Can MP3 be made CD quality?

[@julianwest4030]

A WAV file is like a fully assembled chair. Great quality but harder to get into the truck. Lossless compression formats like FLAC are like disassembled chairs where all the parts are there and wrapped up in a neat box. It still needs to be assembled back into PCM data (a full chair), but it's the same great quality. Lossy compression is like a chair where you took an axe to the legs and ditched them in favor of trying to fix it at your house. It may be passable but it's not going to be the same.

[@chrisvinicombe9947]

Julian West hahahaha awesome use of simile.

[@masterpassword2]

Absolutely false, you have no understanding of lossy compression. It is like shaving a little bit off the chair's structure here and there, hoping that anyone who got that chair would not notice a difference to other brand new chairs. Little by little you shave off some more, and at some point people will start noticing that the chair just isn't the same as other chairs. Similarly to this chair, lossy compression can very well initially be undistinguishable of original quality UNTIL you apply too much compression and the decrease in detail becomes obvious. For example LAME encoder is a high-quality encoder that will process the files in such a way that at best bitrates it is not possible to hear the difference.

[@julianwest4030]

masterpassword2 Not if it's a 64 Kbps AAC. If it's above the "Clear point" of an encoding format, then yes. I don't know, maybe the artifacting from heavy file compression. can represent the bevel details that wouldn't be applied to the finished legs. I have to remember to appease extremely picky and condescending people before discussing audio.

[@BlankBrain]

Lossy audio is fine if you enjoy sitting on a wobbly camp chair in the smoke to keep the mosquitoes away.

[@stephens2r338]

You are totally correct. I have interesting question. l have found is if you convert mp3 to wav and burn a cd it's sounds better played from cd than a media player. Anyone agree?

[@chrisvinicombe9947]

I'm happy you guys sent Zeos a new sprout amp for testing. Do enjoy his reviews 😄 I see one lurking behind you

[@quas3728]

tbh I really don't CARE about audio bitrate. I tried but I really didn't hear the difference. mp3 128 bitrate is enough to me. the size is way smaller than high bitrate audio. so it's convinient.

[@googoo-gjoob]

if your daughter draws a stick picture of her mother.....and you photograph it....will the developed picture be the Mona Lisa ?

[@johndii2194]

How did you know my wife's name was Mona Lisa?

[@jdlech]

Conservation of information - once information is lost, you can never recover it. So when you fax a detailed map, you lose a lot of information. Even if you make a super high quality copy of that faxed map, you don't recover what you've lost. Same goes for audio, same goes for video, same goes for mathematics. You can approximate and guess at what the lost information was, but you cannot fully recover the lost information. It's gone forever. Which is why I think it's so important for the original masters to be recorded in the best, most accurate way possible. Everything rides on those original master recordings. Nothing in the future can ever produce quality better than what is found on the original master recordings. You may take away static and popping, but the information that replaces that noise is just an approximation - a guess about what was destroyed by that static or pop.

[@DESIGNPEPO]

jdlech commo sense, I agree with you.

[@johnmclaughlin4496]

At 71 years old my hearing tops out about 8khz. I have ripped most of my CDs to MP3s or WMAs at 128khz, 160khz or 192khz. I can't tell the difference between them and the CD I ripped them from. I still seem to get the dynamic range I got on the CDs. I listen to classical, classic rock, classic pop, bluegrass and some country. How can this be? I recently downloaded a sweeping test tone that goes well below 20hz to 20khz. The highest rate I could download it was 160khz. Am I truly getting up to 20khz on that file?

[@imkow]

mp3 wma the media files are in 128/192 kbps, or kilobits per second, not kHz... the 128kbps mp3 files usually lost and cutoff the frequencies above 15kHz -- some call this practice Broadcasting or Wide Band quality .. most senior people wont hear frequency above 15khz.. the 'ultrasound' above 15k does affect how you feel the sound below 15k, making you feel the sound being more directional or having more depth...So we would like creating mp3 files with bitrate above 192kbps CBR..or V2 VBR..that the cutoff frequency will raise to 18kHz. which is quite Hi-Fi...and both 320kbps CBR or V0 VBR will get the full band 20Hz-20kHz recorded in MP3..

