Greetings. MP3 sound better than CD?

vbimport

#1

Greetings. Newbie here, Kevin aka SpaceRanger. Here is a question for you:
Could a CD be ripped, put into MP3 format (or some other format), and have the music sound even better than on the original CD?
I have been toying with this idea. I just read an article where an audiophile ripped a couple of songs at 195 and 350K. Then he converted to MP3. He said that the 195K MP3 version “sounded a little brighter” than the original CD. So maybe there is a way to make a CD recording sound even better than the CD!


#2

Sounding “better” in this context is purely subjective.

You could replace a fine classical work with RAP music, and there’d surely be people who think it sounds “better” than the original.

In any situation where the modified copy is discernibly different from the unmodified original, it’s always possible that someone would claim the copy is “better” - BUT would YOU also think it’s better?

Going by objective instead of subjective measurements, a processed copy can never be better than the original, since the best possible copy is identical to the original.

Sometimes an original can be subjectively “improved” upon (according to most listeners) by performing advanced processing, such as intelligently reducing noise.

Re-encoding music in different bitrates using the MP# (or any other) format is not such a form of advanced intelligent processing, so it will not produce a result that is subjectively better for most listeners, but rather produce a result that is worse for most listeners.

Your try it and decide for yourself.

Welcome to CDFreaks! :slight_smile:


#3

It’s all subjective. What sounds better is just a matter of someones preferences.
Anyway I think there’s no way that MP3 could sound sound better cause there is less audio information in MP3. A lot of frequencies are missing in MP3.


#4

SpaceRanger ,

Tend to agree with memberix , you do lose freq in mp3 but some people can’t hear these and some can … so it is subjective , experiment , compare originals with mp3’s … you ears will tell " for you " which is better

ps: i still like vinyl the best … :bow:


#5

Sounding better is subjective really, but then if by your preference it’s better then, well, it’s better :wink:

Underneath it all, there are ways of boosting sound, improving the quality or the bass or treble and tweaking it. So, I guess if you’re tweaking it to make it sound better. . .


#6

[QUOTE=SpaceRanger;2078912]Greetings. Newbie here, Kevin aka SpaceRanger. Here is a question for you:
Could a CD be ripped, put into MP3 format (or some other format), [B][B]and have the music sound even better than on the original CD?[/B][/B]
I have been toying with this idea. I just read an article where an audiophile ripped a couple of songs at 195 and 350K. Then he converted to MP3. He said that the 195K MP3 version “sounded a little brighter” than the original CD. So maybe there is a way to make a CD recording sound even better than the CD![/QUOTE]

Nope, never.
mp3 is a lossy audioformat, something like FLAC would be lossless.


#7

[QUOTE=SpaceRanger;2078912]I just read an article where an audiophile ripped a couple of songs at 195 and 350K. Then he converted to MP3. He said that the 195K MP3 version “sounded a little brighter” than the original CD.[/quote]THis doesn’t mean that it sounds better, just that it sounds different :wink:

So maybe there is a way to make a CD recording sound even better than the CD!
If you mean that after a rip, you may add treble, or bass, to the sound file, according to your tastes, yes you can. But as others have explained, it’s then not “better”, it’s only “better suited to your tastes”. :slight_smile:

That’s the idea behind most modern remastering BTW. Recordings from the 70’s and 80’s are remastered mainly to please the modern audiences tastes, with (much) more bass, more presence, and using high-end so-called “enhancers”. Today audiences will find the sound more pleasing. Doesn’t mean it’s any better. :bigsmile:


#8

As Dragemester kinda implied, “objectivity” in sound quality can only be approached through the concept of fidelity.

It’s possible to be kinda objective when trying to determine if a sound reproduction is closer to, or further from, the original being reproduced. This is assuming the listening tests are conducted in a controlled environment and with a straight methodology (known as ABX), since hearing is very subjective by nature.

All the rest is a matter of taste and conventions. Some tastes are widely spread and are more or less universal (for instance taste for even harmonies - 2, 4, 8… ), some are typical to a culture or a period (the current “boomy bass” fashion for instance), some are more individual (bright sound, dark sound…). Many of these tastes find their origin in conventions and normative pressure. A few are genuinely personal inclinations. :bigsmile:

It’s very much like with music, actually! :wink:


#9

And Minidiscs sound better than 30ips analog master tapes.


#10

[QUOTE=gamma1;2085494]And Minidiscs sound better than 30ips analog master tapes.[/QUOTE]
:disagree::doh: