There really isn’t much debate to be had regarding sound quality: a poorly-encoded MP3 sounds the worst, and an audiophile system playing something on the medium for which it was mastered sounds the best. However, there is a whole continuum between those poles, and some people (audiophiles particularly) can’t resist using arbitrary numbers and unintelligible descriptors to differentiate those different levels of quality.
In this case, John Meyer of Newform Research (opting for arbitrary numbers) has computed the effective bitrates of all the major audio media, from wax cylinder to MP3. You can see the partial results above, but I had to compress and crop them; the full table is at the link above or in PNG form there to the right. His methods are scientific in a way, but also questionable. The effective bitrate of a record can sort of be calculated, since it does indeed rely on a sampling rate and frequency range among other things, but that’s not really the end of the story.
Between your amp, speakers (or headphones), and other acoustic conditions, the end result is going to be so hopelessly complicated by extra variables that at times, sometimes it hardly matters whether the source is a 33RPM record being read by a thousand-dollar cartridge or an MP3 you bought on iTunes. Lossless codecs and high-quality digital audio systems are complicating this even further.
The idea of a reproduction being true to the original has more to do with the process than the medium. Would the Crystal Method sound better on vinyl? Much of their music is recorded and produced digitally, and is intended to be distributed via a digital medium. However, The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper was recorded in analog and mixed with the intention that it would sound best on single-channel record players. So it’s no surprise that digital copies of Ratatat are true replicas and sound great, while digital copies of Sgt. Pepper (until lately, ripped from re-mastered stereo CDs with added loudness to compensate for different playback equipment) not only sound worse than the original, but are less of a true reproduction.
It’s not about analog vs. digital; those categories are too broad to allow meaningful judgments to be made. Even choosing simply between one format and another can be too coarse of a distinction. Meyer’s little study notes this at the bottom, but when you give a sort of “quality ceiling” number to every audio format, it suggests that there is some judgment involved. He does, however, say (and truly):
The ongoing debate over the past 25 years as to which format – analog or digital – “vinyl or CD” — sounds better has been conducted in the fog of ignorance and marketing hype.
How true that is of nearly every tech rivalry. What will the historians make of Blu-ray and HD-DVD? But I digress. Meyer cautions that there are “a huge number of caveats and remarks” to be observed, but that I fear I’ll be seeing this chart and others like it referred to in the unending audiophile debates on this internet of ours.
I would simply suggest the following. The true audiophile creates something of a zoo for his music: songs must be kept in as close to their original habitat as possible. That’s the true test of fidelity.
What the table above may prove is that formats like DVD-audio and other high-bitrate digital copies have the potential to deliver more precise audio information than did 45s or cassettes (hence the title of the table). Whether that will ever sound better (what with the way music is produced today) is an unanswered question. Bands like the Flaming Lips, in putting out 5.1 versions of their albums, or classical SACDs with ultra-stringent recording standards are pushing the limits, but for now there is no reason to assert the absolute superiority of one audio format over another.
[via Metafilter, where they are having, as always, a lively discussion]
98% of the consumer market cant hear the subtleties of music so…98% of the market could care less.
I however care and can and do hear the diff…and it matters.
How about you?
It’s like I said, it depends on the music. Sometimes a 128k mp3 is enough (”remember that song from high school”) and sometimes you want to avoid all possible noise and artifacts (”hear how the accompanying guitar has a slightly different phase?”)
I would challenge you to tell the difference between CD audio and 320kbps lame-encoded MP3 on anything. 128kbps is well below the threshold for most people to hear compression artifacts. The author of the piece seems to completely disregard psychoacoustics. It’s like saying that Polynesian languages have more “fidelity” because it takes more syllables than to say the same thing in Chinese.
I wouldn’t say I “completely disregard psychoacoustics.” In fact, I make your same point in the third paragraph of the post.
And like I noted, 128kbps may be below the threshold for the average listener, listening crappy ipod earbuds, but for people who care about their music, there is much to be discerned.
I except your challenge and I will win.
Delvin: I was referring to the original article. The Fidelity potential index is utter bullshit.
Julz: Get someone to administer a double-blind test. I doubt it. Also, I think you mean “accept.”
heh, okay, that makes more sense. you seemed too intelligent to make that particular objection. As for Julz, I think the old adage applies here – “the acception proves the rule”
I have done the 320 vs lossless test and it is very hard unless you have the high quality playback.
Try it on a good system and it is easier, the high end suffers most, but you do need to listen hard.
And yes, I got it right, not on PC speakers, but on my home system.
Yeah, his “index” is nothing more than the bits per second divided by 100000.
That just doesn’t make any sense.
98% of the market can’t hear the difference * on their crap computers’ speakers and $25 earbuds* which is a real shame. A whole generation has missed out on what music can sound like and have had their ears dumbed down by a deluge of 128k shwishy, noisy mp3s. We are well due a resurgence of good quality audio. Where will it come from?
Are you sure that Sgt Pepper was “mixed with the intention that it would sound best on single-channel record players”? Or was it mixed to sound best to Sir George in the booth and *mastered* to sound best on record players? In my experience, the latter is more likely with current recordings but I’m not knowledgable enough to comment on The Beatles. It’s an important distinction – particularly to the “zoo theory” – because it means that remastered recordings have the potential to sound just as good on digital equipment, ie. songs must be kept in as close to their *mastered* habitat as possible. I guess I’m not convinced that recordings originally made to 2″ tape will naturally sound better on record than if mastered correctly for digital formats.
The mono one was actually mixed and mastered differently from the stereo one. The remastered one probably sounds great (I haven’t picked it up yet) since it’s the original intended mix, but mastered to sound at home on newer systems that use stereo speakers by default.
Something like Dark Side of the Moon is a good example as well, meant to be listened to as a continuous piece, and pressed as vinyl to begin with. Which is not to say it’s not one of the best albums of all time even when in 96kbps mp3, it’s just not “at home” there.
Totally with you, Devin. For example. I just picked up Abbey Road remastered today and ripped it in ALC. It’s important for me to hear the quality and nuance in those songs (oh, the shuppapapapapa in Come Together is *clappping*!) Other music I buy on CD gets ripped LAME at 90% quality (~320kbps), which is probably good enough for me all the way around, but I don’t take my chances with my favorite artists’ work.
You guys are among the 2%
Ouch! my eyes! ;)
pseudoscience (or maybe there’s a pun I didn’t get?)
god, did I really do that… I’m supposed to be the good speller around here.
This is a laughably bad comparison, and it doesn’t even rise to the level of pseudoscience. Even if you agree with his means of calculating the “bit-rate” of analog audio, which I do not, using bit-rate as a measure of “potential quality” is just ridiculous.
Listening tests of various digital formats (MP3, AAC, OGG, WMA) clearly show that even at the same bit-rate, the results can vary drastically. It’s not the number of bits that matters, it’s how they’re used that determines the perceived quality.
Bit-rate is only a meaningful indicator of quality when comparing one format with that same format. A 256Kbps MP3 will sound better than a 128kbps MP3, in the same way that magnetic tape at 30 inches-per-second will sound better than the same tape at 15 IPS.
I agree with you to a certain point…
But the chart does use bits per second as a point of comparison so the compression level has been potentially used…
The one thing that doesn’t make sense in my opinion is how the analog sources are calculated.
There is no consideration about the “harmonics” that an analog source can provide, which colors the sound and gives a certain warmth that a digital source cannot provide properly…
Basically it means that the “equivalent sampling rate” of a vinyl would be much higher than 50000 (more like 4 times that)… and that’s where this chart doesn’t make sense in my opinion
Regardless, there are facts we cannot deny:
1- Vinyl sounds warmer
2- CDs were much more practical than vinyl (no clicks no pops) although sound a bit inferior
3- The difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a CD is barely noticeable
4- DVD Audio & SACD is the current leader in audio quality by far (if the source is up to it)
Too many people rely on those super cheap, terrible earbuds provided with iPhones etc.., or made-for-computer speakers.