[@johnkristian]

it's hilarious how little many audiophiles really know about compression formats.

[@changthunderwang7543]

John Kristian Aasen you mean placebophiles

[@ch.illmatic]

@@changthunderwang7543 😂exactly bruh

[@RasheedKhan-he6xx]

Cos you were born knowing everything about everything in the universe.

[@georgemartinezza]

@@RasheedKhan-he6xx ridiculous how "audiophiles" and audiofilia, audiophile is just an invented word, an imposed stereotype.

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

Anything sounds Better on CD since home stereo CD players have better digital audio converters and other electronics that are dedicated to sound quality.

[@randomgeocacher]

Maybe an extremely simplified description of mp3 would be helpful? “Information lost” easily sound a bit magic. I.e. something about DCT approximating as sound as a series of cosines waves, and MP3 only keep the high amplitude cosines waves. It is more complex in reality I think, but on the basic mental model it kind of what it does.

[@imkow]

mp3 was designed to have 48khz professional audio quality which is beyond CD's 44.1khz ... I think even if the abominable mp3 format is used as mixing and mastering source for CD... the end quality could still be better than CDs released between 1983-1990 which use analog discs or analog tapes for mixing and mastering....recently i've got several CDs from the years 87,88,89, and 90..and i noticed the analog favor on the music..analog recording sounds unstable by it's volume level. there is always tiny shaking of volume during playback..for that reality analog-converted CDs are no match for pure digital MP3 release.

[@RasheedKhan-he6xx]

This is Paul at his best. Humble, patient and just kind. The guys who worked on developing compression algorithms were brilliant and had very noble intentions. I find it so disrespectful that pseudo experts everywhere keep trashing their work. They made music accessible and widespread like almost no other technological leap before them - besides the actual invention of recorded of music. We forget how expensive memory storage was, a 128MB drive in 2001 was close to $100. Meanwhile these did everything they possibly could while still respecting the music. If its inaudible above 18 or 20 khz it can be shaved off. Or softer sounds in very dynamic passages as Paul explained. This was surgical work all done with algorithms. It was pure elegance. Today's audiophile is the equivalent of a foodie eho goes to a 3 Michelin starred restaurant and then wants hospital operating theatre lights overhead so he can 'appreciate' everything on the plate.

[@libertyairbrushing7349]

I bought a Hemi-Sync mp3 that was originally on a cd, is it possible that I’m not getting the same benefit as if it where on CD?

[@theepicslayer7sss101]

"you cannot add information that was not there" ; "but you can simulate what was intended" ; that is how a MP3 really is, at 320 kbps, it is 90% to 95% the same in the audible range and some stereo imaging that was the same in both channel will get combined into 1 track. now the lower and more "tricks" it uses to compress, you can get more "combining" of the stereo image and more "fake" sounds since it can simply put a "play tone" at some HZ, hence the MP3 decoder just look at the function and does it... this works well for cymbals and low end bass. in the mid range it would be too apparent. by example, even if we do not hear above 16khz to 20khz, we use 44.1khz, 48khz and EVEN 192khz! that is just "space" for more cymbals playing at the same time so they do not destroy each other's "shape" in the sound wave. but high pitch sound is the bulk of the actual sound! hence taking a "snapshot" of the cymbal and cutting parts of it here and there and replacing it with that snap shot OR using a tone made by a function and blending it, you can recreate a cymbal that sounds like it. so the song might be actually be scanned, sampled here and there then compressed and saved in a 12khz file where the MP3 decoded will rebuild the song from those samples and tone functions! Jpeg files works on the same principle but are way more easy to do this sort of "fake" stuff on. sound needs to be a bit more conservative. tho you can compress a song in 8Khz at 16 kbps and put all the tricks and if it is a song, it will HORRIBLE the stereo image will be HORRIBLE, the sound of it and all the enjoyment will be gone! but for a voice, no one would know! (more like no one would care... you will hear it but not as much.) oddly a 32Khz file made in MP3 sounds better than a 44.1Khz and a 48Khz also sounds better... thing is most recording has noise that you cannot hear but "eats" away the space in a recording, the 32Khz file do not have that high pitch background frequency so it sounds clearer and louder, then the 48Khz has more space and the high pitch sounds like cymbals tends to be crisper and that background noise tends to be less high( tho i only have self converted files to test that... i never owned a true 48Khz originally made file... so converting might have a dithering effect that takes care of that noise...). TL;DR : 320 Kbps 44.1 or 48Khz files are 90% to 95% fidelity when done properly (no compression tricks used) to me the noticeable difference TRULY starts at 192 Kbps and below... when they made MP3 they must of tested it and they deemed 128 Kbps but back then people still had cassettes tapes so... all i can say is, putting them on a CD and playing them in your system will be worthwhile and sound different than playing them in a program plugged in the auxiliary (or other) so if you made a copy of an Original CD, converted to 320Kbps MP3 then put pack on a CD, they would not sound different enough to notice by ear...

