Deutsch
English
Whenever I see my friend Frank kneel in front of his stereo system there's something cultish in the air. He demands absolute silence and concentration when he plays one of his songs. For hours, he can talk about speaker cables, capacitors and image widths. But if you wanted to silence him, all it would take is a single word: MP3. Then, his facial expression would reflect a little bit of pain, he'd be searching for the right words and let his shoulders fall down in resignation. Read on to learn why, to him, this format means the end of music while at the same time the beginning of a comprehensive music collection for many.
When musicians began using computers more extensively, a race was on for both formats and developers. Two things were rare - disk space and fast internet connections. Anyone surfing the web with a 14.4 modem learned what Buddhist frugality was all about. If uncompressed, a song would take up about 10 MB of disk space for every minute. Who'd want to wait that long and (in the absence of unlimited plans) pay for every hour of online time?
Files had to become smaller, the goal was maximum compression which in this context meant omitting song details. This is called lossy compression. During the end of the 80s and at the beginning of the 90s, researchers attempted to filter out or dampen inaudible frequencies (data) to shrink file sizes without destroying the overall sound impression. Psychoacoustics experts began figuring out tonality perception in humans. Would humans still perceive the strings in the background once the trombones sounded or was it enough if the strings were only slightly hinted (saving space in the process)? How precisely did our hearing distinguish between tones and could inaudible frequencies simply be removed altogether?
He blows the saxophone - how much of it do we really hear?
To this end, several algorithms were developed to sample and simplify waveforms, removing anything deemed irrelevant by psychoacoustics experts. The higher the sampling rate (measured in kilobit per second) the more of the original data would be retained, ultimately leading to higher quality (but bigger!) files. MP3 supports sampling rates from a meager 8 kbps (horrible) up to 320 kbps (close to the original). A file sampled at 192 kbps is almost indistinguishable from the source material - yet it is 87% smaller. This was the ultimate goal of several competing format creators.
MP3 was considered to have the best ratio between file size and sound quality and quickly became state of the art. Naturally, many big players initially rejected the format in favor of their own solutions and (surprise) to save licensing costs. The Fraunhofer Institute, the main developers behind the format, took an unusual route - by directly approaching customers to exert pressure on the music industry. Once software encoders became freely available to consumers, MP3 took hold and forced the industry to adapt and create the first, mainly portable, MP3 players. Car radios, cellphones and many other device categories would soon follow.
My perception is that it took exactly 0.1 seconds for audiophiles to writhe in pain once MP3 became mainstream. After all, whenever something got removed the listening experience had to suffer and artists were bereft of their full artistic potential or so audiophiles said. Indeed, at very low bit rates (e.g. 64 kbps) you can instantly hear the difference. Complex music such as classical music sounds bland even at 128kbps while many pop songs will sound OK. The general criticism is that even though only inaudible frequencies are removed, waveform shapes are altered leading to an incomplete listening experience. Not only do humans listen to music but they also feel it, audiophiles said. This does not only affect the music itself but also the production process since many producers openly admit to creating tonally simplified tracks to accommodate for later compression. A kind of rationalization of art, splendid ....
Is it really true that music now conforms to file formats? Today, many experts agree that MP3, though widespread, is no longer the best alternative. Lossless formats such as FLAC or Apple's ALAC support decent compression ratios without frequency omissions and AAC or OGG provide a superior size-quality ratio to MP3. But don't write off MP3 just yet. The algorithm is still being enhanced for better quality and support for current standards such as Dolby 5.1 . Maybe and with continued research, there can be peace between MP3 and audiophiles including my friend Frank even though he'd never admit to that.
Author's side note: Our editorial staff will take a short break and be back on Monday. Please understand that it may take a little longer for your comments to get approved.
I worked in the Hi-Fi industry for many years from the early 80's onwards, and saw the arrival of CD and digital sound recording. I spent a large proportion of my time demonstrating to customers the differences between CD and LP, and the outcome was always the same; LP won hands down in terms of sound quality, musicality and enjoyability (if that's a word!). Fast forward to 1993, and the arrival of mp3. If LP wiped the floor with CD, then even CD thrashed mp3; no contest. You must remember; music is information. The more information is given to the brain, the better the recording will sound, because the brain will have less work to do to fill in the gaps left by the 'missing' data - this is known as 'listening fatigue' - plain and simple. Now, CD uses a resolution of 1411kbps/44kHz/16bit, as against the majority of studio recordings which are made at 9216kbps/192kHz/24bit or 4608kbps/96kHz/24bit; in other words, CD contains about 10% (on a good day) of the information found in the original recording. mp3 is usually between 128kbps and 320kbps at 44kHz/16bit, so up to about 1/4 of the resolution of CD. Incidentally, analogue recordings have no particular limit to their resolution, the only barriers being the noise floor at the quiet end, and distortion/overload at the loud end, but a good analogue recording (say on 1/2", 30 inches-per-second tape) is generally considered to have better resolution (in the equivalent 'digital' sense) than the best 192kHz/24bit recording. Bottom line, that 128kbps mp3 you have been listening to contains less than 1% of the information that went into the original; it's no wonder they sound crap. Personally, I cannot even listen to mp3's at all; they just make my blood run cold. I can just about tolerate CD quality if there is no better option, but vinyl is still the medium of choice for sound quality. That isn't to say that digital isn't any good, but the cost of good-quality DAC's (digital-to-analogue converters) is prohibitively high, so for most people, a good-quality turntable (and that doesn't mean Technics!) is the best way to listen to decent quality music at home.