Most important: if you really want to hear better quality, just invest on better audio equipment!
Your 128kbps MP3 will sound better with $200 earphones or a $2000 sound system than your CD will on cheap $10 earphones or a $100 Altec Lansing gizmo
better audio equipment means better fidelity, not better quality :)
with sweet headphones and so on, you’ll hear your 128kbps mp3s as you’ve never heard them before – all the blips and noise and encoding artifacts you couldn’t hear on a weak-ass setup.
“The difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a CD is barely noticeable”
Actually, I remember that 320kbps MP3 is potentially better than CD, if encoded from a much better source. The bitrate is inferior, but MP3 is designed to forget what’s not necessary for human ears.
“DVD Audio & SACD is the current leader in audio quality by far (if the source is up to it)”
I think there is a medium derivated from Blu-ray, even better (but this quality is useless for human ears).
“There is no consideration about the “harmonics” that an analog source can provide, which colors the sound and gives a certain warmth that a digital source cannot provide properly…”
My friend who talked like this failed a blind equipment test when a background hiss was added to a FLAC. So now when people tell me that vinyl has “warmth” I just assume what they’re hearing is background hiss and nostalgia.
But I totally agree with everybody that this dudes fidelity potential is a load of crap.
You left out DTS-HD as a lossless format.
A major fault in the table is rating 45rpm below 33rpm in Frequency Bandwidth. A 45 has higher quality due to its higher speed – just like 2″ tape versus 1″.
Any DJ will prove this for you in 10 seconds, and Sound Engineers agree with them.
Much better Lows and Highs on a 45 record against a 33. A 33 just sounds muffled up against a 45.
So nothing “Proved” at all, except the application of principles normally associated with Scientologists.
It’s actually the opposite when I think about it, since if the sample rate (i.e. the equivalent times per second it samples the record, producing a curve with that granularity) of the writing tool is the same as the sample rate of the reading tool, then a 33RPM record has more information per, say, inch than a 45 or 78RPM record. thus, higher “potential” fidelity (technically). Still kind of a stretch, but I thinktechnically he’s right on that point.
Err….
No, you are completely wrong.
You could not be more wrong.
The absolute opposite is true.
Vinyl sound quality does not improve with density, it improves with speed. This is the problem with your completely bogus ‘Sample Rate’ theory.
When you say :
“a 33RPM record has more information per, say, inch than a 45 or 78RPM record. Thus, higher “potential” fidelity”, you are completely, totally and absolutely ignorant of how these systems work. It is the OPPOSITE of your theory. You have the point of view of a child brought up in a digital world who has never seen vinyl, but presumes the same principles must apply as with digital media.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Take a nice clear hi-res picture. Reduce the size by, say, a factor of 10. Does it still look like a nice clear hi-res picture? No.
A smaller size does not mean higher resolution!!
Do you see why your analogy is completely wrong?
He’s saying that the outer ring of a 12 inch at 33 is better than a inner ring of an 8 inch 45. But, the outer ring of a 12 inch 45 might be better. It is about linear data not RPM.
I am not an audiophile, but when you say “Take a nice clear hi-res picture. Reduce the size by, say, a factor of 10. Does it still look like a nice clear hi-res picture? No.” I can draw two conclusions. First, you’re right if you’re talking file size, as a smaller file size would likely indicate a lower resolution and therefor a less quality image. Second, you’re wrong if you’re talking about physical size as the physical size of an image file does not affect the resolution. They are independent of each other.
As I said, I am not an audiophile, so I am unsure which “size” is being used as a metaphor in this instance.
As with tape, the quality rises with speed, hence the popularity of 12 inch singles, which were the ultimate in the 80’s.
Higher speeds mean lower density packing for the signal, so more space for the signal. It’s like zooming in, you have a longer length of track per second for data. The 12 inch means wider tracks, so less compression.