[@mondogecko01]

The red and orange book standard seems to carry a frequency that seems solid state or stand alone can't seem to sample audio wise sample wise..

[@toxlaximus3297]

Burning a MP3 to disk may involve converting it to a higher bit rate so its the same size as a cd music file, this will create gaps and the converter may apply a smoothing algorithm to fill those gaps effectively increasing the quality but it will probably sound strange. Depends on the software used and if any software actually does up-scaling of music files.

[@jaytorr6701]

Great answer. Another stupid question. If I copy the WAV files from an audio CD to another CD, is there a difference?

[@etorres3858]

There is no loss on a digital copy, unless you had some error in the transfer process. I you transfer an mp3 file or a wav file, the copy is no less and no more.

[@ronb7481]

I have the feeling that I had the same question being asked here and that it wasn't really answered. Yes, burning an mp3 to a CD isn't going to make the file audio quality, but do you get better quality sound if you burn a downloaded mp3 file to a CD as an audio file as opposed to leaving it in mp3 form? CD burning software such as Nero offers that mp3 files can be converted and burned as audio files, but I suspect that new format won't sound any better than the original mp3 file.

[@generalzod7959]

An mp3 of 320kps sounds virtually identical to full quality cd sound (to me at least)

[@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae]

@Jamie Smith: You are wrong, and that's not how audio works.

[@scotchwhisky6094]

Not when you have a good amp and a pair of studio cans.

[@johnb6723]

@@scotchwhisky6094 And ears that can hear to 22.05kHz. A 320k MP3 will give all the frequencies up to 20kHz, which is all a "hooman" is expected to ever be able to hear. Cats and dogs, now that's a different matter, for they can hear up to 25kHz, and so therefore they would be able to tell the difference between a 320k MP3 and a lossless recording.

[@ChristianGoergen]

I assume the question was targeted to different time issues, flutter vs. jitter ?

[@simonlai]

Thanks Paul for such a brief-but-comprehensible answer to such a simple-and-common-not-stupid-at-all question!

[@janinapalmer8368]

Are those plates in the background? Looks like the China cupboard..

[@boris994]

Yo Paul! Is that pic of big Kenwood from mid 90' with text?

[@j7ndominica051]

Burning an MP3 to a CD is practically the same as listening to the MP3 directly, no quality is gained. The encoding delivers a constant, but fairly low signal to noise ratio, close to 6 or 8 bits, at any loudness level. The floating SNR is decoupled from dynamic range, which is nearly unlimited unlike in linear PCM (theoretically greater than CD), except for encoding modes that employ absolute threshold of hearing (most VBR modes). The magic happens as the bandwidth is divided into slices, each getting close to that low SNR. A low noise floor in a limited band is not immediately recognizable, as it doesn't produce hiss. You get a a kind of room reverb at bass frequencies, and spread of sharp sounds like triangle hits. If neighboring frequency slices are too disconnected, the resulting peaks manifest themselves as plastic "birdies", also heard in noise reduction. Noise reduction is almost as bad as lossy encoding. The advanced algorithms perform dynamic smoothing to minimize artifacts.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

