What, And What Not To Opt For
Sep 10 '01
The Bottom Line The audiophiles of the world hopefully agree – Mp3 is almost dead.
The World’s Formats
The music industry today mostly bases its profits on the sales of music from artists, of which their work is recorded onto a special format, either digital Tape or a Computer hard disk. There’s a loft of other formats other than tape or disk that the producers use to capture the “live” performance.
If you take those “popstars”, they will sing a set of pre-written lyrics, their vocals are laid over a computer-generated sound track, which is looped over and over and over and over again, and at some points varying in intensity. For the “proper” and “authentic” performers, their music and/or singing is recorded live onto a format. Additions can be added such as special effects from a computer software program onto the recording later.
Now what you need to understand is that, all the musical performance, be it from a music generator, or directly from the guitar or drum or other instrument are all recorded on a format, of which is transferred onto the “sellable” formats. These consist of Tape cassette, CD, MD (MiniDisc), and Record vinyl. Mp3 does in no way come into contact with the recordings. The only music compression associated with the “authentic” recordings is that found on Sony’s MiniDisc called ATRAC (eight track, a-trac?). However it’s compression doesn’t reduce the “authentic” recording’s quality as far as Mp3 files do.
What I’m trying to point out is that the Mp3 revolution is not all its cut out to be. In fact the sacrifices incurred with this “popular” alternative are so-far-and-away that any one should be able to hear noticeable dissimilarities. I for one find Mp3’s sound noticeably more distortional compared to a CD original. Mp3 is designed for web transfer, as it was in its’ release, and so-made to make original sound format (a CD track) as low as ten percent the original size. So in simplistic terms that’ll mean Mp3 tries to get a 40Mb (megabyte: mega=million) file into a 10Mb hole. Ah, but that’s just the start of it: while the CD track may be 40Mb average, most compressions are as low as 4 to 6Mb. Even less than its original 10% quote.
Try to imagine it as this: a CD track will cover all the (sound) frequencies in sound from 20Hz to 20,000Hz (or 20kHz – k for 1000) that is the average human hearing range (not volume but pitch), and when a Mp3 converter compresses this signal, it converts the signals which “it” thinks people can’t hear, as simple as it can be said. So that means that any noise which is a “low” one is terminated from the original sound. If you imagine the bandwidth of a CD track is from 0 to 100dB (decibels - volume), and any noise that is lower than 50dB is ignored and not transferred into the Mp3 track during its conversion, that in itself seems quite a large sacrifice, rendering a lot of information lost (although I’m not certain this is the actual figure). This “lost” information could be as simply as the rising vocals of a second singer, making the steady rise suddenly appear. The sounds could pop above or below the lower limit making it a fair bit more distortional. I’m not exactly sure of the typical process for Mp3 conversions, but that above covers a necessary procedure, this would typically be about half the process, later I’ll go further into the practical procedure.
Now, to convert a typical CD track to Mp3 format you will need a WAV to Mp3 converter; these will use a set of proceedings to ensure that 90% or more, reduction in file size occurs. What also Mp3 offers is an information index, track data and artist label. Typically an Mp3 converter will not offer a bit rate selection, or sampling rate.
Discussing The Method Of Recording
The CD format holds data digitally, which is converted into analogue by a DAC (digital – analogue conversion) in a CD player, the now analogue signal is passed to (through the appropriate connections) an analogue amplifier in two channels, stereo. The digital information is stored in an uncompressed and high quality class on the disc: music is sampled at 44,100 times per second; each sample is 2 bytes long at 16 bits. And there are two for each channel.
Therefore the information is of high size and of high quality, meaning an almost identical match form the original recording in the production studio. When this information is multiplied together you get 1,411,200 bits per second and that is 176,000 bytes, as a byte is an eighth of a bit. Thus a three-minute song is 176,000 bytes x 60 seconds x 3 minutes = 31680kb or 31Mb. And many Internet hobbyists will know, 32Mb over a 56k modem will take roughly two hours. And that is the reason for Mp3 as 5mb will take roughly 10-15 minutes.
I have also discovered that Mp3 recording processes ignore all other “quiet” signals (or frequencies) that are present when there is a loud passage, therefore covering up the missing other signals subsequently. For example:
Take three frequency bands, 1kHz, 2kHz, and 3kHz; if 2kHz reaches close to that 100dB bandwidth height, the remaining other frequencies are cancelled almost totally from conversion reducing file size exponentially. It alters; depending on the raises and decreases of a music track. Thus meaning a relatively simple tune can be most complex to convert: the reduction may not be 8% like above, more like 50%, although this simple tune will have been lower to begin with, not 32Mb rather 10Mb = 5mb Mp3.