The other big issue missed is that by definition, digital is an approximation. It is samples. analogue isn’t, it *is* the signal and may suffer from other artifacts because of the mechanism, but it isn’t made up of samples, it is a continuous recording of the sound waves.
Ultimately, a accurately recorded and mastered analogue signal ought to be better than digital.
Actually a better anology between the systems would be to think of drawings.
at 78 rpm, you cover more vinyl per second, so it’s like drawing on a large sheet of paper – much more space for data. As you go from 45 down to 33, the size of the sheet of paper per second for drawin the signal shinks, so you get artifacts frm trying to get the detail in.
Image trying to draw a picture on a sheet of A3, then A, then A5. There is more resolution on the bigger sheet,
The digital equivalent is filling in the squares on graph paper hat is overlaid on the drawing. As the squares get smaller, the picture gets better and closer to the drawing, but it is never the same (unless you get into stupid detail)
However there are diminishing returns – at some point you can’t hear the difference.
I agree you can A B a 45 next to 33rpm anytime and hear the noticeable difference i noticed this difference 20 years ago as a kid
Ipod = mp3? Stupid!
There is no mention of mp3 Pro, which is strange since this is supposed to be an audiophile comparison.
Neither is DCC with mpeg II.
This guy is just a Monster Cable salesman.
Yes, not to mention AAC, OGG, etc. MP3 is the most compatible, but is pretty obsolete.
mp3 is not obsolete, it’s almost the only audio format I listen to!
And he didn’t mention my favourite lossless format: APE.
MP3 is far from obsolete unless you’re talking to the aforementioned 2%. An overwhelming percentage of people listening to digital music today are listening to an MP3 file. That’s the equivalent of saying that since Blu-Ray exists that DVDs are obsolete. Technically speaking they are, but practically – not so much.
MP3s are far from obsolete. At higher bitrates they can compete with AAC and other newer technologies just fine. If you can find listening tests that show a significant difference at 256kbps between AAC and MP3 (and even OGG) let me know. It’s only in super low bitrates that AAC would possibly have an advantage <128.
Chart: no OGG, no FLAC. No credibility.
Ogg is missing, yes. But you seem to have misunderstood the FLAC format. MP3, 0gg, PCM, DSD (used on SACD), they are all different ways of encoding music. But FLAC is just a way of losslessly compressing PCM (WAVE), so it actually is there, at the very bottom of the comparison chart.
But I too think, that some of the formats can’t be compared just like that, because the encoding (PCD,DSD, DTS) itself can’t be compared just by sole numbers.
What is this, some sort of New Age, 21st century thinking process: when the complexity of a problem reaches the level at which Devin becomes bored, it ceases to exist?
Recording on water is the purest analog format, just watch Metalocalypse S2E03!
The danger of this beautiful medium though is that you can make ramen noodles with the guitarists solo.
Brutal.
I don’t care what’s “better” the fact is no man’s home is complete without a record player. It’s just uncivilized not have one.
Chicks dig them.
so true nothing like flippin thru vinyls tha artwork the smell of albums etc.
most of the generation SMS cannot distinguish a single instrument from the rest in a song.
they have never heard a vinyl bass so they wont miss it..
to them its just noise puree…
Just a few points to clarify:
Blu Ray audio discs can only be better than SACD/DVD-A if the source is recorded in a higher frequency and at a deeper bitrate. BUT, that means that your player would have to be able to decode that information. As of right now, most players can only handle 96Khz/24Bit but the argument still stands whether or not a higher bitrate is just as good as a real high sample rate. Blu Ray audio just makes it possible to have the HD Audio accompany HD Video. BUT, even then it is presented in a “lossless” codec (DTS-HD Master). So, one could argue that your not getting the most accurate replication(?). Still, most artists don’t record past 44.1 Khz @ 16bit. Then you have to take into consideration the “Loudness Wars” that are distorting the fidelity of regular CDs.
Personally, I don’t know how anyone could sit there and say that Mp3 @ 320Kbps sounds just as good or better than CD. That is a ridiculous statement! Sure, it always depends on the source,still, Mp3 deteriorates that source by stripping away the supposed “unimportant” information. I guess when your favorite artist could care less about the quality of the recording process(instrument brand, microphones,etc) then you’re probably not missing out on much to begin with. BUT, there is a reason why Charlie Brown’s Christmas by the Vince Gauraldi Trio still sounds killer (especially on DVD-A) after all these years… Because this stuff really matters!
As of right now, most players can only handle 96Khz/24Bit
Correction: Most players can handle 192Khz @ 24Bit BUT most DVDs & Blu Ray discs are only mastered in 96/24… Sorry:)
Dear Ear-Bud,
You are comparing Apples to Oranges.
Apples ie: Analogue Vinyl,
> is Linear; A Continuous Waveform…
much like a water-slide – SMOOTH!!!!
Oranges ie: Digital (any type)
> is a Segmented Representation…sampled
if you like, like a stair-way >BuMpY.!.!.
There IS and Always Will Be a Significant Difference between Linear Analogue Systems,
and Digitally Sampled Systems…
No Matter How High The Sample Rate Is.
Bit Rating a Analogue Source Is Just Ridiculous;
It’s like chopping up an onion, after the first cut… it no longer resembles the original…and good luck putting it back together so no-one can tell it has been chopped.
Sampled sources must always be Smoothed to sound accepable.
As far as compression is concerned, even LP signals were compressed to fit the limited capabilities of the groove, as the dynamic waveforms of a live performance would literally make the needle jump out of the groove, as well as greatly limit the playable length of the record.
On LPs and in Digital Formats,
Compression can be a USEFUL TOOL, or
IT CAN BE OVER-USED,
to the detriment of the music.
Sampling at a higher bit-rate will increase the dynamic range, but does not increase the frequency response, as most digital systems will only play 20 -20,000 Hz, if that.
A High-Quality Analogue System…
Not Band-Width Limited, ie: Low or High Filtered, with the proper source (also Analogue)
can create harmonics that,
even though they can’t be heard…either above or below the threshold of human hearing…
They Can Still Be Felt!!!
These Harmonics can be much louder (dynamically) than the average and even metered peaks in the music, and they DO NOT EXIST in most digital recordings, as the signal has been usually Compressed, Gated, Expanded, Enhanced,
and Normalized to give the highest output, for the radio stations demand this LOUDNESS for their signal to be percieved as sounding better by the untrained ear. (example: TV ADVERTISING)
As a Sound/Lighting/Stage Professional, I use many Digital Sources as well as Analogue Sources, and while it is hard to not use some digital equipment, I will always keep my amplification chain as linear as possible.
On stage, most of my sources are Analogue,
(ie: Voices, Saxophones, Flutes, Clarinets, Trombones, Trumpets, Non-Electronic Drums, and Piano. Anything electronic is handled differently, usually limited and compressed.)
While my system may not be the average ear-bud’s rig, between my Yamaha, Mackie, JBL, EV, Emu, & Pro-Tools (yes, there are some Digital components in my rig) I get great satisfaction in playing Walter Fagen’s “NightFly”, or Pink Floyd’s “DSoTM” (4 channel version) from LP for my friends.
They find it hard to believe “That’s Not A CD?”
Though I have processed it some,
THEY STILL SOUND BETTER THAN THE COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED CDs, SIDE BY SIDE!!!
That is why I always transfer the sources with a “NEEDLE DROP” and the lead-out groove intact!!!!
A $1000.00 cartridge, or even a $100.00 one,
(of course) sounds better than a $10.00 one,
and while Tubes are Sweeter than Transistors, Nothing “HAD TO BE” Converted to have an Absolutely Outstanding Listening Experience!!!
The limitations of analogue LPs is that it is hard to get more than 5.1 channels out of it.
(2 front “in-phase”, 2 rear “out-of- phase”,
1 center “mono”, and 1 sub “same mono signal, that is Band-Width limited”) with-out additional processing…
and Yes, you can have 5.1
WITH-OUT a Processor!!!
and NO, the peanut gallery says
an out-of-phase Sub ie: 5.2…does not help at all> but it depends on how large your room is.
I’d rather Ride the SLIDE,
than Fall Down A Set of Stairs…
ANY DAY!!!!
…and if your ear-buds, headphones, and MP3s sound OK to you…Please Disregard this…& while
“Beauty is in the Ear of the Beholder”,
please do not be offended if I leave the room when you crank it to distortion, while saying “Does’nt It Sound Great”!
Smooth Linear Groove, or Stuttering Staircase,
it’s your choice, but perhaps instead
of trying to “Associate a BIT-Rate”
to a linear object, he should measure
the “JITTER” present in All Digital Recordings,
and then try to measure the “JITTER”
in a “State of the Art”
ie: Mobile Fidelity ANALOGUE Recording.
If it is an AAA recording, not ADA or ADD,
JITTER should be non-existent,
and thus…NO SMOOTHING NECESSARY!!!
Long Live The Wave…
Take That Chopped Liver!
That was very well put…. Thank You!
It’s funny how much I forget about the brilliance of analog since I’m not around it much except for when I practice with my band. I used to work for a used Hi-Fi shop and it was fun to mess with people’s heads by putting a Cello turntable & a Denon CD player behind a curtain then asking which one they liked better. It was always the LP! I’m not kidding…
I think most people forget how CD actually got popular. It really had nothing to do with sound – It mostly had to do with convenience on a new “destruction proof” medium. You supposedly didn’t have to worry about maintenance anymore. No need to worry about handling vinyl with care or knowing how to properly use the needle (no dropping, don’t play the “lead-out”,etc). Let the laser do the work – Funny how they forgot to mention “skipping”?!
Now we have micro-sized players with micro-sized speakers(ear buds) playing almost micro-sized files of binary information. I mean, how are we to expect that the latest generation will care about fidelity if they never experience it on a larger scale?? We need to push the consumer back towards analog, digitally. One day we will be able to sample the analog wave… I truly believe this will only happen if we stop trying to sell convenience all the time and sell knowledge instead!
Dear sYgnal,
No Offense, but I/we have been able to SAMPLE analogue waves for years, ie: CD-R, DVD-R etc.
Most shows I work are recorded on videotape, CD, & DVD. The producers, performers, technical crew, and venue management use these to study, fine tune and modify the shows. This is done to improve the safety of the shows, and to find flaws in equipment, performance, and technique. The performers will many times find that the image perceived by the audience can be enhanced by slight, and sometimes even gross changes in position and technique.
If you’ve recorded anything from Oprah (TV) to iPhone (pics/music), you’ve sampled an analogue source…
unless you did it with a VCR, 8 track, Cassette, Reel to Reel, or the old Edison Cylinder or Edison VOICEWRITER, or if your the lucky owner of a scully LP Lathe.
I have Phonograph records that date to the 1940s,
that I can still play, yet I have CDs & DVDs that have become unplayable after just a short time, and not due to care issues (unrecognized format/DRM-Windows Piracy).
To quote Billy Joel,
“We did’nt listen to it through 3″ speakers”
Keep Groovin! unknownsoundman!
Ahha…Unknownsoundsman, No offense taken. I should’ve clarified what I meant. I’m a firm believer that the higher frequencies above the standard Nyquist range,the supposed inaudible/unperceived , will be captured digitally one day. Thus, making it possible to accurately reproduce a live experience without any signal loss, jitter,etc. I mean that is the reason why companies like SONY & Philips are still working on formats that go beyond SACD & DVD-A and even possibly, beyond the highest DSD output of 3 Mhz. Of course, stereo equipment has to make that leap as well.
I should apologize for my disdain towards the current digital formats. I just feel like people are always ready to burn the bridge before we finished crossing it.
Thanks for the knowledge!