Maybe further explanation would be helpful. Once a wave file has been converted to an MP3 where some information is lost, then that lost information cannot be retrieved again. Now when that MP3 files is reconverted back to a wave file at 16 bit, 44.1k sample rate, the less complete wave form is simply resampled to the 16/44.1 format again to put it on the CD, and the lesser amount of information has been reproduced. The lower the sample rate of the MP3 file, the more pronounced will be the loss. The difference is subtle and would not be noticed on may budget to medium range system, but on a highly resolving system, the loss is hard to describe, but it just has a slightly unpleasant character to it when compared to the full wave version.

[@roygalaasen]

Speaker Builder sample rate on compressed mp3 is usually the same as the original, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to reconstruct the audio at the original sample rate. What you are probably talking about is bitrate. I can sometimes easily hear audible artefacts at 128 kbps but I doubt many people - if anyone at all - can hear any difference between 256 kbps and an uncompressed wav file. Also there are compressed formats that run much higher bitrates and resolution that probably still beats wav. Despite being lossy.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

I've converted music from one sample rate to another many times, recording at 48k, and mixing at 44.1, although I can't say that I understand how this is done, it doesn't seem to make sense on the surface that a program could do this. No doubt some loss is involved.

[@JayTor2112]

Oh man... WHen A 1536k wav file is compressed to a 256k mp3 file, that 1280kbps that was thrown away is gone, for good. You can convert anythign back to a wav file, but it's only going to be the audio that still remains, inflated to 1536 again. The lost audio data is not coming back.

[@roygalaasen]

JayTor2112 theoretically true but it is not that simple. There is math involved in compression algorithms that can recreate a signal 100% while dramatically reducing the bitrate. While mp3 and other algorithms are lossy, there is no linear relationship between perceived loss and real loss of audio.

[@roygalaasen]

Speaker Builder I never said it wasn’t possible. It is, but you are obviously losing something in addition to the mp3 encoding if you encode to a lower sample rate or resolution.

[@hifijohn]

mp3 were fine in the old days when a few gig HD was huge and you were shoving data through the phone line through a fax modem.

[@blackred1032]

i listen to alot of indie jrock band songs on youtube that usually have bad audio quality. now i can imagine because of this video what the audio would sound like if i actually bought their CDs... but its literally impossible to buy CDs from these bands because of how small they are and because japan record labels dont sell or distribute there music overseas. id have to go to japan myself just to buy 30 dollar cds

[@closinginonclosure]

No, you just have to know where to go to buy them. You can find physical copies of CD and vinyl from nearly any band. Whether it be from the bands personal sites or pages, or one of countless other sites that sell them.

[@Chrisspru]

algorythmic audio restoration, just like ai image upscaling, has vastly improved over the years. this can add a music theory following guess of sounds to lossy formats. its of course not the original sound, but its closer to it by following music theory to fill the holes. i think tgis has merrit, as the result sounds like a plausible natural interpretation of the processed song and not like a digital approximation afterwards. and every natural sound reproduction is always a plausible interpretation, as nothing is ever identical. so it has a case for its quality. mobile streaming could make use of that, as processing power is cheap while data bandwith is not. i use thimeo stereotool for such purposes: linear stereo widening and adaptive reverb, harmonic trebble extrapolation, harmonic bass synthesis, algorythmic transient reconstruction and gain adjustment. i can distinguish lossy and lossless sound very well in blind tests, but this dsp "upscaling" trickery makes it very hard, making the processed mp3 and original wav sound like two different lossless mixes of the same track, not one good and one bad quality recording.

[@birgerolofsson2347]

And then we have the great HDCD also which is also "Just a CD" even if it have the capacity to sound that much better.

[@imkow]

A 96khz PCM lossless recording (like a FLAC file) can be down-mixed to a 48khz mp3 that does sound Better than 16/44.1khz CD quality... "Can MP3 be made CD quality?" plausible, if you have better audio source(better than CD) and careful tuning of the mp3 conversion

[@ernyfromlatvia]

If you decide to build a PS Audio factory in England, I will go work for you

[@rollingtroll]

I'll row to the UK then.

[@judenihal]

it is a stupid question lol but its ok because this needs to be addressed. when you convert mp3 back to cd audio, its called "MP3 WASTE"

[@gurutimes2]

the answer is no it has already been degraded by compressing it into an mp3 and it can't be reversed by putting it back on a cd, the sound was already degraded when put on a cd as a wav file because to fit it on such a small format they had to cut bits out of the music, so that's the truth and that's why even with all the faults records have they have a more realistic full sound that cd's because nothing is missing.

[@pracheerdeka6737]

mp3 MISSING is its bits.. so some sound is missing.....

[@RamonSmits]

Converting a CD to a highbitrate MP3 and then back to WAV will not result in the bit exact WAV. However, you will not hear any difference. Many AB blindtest confirm this. The easiest way to test this is to take the original WAV and then delta it with the WAV generated by the MP3. The resulting audio file contains basically unhearable noise, yes you could crank the volume up but the original WAV would never be played at those volumes.

[@raffiequler7510]

Ramon, you must be joking.

[@RamonSmits]

Raffie Quler definitely not. Many many tests have confirmed this.

[@raffiequler7510]

I did my own tests and they confirm you are just an internet joker.

[@RamonSmits]

Raffie Quler can you please provide your testing method and how you did the AB test? Then we can decide who is the joker....

[@raffiequler7510]

You are the joker for sure. I don't owe you anything. Try all you want. You are the one that is all butthurt.

[@astroboyvr]

How about this Would a average guy like me who listen to his music in his car or average price Japanese stereo tell the difference between a cd and mp3 quality music

[@BiddieTube]

Please make a video showing us exactly what is on a store bought music cd, and go into dynamic range, frequency response etc. I personally want to compare that to a vinyl 33 disc, but you do not need to do that, unless you want to. I did find a video of yours that did compare the two, but, basically, only brought up dynamic range. Let us assume that we have a perfect turntable if comparing, and top quality hardware. A friend of mine, total stereo system person, goes to any length to have the best, he compared, MANY YEARS BACK, cd to 33 record. The 33 absolutely blew away the cd, absolutely easy to hear the difference, major difference. Technology may have changed since then. But based on your videos, not sure, but it does appear that you may think that cd is better. I can not determine how you think on the issue, videos, to me, are not clear and right to the technical points. Please show us exactly what is on a musical purchased cd. Thanks

[@HareDeLune]

Holland Sobering Not generally, no.

[@HareDeLune]

BiddieTube Hello. You may find this article somewhat informative. Although it is about a different subject, I believe it also includes much of what you want to know. www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/eac/eac.html Hope you enjoy. : )

[@BiddieTube]

Hare deLune TYVM That article is very helpful. Anybody else who wants to know more about what is on an audio cd and some things to consider when ripping, playing etc should check it out.

[@HareDeLune]

BiddieTube After reading your original post once more, I thought perhaps the article I left the link to fell a little short of what you wanted to know. I am glad you found it useful, but I couldn't help remembering something I had read previously about the differences between the two formats. Doing a quick Internet search revealed this article: www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio It isn't what I remembered reading, and it still isn't exactly what you asked for, but you may find it to be of help nonetheless. Here is part 2: www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio/analog-vs-digital-results Edit: Oh, ehh, just one last thing... electronics.howstuffworks.com/is-the-sound-on-vinyl-records-better-than-on-cds-or-dvds.htm

[@JohnMorris-ge6hq]

BiddieTube The only way for this test to work is if the record and CD are made from the same master. And unfortunately today too many CDs are mastered too loud and with funny mastering EQ curves. All the test would show is the bad mastering for the CD. A well cut record made from an original master (or a good copy) played back properly on an audiophile turntable and MC cartdrige can give CD a run for it's money. But, for example the signal to noise ratio of the master tape for Dark Side Of The Moon exceeds the best technical standards for cutting vinyl. A two inch 16 track running at 15ips with dolby A in 1973 was about 74 db s/n ratio. A Weighted. Sorry, but no record has that range. But a CD does. A MFSL pressing of the album might reach it. Assuming you got it wet vaccum cleaned, played it back with a real audiophile table (Pioneer is not audiophile) and the cartdrige had a line contact stylus. Of course even the best MC cartdriges (and they are damn good) are not any where near flat. Cartdriges have very jagged frequency curves. There can be a +2 boost at 600 hz. Not realistic but it will give male vocals a little push. Or they may have a cut of -2 db at 8khz. That will bring down the harshness of the top end of some masters. A lot of what you think is better sound off vinyl comes from the jagged response of it's cartridge. Go ahead. Take out the spec sheet of your MC or MM. I hope it's an MC. MM cartdriges don't really produce any frequencies above 10 khz. Companies use an audio trick: The resonance of the Cavalier is 15 khz. That resonance is used to boost the top end up to 20 khz. And worst yet it's time smeared. MM cartdriges have a sound all their own. But the top end IS FAKE! (Said just like that Romulan senator from the 6th season of Deep Space Nine.)

[@jari2018]

And how about lossless mp3 which exist but somehow now not availble to buy or use -Anyway I dont know were I can buy that format/player.

[@birdscds47]

How about f.l.a.c. format, it is compressed but lossless.

[@jari2018]

Yes its free but the lossless mp3 are recording at about 600 kbps - should that be lossless ? Dont know but I would like to hear it.

[@rollingtroll]

Yet it's not really lossless. The file is, but the computer has more work to do to reproduce it, power supply works harder, power delivery becomes less solid, sound quality goes down. A minor difference obviously, but with data storage being as cheap as it is these days, go WAV, and 24/96 (unless you record from a CD, that's sort of pointless then)

[@frodev728]

The Rolling Troll Yes FLAC is lossless. It’s similar to how a ZIP file works: You can compress text files - say a word document of a novel - into a zip file and the resulting file size is much smaller, but once uncompressed, the original file is intact 100%. If it wasn’t, your novel would be ruined. FLAC does the same with audio. Yes it uses more computer resources to go through that process, but that doesn’t mean the result is any less than the original. 24bit/96k is overkill as a *playback* format (but is definitely worth using at the recording/mixing/mastering stages) in the vast majority of cases. 16bit/48khz(or 44.1khz) WAV is perfectly fine, as is FLAC, LAAME, or higher bitrate MP3 or AAC for most purposes.

[@TheGameBoy56]

I’ll I wanna see a blue Paul lol

[@johndii2194]

I see it as the light bulb goes on.

[@milojenikolovski7522]

Put Mp3 file on audio cassette and you will get real analog music, second thing is when you burn audio CD from Mp3 file may not be the same quality like original audio CD file, but when you play that audio CD on some good CD player you may get very good sound, after all audio CD is digital medium and have loss some information in compression process, "natural sound" came only from LP or audio cassette.

[@TheRollingStoness]

mp3 on cassete would not give listener fatigue, the music would be warmer . However even lossless file on CD gives listener fatigue because of its "brightness", especially playing those crappy 80's and 90's produced music.

[@gizmothewytchdoktor1049]

there is a neat little bit of wizadry that fraunhofer came up with called mp3Pro. if the original tracks are encoded with the software the retrieval is quite remarkable sounding considering the processes involved by the encoding/decoding process of the software and the levels of compression. if ever space is a consideration....:-)

[@j7ndominica051]

It is called Spectral Band Replication, and is widely supported in HE-AAC. Very few players support Mp3Pro. The SBR technique is used for very low bitrates < 96 kbit/s, which shouldn't be needed with modern fast networks and large hard drives. The en/decoding process is also relatively CPU-intensive. Older players will fall back to play a lowpassed version of the signal, worse than possible per given bitrate; and you lose the confidence of digital always delivering full quality. SBR adds artifical, false brightness, which gives an impression of quality at first, because usually low fidelity is experienced as loss of treble. But soon the sound starts to feel artifical, harsh, colored. The fuzzy treble is breathing with the sound. I get an impression that some people are stuck with experimenting at low bitrates as a hobby or challenge. The Fraunhoffer encoder in Winamp has decent HE-AAC implementation.

[@freekwo7772]

I think that question is not about putting mp3 to cd as mp3 but converting it to wav/ lossles form that can be done over computer. Paul can you answer that?

[@freekwo7772]

Fester Blats thank you for you answer - I've always thought that is mp3 more like flac - you can compress it and restore by need like flac. Flac is lossless so for the flac is supposwdly different?

[@fawn4rina]

@Fester Blats would it increase the quality of the song though?

[@tomkent4656]

And would it reduce the quality of the original mp3 file if you convert to wav format?

[@ruk2023--]

Another answer to this question could be yes. A lot of people record MP3 files to audio CDs and they are converted to WAV files at 44.1 / 16 bit to play in an audio CD player. At that point the files do take on the quality of a CD although they will still sound as bad as the original MP3 (or good if it's a 320Kbps source file).

[@rollingtroll]

The files are CD quality, the source isn't. This is actually a good point :D.

[@stephens2r338]

I agree with the logic however a mp3 file converted to wav on my system always sounds better on cd. Maybe my transport is a lot better than my server. I use the same dac and master clock though?

[@ruk2023--]

I suspect that is a placebo effect. You simply cannot replace the data lost as the compression is one way when you make an MP3. Once something is 128, 192 or 320Kbps there is no way to make it any higher quality than that. Although, maybe you play your MP3s through bluetooth? That can definitely make them sound worse unless you use aptX.

[@stephens2r338]

Hi guys and thanks for your input. I'm not being fooled it's a big difference. I convert the file to wav then burn it to cd using my computer. Then play it on my Dcs transport.I believe that playing the mp3 direct from the same computer then converting it on the fly using a M2tech is loosing even more infomation. Maybe a stand alone server may make a difference. Any other ideas?

[@ruk2023--]

That has to be something to do with your DAC on your computer being worse than on your CD player. That's all I can think of.

[@brydon10]

When I ABX a 320kpbs MP3 vs a Lossless file, I cannot tell the difference. I believe the vast majority are the same. I still prefer Lossless because then I at least know that all the information is there, but it is still interesting to me.

[@evank.4715]

brydon10 perhaps a more resolving system would highlight the differences?

[@brydon10]

Try it yourself, a blind ABX test (use Foobar) and tell me your results. I think you'll be surprised.

[@TheRollingStoness]

Paul, love all ur videos and adivce, learning a lot from your videos. My mediocore system reveals absolutely no diff. between CD made from applelossless files and 320 mp3 files, a high end ssystem may reveal, why should i spend more money to worry ?

[@TheRollingStoness]

It is true that there is a difference in audio detail between 320 mp3 and loss less , however that detail difference is not worth the money that's been paid for that system and once we start to enjoy the music, nothing else matters anymore., and too much CD quality creates too much listener fatigue because of its "brightness". LP or Cassette is the perfect warmer analogue for my ears.

[@earthexplorer579]

Best is records!

[@wilder9777]

cd music 1411 kbps best sound track

[@alexandr3468]

i dont burn audio cds i burn just like a usb on mp3

[@rollingtroll]

Making an Mp3 from a CD and then putting it back on a CD again is like scanning a photo on A4, resizing it on the computer to credit card size, and then printing it on A4 again. It's going to look like a low quality photo. That said, I don't think the 44.1/16 bit "WAV" CD quality and the 320kbps mp3 really differ that much. Mp3 is a bit more exhausting to listen to, but 44.1/16 or 96/24 to me makes a way bigger difference. I think Mp3 is quite usable really for certain applications. Fun little thing; The Mp3 file will possibly sound slightly better on a streamer than it would if you were to burn it to a disc and play it in a CD player. Just because a streamer sounds, on average, slightly better than a CD player as it has no moving parts that ask a lot from the power supply. Minor differences, but just to be complete. Paul, I love how your answers never seem to be wrong. You're spot on, every single time.