The logic behind the above example is that: human hearing hears the loudest noise first, rather than both at that same time. It is also based around that human hearing bandwidth again. This means that the most concerted frequencies (1kHz to 4kHz) are ones we hear easier, which means higher frequencies are also ignored to that effect.
If you take a software system with a visual equalizer, like Winamp, you can view what frequencies are occurring at the exact point in time. If you select the barograph visual equalizer you can see the frequency range depicted by vertical bars. The most right are highest and most left are lowest frequencies. For most of the music I listen to, of which are on Mp3, I have noticed there is a lack in higher frequencies; this is added to what we listen to music through:
Computer speakers will not (unless there really great) depict all the frequency range (may only reach 10,000Hz), adding more profound a reason to ignore these higher frequencies through Mp3 conversion; higher frequencies are more ignored than the lower ones of course.
Hopefully I haven’t scared you away, but if you still are confused, don’t worry, it’s really proof to back my following opinions.
Results of Mp3 conversion
Once the conversion is complete including the ignorance’s and deletions the resulting sound is “almost CD quality”, but that’s being really fair. What you have in practise is the same song, but one which is missing almost a quarter of its original content.
The complex procedure of Mp3 conversion acts as a close “copy” of a very large file, to provide an Internet safe file. However, Mp3 has limitations. While downloading through web servers and such may be good for your computer usage it won’t replace the CD, tape (yes tape in some respects), the record vinyl or MD. In fact many audiophiles would argue that Tape and records are closer to CD than Mp3 will ever be. What I believe Mp3 is best suited for, is that computer user, not that hi fi owner.
Mp3 is based on the concept of fast downloading times, but because of legal actions, such sites as Napster and Mp3.com are becoming extinct, thus it means that Mp3 based products are not as popular, and therefore Mp3 is only available for purchase.
That in it ‘self is a bit of a problem, since you can no longer download “free” music, you now need to purchase this Mp3 solution. However, if the price comes anywhere near the CD or Single price, I wouldn’t go near it; a quick trip down the supermarket and you have a “real” and “authentic” album or single.
In the days of “free” downloading, with such software’s as Napster, you had the opportunity to “share” your Mp3s. However, in order to have Mp3 you can either download from other people or convert them from your CDs. And for most, a free downloadable Wav to Mp3 converter will do nicely. That is the key element. Just about every “amateur” converted Mp3 is full of bugs, such as the song being cut off too soon, or the quality is rather poor, and remember that most of these “free” downloadable software programs are mostly there because of the publicity and mass profits from the advertising. Not many are particularly made to make a Mp3 file sound as good as it can be. Here, this means that almost all members of a Napster community will be using this “free” program, and therefore creating poor files. Ok, the downloads may be free but there not going to stun when it comes to music performance. As mentioned earlier, the Mp3 file is corrupted in a number of ways. And each different converter will use different methods to convert, thus meaning many take too much music data resulting in a poor Mp3.
CD to Mp3. Mp3 to CD.
This is a common situation: person downloads a nifty song from Napster (well an other person over Napster) and decides to convert it back to Wav to put it on a CD.
Now this situation almost obliterates all rules for the use of Mp3s. For one you are converting a pre-wav file back to its original state. The resultant file is one that has been converted twice, therefore meaning that the music data is twice damaged or corrupted. The conversion from Mp3 to Wav is more recording to a larger file, Wav, rather than compressing. This conversion also isn’t uncompressing, to result in an unchanged file.
While downloading and storing on a PC is fine. Using the converted Mp3 on a hi fi isn’t really the way the music industry and the quality of CD are for.
If people wish to use Mp3 data, they can convert to Wav, although hi fi systems are becoming lenient to be compatible with Mp3, and CD-RW. Not to mention the evolution of the personal Mp3 players, which hold data in solid-state memory, in either Memory cards, or Memory Sticks.
Firstly the idea of using Mp3 for portable use is quite intriguing, as the size of the files give an enormous level of usability for starters. However, a MiniDisc player is cheaper and will have better sound quality. The Mp3 player evolution can named spur-of-the-moment ideas. As Mp3 has limitations already, for one you can’t switch Discs like MD and the memory is extremely expensive. Yet the evolution has been fairly successful.
There are a number of pros and cons for both sides of the path:
Minidiscs for starters have 74 minutes of play, that is using the aforementioned ATRAC compression system developed by Sony, and in truth is far superior to Mp3. Now, if my memory serves me well, a 10Mb Memory Card cost around £30, and that’s for my PlayStation 2. To hold that same 74 minutes in Mp3 terms you would need roughly 74Mb if each Mp3 were 4Mb and 4 minute long. And Mp3 players never come with such a high memory capacity; even a Panasonic SD Memory Card with 64Mb memory comes packaged at £109.99. A MiniDisc on the other hand costs around £4.
However as far as MiniDiscs’ go, they won’t ever replace a CD, but beat Tape easily. For recording: connect to almost any Hi fi system to record, or use a computer sound card output. Title each track and MD. Re-record over and over without ware.
Now I’d hate to sound like I’m ripping Mp3 and selling MD, but there is no alternative, if price and performance count.
On grounds of portability, MD wins in all areas. However for PC users the integration is not so sweet. That was until Sony released a MiniDisc recorder, which connects to any Windows PC, to edit and record from the tower with aplomb. This product (MDS-PC3, £350) is the only currently available I know of, and is mostly aimed at one who owns a personal and wishes to utilize music on the computer. Thus meaning the disclaimed by I, Mp3 to MD ideals. What I used it for was editing and titling; not only did it include excellent easy-to-use software, but also had extras such as extra compressions, which make backing up Mp3s or home edited music on hard storage for little money. A few friends backed up their music performances on some MDs I recorded for them, and is now a back up, so they can –hopefully- sell some albums in college from them.
To conclude this part: it appears Sony’s MiniDisc can beat Mp3 over and over in every area with equal aplomb. Not only is the software cheaper, but hardware is cheaper too, a Play only is around £100; Mp3 players can’t record (some may include microphones and use Mp3 - Dictaphones), and a record/play version will come at £150. So far so stupendous for MD.
CD ~ MD ~ Vinyl ~ Tape and Mp3
The software’s, CD, MD, Vinyl, and tape each have had their run-ins with high competition. To be straight to the point for once, Mp3 beats Tape, vinyl beats Mp3, MD beats vinyl, CD beats MD. Tape may be a very good type of storage – remember many record studios use a tape system – but it wears out hastily and has a small amount of hiss so Mp3 beats it. Some may argue but Mp3 is more playable, however Tape wins with more “detail” in music. Vinyl beats Mp3; remember Vinyl is that old classic which DJ’s use today, and is simply an excellent format: it uses small grooves of which have minor tremors – these making a spindle vibrate creating sound – requiring an amplification before main amplifier. Vinyl is simply better sounding than Mp3 – not compressed in any way. MD beats vinyl, only on functionality grounds though – many may argue it should be the other way round, but MD is as close to CD as anything else – as it’s a digital format and can be edited, though not sounding any better, well, vinyl’s do damage easier. CD then beats MD, simply because it’s a digital high memory sound giving the full music signal, and is often source to pirate copying to Mp3 or MD (unless for personal use).
Ah, but there is another creeping format – hard disk storage. While it’s an infamous idea to use a hard disk to store data, already Video recorders are being catered for, although the space soon turns out to be ate up very quickly. Therefore isn’t a great software – the media (hard disk) is huge and heavy, and the components are hard to combine – requiring a fast processor and RAM to aid any jitters. Making it a very expensive – although huge – storage method. Ten gigabytes will hold 45 minutes of MPEG 2 compressed video.
Lastly in this topic, there is one last format that is apparently resurrecting soon – the 8cm CD. Phillips came up the concept of an 8cm diameter disc to hold music in a more portable fashion. It was scrapped in the very late eighties, although Philips hopes to resurrect using Mp3 solutions for a portable mini-CD product. That is why all CD players have an indented cutout for the 8cmed discs.
Opt for which format?
I hope it has become more apparent now; the ultimate software for portable and quality which suffers nothing on price sides or on “wear and tear” isn’t Mp3. The CD may be a very easy software to play, but recordings take a long time and the sacrifices made during “multiplied” recording are to say the least rather brash. The final solution for portability, durability, cool-abilty, and downright usability is MiniDisc. Cheap, easy to use, covers all areas and still manages not to sound fatigued, it is a gem of the river bedrock of products today. Strange how unpopular it seems to be.
Out the windows
Risking to sound a little conceited: as I mentioned, Mp3 has small defects in its sound, however all these defects are only noticeable if you own a hi fi that can show these imperfections. I’d really appreciate some feedback here; please leave a comment stating what sort of hi fi system you own, if any. I’d really like to know how many people who notice these imperfections of Mp3. From its obvious craze and popularity I’d guess almost all don’t notice them.
I’ve listened to Mp3 –CDs and they always – despite a £200 CD recorder – sound very ropey, dull and unexciting. I would advise that the defects of Mp3 are only noticeable with a hi fi costing around £300+, and one that isn’t an all-in-one system - more a separate system – CD player Amplifier and Speakers. I don’t means to put people off buying expensive hi fi, as the results of spending don’t half show. However if you don’t own a suitable hi fi without recognising the faults of Mp3, then would you be caring to switch to MiniDisc?
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
MichaelHatton
|
 - Top 200 |
|
Location: Darlington, England
Reviews written: 192
Trusted by: 59 members
About Me:
Retired
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.