Flaunting your 14.4 modem vs my 300 baud are we? During my decades working in the broadcast industry we had mandatory audio testing of our hearing.
Did you ever record music on high speed, 76.2 cm/s, reel-to-reel BASF 2.54 cm magnetic tape? All music for the radio stations was recorded on custom Telefunken equipment made in Germany. We were taught the various technical tweaks to reduce background noise. My deck plays as clearly now as the day it was bought. It requires the knowledge to record music while silencing the non-musical background noise.
Vinyl is over hyped, noisy and outdated. With correct tuning it is not about the file format. It would be interesting to have 14 year olds hearing tested and then retested at 19. Plugging a small speaker into ones ears will permanently damage the ability to listen.
I gave my 300 baud modem to the local museum.
I have often wondered just how much "audio snobbery" is actually rooted in fact. If you played a piece of music in MP3 format, 192 kbps, to a music enthusiast, and the same piece of music recorded on vinyl, would this person actually be able to tell you which recording is which?
So often we hear of blind taste tests of organic food, expensive wine and so on - and it seems common for the results to defy the quality/price of the product. I wonder whether the same would be true of "blind listening" tests!
Live music is analouge comming out of the instrument and/or speakers of a sound system. Keeping the source material analouge all the way from the vinly record or live performance through to the speakers and then to your ears is still the best way to hear/listen to music (AAA). MP3 and other better digital formats are improving however they still fall short of the best listening experiences. Far too much digital filtering/tweaking can be heard on many modern recordings even on some vinly records today. Some of the cleanest most pure sounding recordings you can hear are older vinyl two track stereo and mono recordings like early beatles and buddy holly recordings.
You do need high quality components from the needle, tonearm, player, the pre amp/amps, speakers, cables. It all makes a difference. I use digital in my car but I far prefer home stereo listening. It sounds a great deal more realistic.
For audiophile listening MP is probably as unsatisfactory as you descibe, but I'm not an audiophile (amp and record deck from 1970s, speakers not much younger). However, I do need to be able to play music over sound-reinforcement systems in small churches that don't have a musician, and here MP3 works well. I can fit a whole service-worth of music into aan MP3 player, and it's sorted.
My brothers who have earned fortunes in rock have lost most of their hearing of low and high ranges. Until decibel levels are adrenalized they don't know mp3 sound from playing a waffle in a food processor.
In the end, isn't the best music a personal experience that touches or does not touch us. If it's mp3, mp4, vinyl, AAC or whatever format, let each one have the freedom to hear what touches them.
It's all about the provenance. A 320k MP3 version of great HiRez recording is so much better than a 192k/24bit flac file if it comes from an old analog tape master that is nowhere close to the HiRez standards.
So few people seem to get that.
Vinyl to me is best never went away ... Yes i am as been labeled Audiophile .. Thou i did get into MP3 For awhile mainly since using tape walkmen Became problem ! When i had to cummute etc So i bought MP3 Player etc
Fast foreward to 10 years ago Went back to Vinyl
for many reasons right master analog mixes ( i wont buy digital high res new Vinyl been not pleased With mixes
I Still buy cds something about personal
enjoyment to take out a record and put it on !! watch the stylus go down into the Groove etc read tge liner
notes who played on it , artwork ,lyrics !!
I Still own tapes too and decent deck :)
Thou when i am out I do listen on higher rez player
via wav flies and flac ..
So depends what you want to listen to
also hear Decent article
Conclusion its more curse then good in MP3 format
Music always
Tony
\m/
You have some major inaccuracies in the last paragraph regarding the future of MP3. I haven't checked the rest of your article.
I'm not aware that MP3 is still being improved in any significant way as of recent. MP3 was finalized in 1992.
There have been extensions to MP3 (mp3Pro, mp3HD, mp3surround), but they have been mostly abandoned, and not widely used or supported. The popular LAME mp3 library/encoder has not been updated since 2011/2012.
If you want better quality for the same bitrate than MP3, many have already turned to AAC. There have been recent improvements to AAC encoders within the last 5 years, including Apple, FFMPEG, FDK, etc.
AAC has had extensions to the original 1996 standard in 2003 (HE), 2006 (HE v2), and 2012. The HE extension is in wide use with TV broadcasting, and HE v2 enjoys some use with streaming, but I'm not aware that any MP3 extension enjoy any wide usage.
By 'dolby 5.1', I think you mean Dolby Digital. That's not a new format, as it debuted in 1992. Newer dolby technologies have debuted since then.
FLAC, AAC, OGG vorbis, and Wavpack all support 5.1.
mp3surround exists, but is not in wide use or supported by much.
This information is based on an official statement from Fraunhofer Institut. I’m hoping they will make it a reality. :)
Quote: “[…] mp3 Surround erweitert
die mp3-Familie um eine Technologie, mit der 5.1-Kanalton
mp3-kompatibel komprimiert werden kann. Die Datenrate ist
dabei nur unwesentlich größer als bei Stereo-mp3.“
Translation: ”[…] mp3 surround extends the family of mp3 technology with compatible compression for 5.1 channel sound. Data rates are only marignally higher compared to Stereo mp3.”
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ONLY BRILLIANTLY INFORMATIVE, -
BUT HAS FURTHER PROVIDED STATISTICS OF QUANTITIES WHICH DIRECTLY PERMIT THE CORRECT DECISION MAKING TO OCCUR WHEN CONSIDERING FUTURE PROCESSES OR TECHNOLOGY PURCHASES.
I THANK YOU SIR. raydano
An enjoyable article Sven.... ☺
I agree with friend Frank, and as an ex-band musician MP 'musick' to me doesn't have depth, audio aura and is flat and 'lifeless'.
Even worse is the lack of being 'surrounded' with a tune being played through wired plastic plugs in the ears.
If one simply must listen to music or a song on a cell-phone, add a miniscule amount of life and place the 'phone in an empty coffee mug or drinking glass.
Wait until you get to be 60+ ... then you'll learn a lot about audio degradation!
Just 20 years to go. :)
Well interesting topic and the answer is "it depends" mp3 is passable for most loud pop and is a very handy tool for practice files, but if you are looking for high quality orchestral or choral files, mp3's just don't cut it. Yet for many people that is enough, but as a performer myself, my preferred choice is a live performance or vinyl on a good system. But that's just me and my last comment about vinyl may throw an unintended monkey wrench into the topic
I am an amateur musician. I don't consider myself a audiophile. However I can hear the difference between MP3 and 33 rpm vinyl, and it is very large. I do have a good ear for music so maybe I just represent a small minority. MP3 seems to me about as good in quality as the old AM radio (good enough for 50's rock and roll).
Occasionally I listen to old 33 vinyl and am always surprised how good it sounds, after a steady diet of mp3 or even WAV,. But one just gets used to MP3.
I own a few 78 vinyl's from the 40's. When I listen to them (even though I don't even know the genre well) it is like a new world opens up. It's lust like a live performance. Every nuance comes through.
I just don't understand why mp3 is so bad. since computer memory is about 100 times as cheap as when the standard was created and streaming audio is 100 times as fast.
Whilst I am generally with Frank and the other audiophiles who appreciate uncompressed tuneful music played on decent equipment, I readily accept that there is a place for MP£ and it has brought music to many more people that 'good audio' reproduction, and yes, when played it can sound okay. MP3s are good on mobile devices with limited storage and I too have an old iPod Touch along with many audiophile items.
The real problem is that when MP3s were introduced for iPods and their like, there was a new and horrific additional consequence. As the MP3 players do not have amplifiers but attenuators (i.e. they turn volume down by adding resistance) music produced since 1980 for MP3 market has increasingly been 'OVER RECORDED' usually by over 6dB! Over recording make MP3 music seem better but it adds a lot of distortion. This now affects most pop and classical music and much of other genres. It is a delight to listen to a Jazz album recorded at the correct levels. I actually re-record most pop albums at a reduced 6dB using anti-clipping software and even friends who listen to nothing but MP3s can hear the improvement but can't explain why. The distortion, like the compression, is compensated for in our ears but such music is tiring to listen to as the brain is working hard to make is sound okay. This 'musicality' was well known by older generations who chose British Amps over higher spec Japanese amplifiers. The test is how smooth, musical and relaxing the music is, even hard rock where musicality may not be a priority. Good quality is always better and compression and over recording spoils the enjoyment of music over any reasonable period of time. MP£s are therefore best for storage of small files and listening to over short periods.
I think that for the average, or most, mp3 users are not interested in ultra hi fi based on the number of people seen using ear buds. I use an mpe3 player while at the gym and so do lots of others. Mp3 has it's place and will survive.
This reads like an article from 20 years ago. I mean, really, aren't we over the 'death of music due to MP3' by now? Discussion of death by streaming is a lot more relevant now.
In any case, I've read similar arguments of all kinds of things, for example watching a movie with breaks. Artists and 'philes' are just a bit full of it. Art is meant to be consumed, and if the consumer can enjoy it a certain way, that's what matters. Most people are perfectly happy listening to compressed music, music over the radio or on YouTube, and that's truly what matters. Artists can complain if they want, but they wouldn't make as good a living if they counted only those who think vinyl is the ultimate music medium.
There are many who consider these formats the “death of music”, a very recent use-case is streaming or digital radio services. MP3 was an ideal (and wide-spread) example of a lossy format and its origin story.
Nicely written and shortened for such a complex matter.