[@marcelmolenaar5684]

CD quality ; AAD ADD and DDD

[@gstanley75]

GIGO!

[@SixDasher]

I think he meant when you convert into .wav files and make an actual audio CD. The answer is still the same: you can't get back information that has been thrown out.

[@paulyue6860]

Jimbodiah a

[@tomkent4656]

But do you lose quality by converting an mp3 file to wav format? I mean, it involves a decode/re-encode stage.

[@foxmatte]

Technically, cd should sound better than mp3. They are both audio file formats used for coding bits. However, “coding formats like MP3 and AAC, modifies and compresses the audio data in ways that irreversibly changes the audio” but those changes are difficult for the human ears to discern, however. And my take on the question is that, an mp3 can only be made to sound close to a cd quality by tweaking the bits on how it is coded, but never a 100% . Cd is cd and mp3 is mp3.

[@carewser]

oh there are plenty of stupid questions, this just isn't one of them

[@jan-eriksandli6221]

I learned the difference between lossy and lossless today :-)

[@rollingtroll]

Wasn't it in the name for you? :D.

[@ahmadzaki8330]

Simple example: Cd = 4k HD picture of monalisa (40mb) Mp3 = picture of monalisa (4mb) You can still look both..up to you.if you satisfy or not

[@musicglobal5908]

cds from record shops are better. mp3 is not as good even at 320kbps. and youtube audio quality is only as good as it gets !

[@ivorproblem1332]

Crap in crap out

[@JohnMorris-ge6hq]

Mp3 throws away 97% of the music. You won't notice the difference between a wave file and an 320 mp3 on a portable player. You will notice the difference on decent stereo. You don't need an expensive system to hear the lack of detail in an mp3. Each bit is equal to 6 db of signal to noise ratio. CD is 16 bit which means it's 96 db of dynamic range. When they say more detail it's because there is less noise. But 24 bit will not give you more detail just more headroom. I work in a studio and I know. I have knocked many a 24/96 masters to 16/44.1 for CD and most of the time there is no difference. Any difference comes from the conversion itself.

[@draganantonijevic2441]

No.

[@stephens2r338]

Loss less is always best. My system can decide how much is lost. However l have noticed that if you take an mp3 file and convert it to wav then burn it to cd. It sounds better than playing mp3 from a music server even though l am using the same dac. Has anyone found the same?

[@johnkristian]

"removing shuffeling of feet that you can't hear" is NOT the way MP3 compression works! Please stop answering about things you don't know anything about. I give up ... you are an embarrassment. Stick to the things you KNOW, you do those fairly well.

[@timreichert9982]

There are no stupid questions? Ok, I have a question Paul. What is your opinion of President Donald Trump?

[@60zeller]

Tim A. Reichert come on, I come to these sites to escape that.

[@timreichert9982]

60zeller I come here to find out why Paul never answers my questions. If he thought my stereo questions were bad, I'll bet this one was a real doozie. But I find it a good way to see the nature how people's minds work, granted I don't expect an answer from a likely sociopolitical sell out, who happens to own a pair of the largest speakers Infinity ever made. My bet is that Paul is a democrat, you know, the party of hillary and cnn and Stormy Daniels, the people who care so much about everyone...?.....

[@ChristianGoergen]

Tim A. Reichert May be there are other questions, that are more interesting to answer?

[@timreichert9982]

Astra Oovier What could be more interesting than finding out how ignorant people are at such a critical time for this country? Perhaps you are genuinely interested in knowing if a CD copied from a lower resolution source can actually sound better than the source, wasn't that the big question? Tough one isn't it? So what do you think of Paul's answer? Did he even give an answer? I'm not so sure he did. Anyway I already know the answer to that stupid question.

[@ChristianGoergen]

Tim A. Reichert I‘m convinced that Paul knows he can only loose if he answers your question. As a German I prefer the NYT opinion newsletters and forums to keep in touch with political affairs in your country.

[@mrgran799]

Io non sento alcuna differenza