again.
#29
Quote by itchy guitar
Because you can always compress, but you can't decompress. Are you seriously implying that MP3 is the only medium available?


Edit: And there is plenty of audiophile equipment out there. Just be willing to pay for it.

No, I'm just saying that it's the only medium that most people use. I have my vinyls, I have my CDs, I've got my FLAC and WAV files, but vinyls and CDs aren't portable enough and not every player is capable of playing FLAC or WAV files.
Standard Strat
Jackson WRMG
Parker DF724

Axe-Fx Standard
Carvin DCM1000L

Mesa Trad. Slant Recto 4x12 (UK V30s)
Custom Horiz. 2x12 (Commonwealth 12s)
#30
Quote by hriday_hazarika
I haven't a gramophone, hence, I am in no position to adequately discuss this matter.

But, what is it about vinyl that makes people love it so much? Do they like the crackly sound? Is it, I daresay, the nostalgia or novelty factor?

I'd imagine most modern records wouldn't sound too "good" with vinyl.


Some songs/albums sound different with vinyl. Some songs sound sharp compared to the CD version. My copy of Guns n Roses Appetite for Destruction sounds like it's in standard tuning instead of 1/2 step down as in the CD version. Plus old school Green Day albums sound different too, Billy Joe's voice sounds different.
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
#31
Quote by Karlboy
No, I'm just saying that it's the only medium that most people use. I have my vinyls, I have my CDs, I've got my FLAC and WAV files, but vinyls and CDs aren't portable enough and not every player is capable of playing FLAC or WAV files.



The fact that you have CDs and FLAC files proves why artists still take the effort to record in high fidelity.


Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
Some songs/albums sound different with vinyl. Some songs sound sharp compared to the CD version. My copy of Guns n Roses Appetite for Destruction sounds like it's in standard tuning instead of 1/2 step down as in the CD version. Plus old school Green Day albums sound different too, Billy Joe's voice sounds different.


Have you tried slowing the speed down?
Quote by MakinLattes
dwelling on past mishaps is for the weak. you must stride into the future, unabashed and prepared to fuck up yet again.
#32
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
Some songs/albums sound different with vinyl. Some songs sound sharp compared to the CD version. My copy of Guns n Roses Appetite for Destruction sounds like it's in standard tuning instead of 1/2 step down as in the CD version. Plus old school Green Day albums sound different too, Billy Joe's voice sounds different.


So, what I said regarding modern albums was mostly right, right?

I mean, if I'm listening to some djent, I'd want it to sound sharp.

But, something like Dylan is best on a vinyl.

Assumption correct?

P.S.: Is it true that vinyls cost a small fortune?
#34
Quote by hriday_hazarika
P.S.: Is it true that vinyls cost a small fortune?

Depends - rarity is a bigger disparager of price in the vinyl market than the CD market.

A quick eBay search for "Led Zeppelin vinyl" finds a full Led Zeppelin II LP for £15, and a Japanese Immigrant Song 45 single for £45.
#35
Quote by Karlboy
In this day and age where you can fit a terabyte of data into such a minuscule space, I'm surprised that the majority of audio is still encoded in 16-bit resolution in the first place. Honestly, there are people out there who've got 10,000 songs on their iPods or whatever, but none of them actually listen to more than 10% of it, ever. Why have 10,000 shitty quality songs that you don't listen to when you could have 1000 hi-fi songs that you do listen to? I mean, even many cheap home-quality USB/Firewire interfaces can export WAV files in 24-bit resolution, 96kHz sampling rate, and 2422kpbs (or something close to this figure, I forget exactly) bitrate. Then most studio-quality interfaces and breakout boxes can sample at 192kHz. Heck, SONAR 8 can export 64-bit floating point WAV files.

But of course, apparently quantity beats quality in this day and age. And I suppose manufacturers and software companies understand that most people couldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not their music is high fidelity or not. Someone should design players for audiophiles. And studios and artists should actually bother using studio equipment to its full potential... Besides high resolution in the editing, mixing and mastering processes, what's the point in having a 24-bit, 192kHz interface when it'll just end up being exported to 16-bit, 128kbps, 44.1kHz resolution?

As for resolution and sample rate, I think that involves Nyquist theory or something. Their advantages are mostly only of consequence to dynamic range (which is not very relevant to most music) and quantization noise.
#36
Quote by blue_strat
Depends - rarity is a bigger disparager of price in the vinyl market than the CD market.

A quick eBay search for "Led Zeppelin vinyl" finds a full Led Zeppelin II LP for £15, and a Japanese Immigrant Song 45 single for £45.


Oh, OK.

So, vinyls aren't very expensive to produce, then? How much does a retail vinyl cost, typically?

Also, how much would one have to shell out for a gramophone?
#37
Quote by hriday_hazarika
So, what I said regarding modern albums was mostly right, right?

I mean, if I'm listening to some djent, I'd want it to sound sharp.

But, something like Dylan is best on a vinyl.

Assumption correct?

P.S.: Is it true that vinyls cost a small fortune?


I think it depends on the album, I have Foxboro Hot Tubs' vinyl (comes with free copy of the CD) and I hardly notice a difference in sound. They do have stereo vinyls out now. If you have a newer, or better record player I'm sure you may or may not notice a difference in sound, the sound difference in some cases is more if you think it sounds better or not


Quote by hriday_hazarika
Oh, OK.

So, vinyls aren't very expensive to produce, then? How much does a retail vinyl cost, typically?

Also, how much would one have to shell out for a gramophone?


Where I buy my vinyls, they are about $15, but if it's a "classic" mainstream band or a super popular album, they probably jack the price up a bit. A copy of Nirvana's Nevermind and Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream cost me $24
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
Last edited by Horsedick.MPEG at Aug 26, 2010,
#38
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
I think it depends on the album, I have Foxboro Hot Tubs' vinyl (comes with free copy of the CD) and I hardly notice a difference in sound. They do have stereo vinyls out now. If you have a newer, or better record player I'm sure you may or may not notice a difference in sound, the sound difference in some cases is more if you think it sounds better or not


I mostly listen to music on my computer. A nice pair of bass-producing Sony headphones and this plug-in software called SRS Audio Sandbox. I'm happy with the audio reproduction. Sounds better than my music phone or any such portable device. In fact, I have almost given up listening to music on a portable player. I loathe earphones.

But, I'm curious about vinyl. What is it that you personally like about vinyl?

I mean, I've seen lots of people claim that vinyl is the be-all of sound reproduction without ever really going into details. Sometimes, I get the feeling that it's just a placebo or something.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS LARGE BLACK THINGY?
Last edited by hriday_hazarika at Aug 26, 2010,
#39
Quote by hriday_hazarika
I mostly listen to music on my computer. A nice pair of bass-producing Sony headphones and this plug-in software called SRS Audio Sandbox. I'm happy with the audio reproduction. Sounds better than my music phone or any such portable device. In fact, I have almost given up listening to music on a portable player. I loathe earphones.

But, I'm curious about vinyl. What is it that you personally like about vinyl?

I mean, I've seen lots of people claim that vinyl is the be-all of sound reproduction without ever really going into details. Sometimes, I get the feeling that it's just a placebo or something.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS LARGE BLACK THINGY?


I would not claim it to be the be-all of sound reproduction, I just like the sound of some of the songs that sound different, but I wouldn't miss it if I didn't have it in vinyl.
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
#40
Quote by Karlboy
In this day and age where you can fit a terabyte of data into such a minuscule space, I'm surprised that the majority of audio is still encoded in 16-bit resolution in the first place. Honestly, there are people out there who've got 10,000 songs on their iPods or whatever, but none of them actually listen to more than 10% of it, ever. Why have 10,000 shitty quality songs that you don't listen to when you could have 1000 hi-fi songs that you do listen to? I mean, even many cheap home-quality USB/Firewire interfaces can export WAV files in 24-bit resolution, 96kHz sampling rate, and 2422kpbs (or something close to this figure, I forget exactly) bitrate. Then most studio-quality interfaces and breakout boxes can sample at 192kHz. Heck, SONAR 8 can export 64-bit floating point WAV files.


Although sampling rate is an important factor, the use of a bit depth of 16 or 24 comes down to whether the music needs it or not, 24-bit or higher isn't necessarily the best.

Edit: ^^Does vinyl sound better than CDs? Link related

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
Last edited by MapOfYourHead at Aug 26, 2010,
Page 1 of 3