Napster MP3 Quality

[Quarterwave]

Hi all,

 

Further to the subject, I'm currently trialing the new Napster "14 days for free" trial, and it's all been great for what I'm looking for EXCEPT the sound quality of the MP3's is really mediocre - from what I can tell, they are all encoded @ 128 kbps - does anyone know if this is because it is just a trial offer, and will they be upgraded to wav quality if I become a full memeber ?

 

Any help would be appreciated, as I haven't been able to find out this info on the Napster bulletin boards.

 

B Rgds,

Quarterwave

[philbo_Tangent]

This is a tradeoff between server drive space and sound quality. Obviously sound quality was the loser.

 

This is one reason commercial MP3 distribution is not doing as well as it could - - if you look at the 'pirate' download channels, the typical minimum bitrate is 160Kbps, which is *almost* good enough to fool the ear.

[where02190]

IMHO MP3 quality sucks period.

[Bill Roberts]

Where, send me a nice wav file, I can convert it to MP 3 and you will not tell the difference. (no joke)

 

Serious Dude, PM me for an education on how good MP3 can be. ( )

 

BUT...who does the conversions???

 

I would be in love with a 120K a year honey hole with these super computers ripping waves or aif's to mp3 properly for them.

 

Shit, I can rip an album to MP3 VBR in 14 seconds!!!

 

What a gig????

[Jotown]

Hey Bill, Yeah I have learned that Mp3's can sound relatively good when properly converted, but the query was in regards to the quality of the Napster mp3's.

 

Any insight into why that is?

[where02190]

Originally posted by Bill Roberts:

Where, send me a nice wav file, I can convert it to MP 3 and you will not tell the difference. (no joke)

 

Serious Dude, PM me for an education on how good MP3 can be.

1. don't bet on it.

2. I know the quality of MP3. At it's highest rates it still is night and day from 16 bit wav files.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I don't agree, Where. I think a very well encoded high bitrate MP3 is quite listenable.

 

I'm not saying you won't be able to tell which file is a WAV and which is an MP3, but I was shocked the first time I heard a really good MP3 versus the stuff that represent 95% of the crap out there.

 

Ask Ken (Eleven Shadows) about the critical listening session at the AES show a few years back, when quite a few noteworthy engineers couldn't pick which file was the MP3. It was astounding, and shattered most of my incorrect preconceptions.

 

- Jeff

[theblue1]

For a similar -- but much cheaper -- service with much higher fi try MusicMatch On Demand. It's $8-$9 a month (depending on if you pay yearly or quarterly), I'm told the selection is better, and they use 160 kbps WMA format, which mostly sounds very good.

 

The one thing lacking from MMOD is portability -- it's streaming only -- but you can stream from any Windows machine with MusicMatch 9 or 10 installed just by signing in. So you can listen on your laptop at the wi-fi coffee house, at work, on your desktop at home -- or at a party at your friend's house. (And if you really need portability, you can call on your Millenium Copyright-assured rights and use a 'stream-ripper' like Replay Music [actually it does not intercept the digital stream, but rather makes a copy in either wave or mp3 format of the incoming stream once your soundcard converts it to analog -- and then automatically tags it].)

 

 

I have to say that -- with a 700 CD collection, 69 GB of legit mp3s (and backup of 1200+ LPs in the garage) I never thought I'd be interested in a subscription service. I sort of got sucked in because my favorite coffee house was using MusicMatch's Artist Radio (similar to OD, but you can't pick the tracks, which in a coffeehouse, with easily distracted baristas, is a blessing, but at home is somewhat frustrating. I tried that for a while and then popped the extra couple bucks for MMOD. I was sold within the first evening. I've subscribed for about 8 months now and I can't imagine not having it.

 

I love MusicMatch On Demand. It's the best $9 I spend a month.

[theblue1]

On the Mp3 quality thing...

 

A well made high-VBR mp3 is often nearly -- and sometimes completely -- indistinguishable from a 16 bit uncompressed file. (Unfortunately, many people do not realize their Mp3 encoder [whether it's Fraunhofer/Thomson or the excellent open source LAME codec] may have different quality-vs-processing-time settings, so they encode into a high bit rate -- but use the 'fast' setting on their encoder, which may well not produce the same results.)

 

And more advanced formats like Ogg Vorbis, the latest version of WMA or Fraunhofer/Thomson's Mp3Pro at high bit rates can be even better.

[not Cereal]

.ac3 is downright scary in comparison to a 24bit file. ac3 may never be a friendly format for folks though, but it is standard on every dvd-video you buy/i make.

 

that said, i can sometimes hear very minor differences between the ac3 and the 24bit.

 

mp3 is a somewhat poor representation of current file compression. its OK, but much like microsoft windows its the mainstream and not the strongest option by any means. wma, ac3, aac sound better than mp3 in my experience at a similar bitrate.

[where02190]

Whie the consumer is very taken by MP3, and most cannot tell the difference, a professional engineer would be able to.

 

For comsuer purposes 128bit or better conversion is fine for pop and rock, where they are most likely going to be listening in noisey environments anyway...cars, subway, etc. However for classical, jazz and more detailed music, MP3 will IMHo always fall short of CD quality.

 

For critical mix decisions I know of no engineer who will allow his/her clients to do so via MP3.

 

But, as I said, if we're talking consumer internet distribution of pop/rock music, MP3 is fine.

[not Cereal]

i find nearly all the codec schemes have issues with frequencies in the 350-800hz range.

 

i wonder why?

 

those freq's seem to break up easily and go into distortion quickly with the codec'd material.

 

a lot of current pablum has this approx freq range reduced somewhere in the chain, but symphonies/opera/real music doesnt do this and so i notice the breakup when converted. the dolby codecs sound like they apply a little compression in this area perhaps to avoid this problem.

 

i dont know about other folks, but i am very sensitive to the 350-800hz range. it can cause pain in my head if it is too loud, and in live sound at least seems to be an active area for a room to respond.

[Quarterwave]

Thx fr all the replies guys. FWIW, whenever I convert my WAV's to MP3, I usually do it at about 256 VBR and unless I play them through a high-end monitoring system, they sound great to me. Additionally, I mostly listen to them in the car, so with all the road and wind noise, any small fluctuations in sound quality generally go unnoticed.

 

Ideally, I'd much prefer to keep my sound files as WAV's but I just don't have the hard drive space to keep 1000+ tunes in that format, let alone downloading new ones, so I need to find a

good online company to source good quality files from.

 

But anyway, back to my initial query, is MMOD the way to go ? What about ipod ? Are their files also converted @ 128 ?

 

Thx again,

 

Quarterwave

[kylen]

Originally posted by not Cereal:

.ac3 is downright scary in comparison to a 24bit file. ac3 may never be a friendly format for folks though, but it is standard on every dvd-video you buy/i make.

 

that said, i can sometimes hear very minor differences between the ac3 and the 24bit.

 

mp3 is a somewhat poor representation of current file compression. its OK, but much like microsoft windows its the mainstream and not the strongest option by any means. wma, ac3, aac sound better than mp3 in my experience at a similar bitrate.

I wonder if this might lead to a shootout - unless someone knows where one is already happening...

 

I'm interested in mp3 vs ac3 in terms of best quality - encoding times & smallest file size or bitrate, which is what the shootouts I usually find worry with, are generally lower on my list.

[Valkyrie Sound]

I have Napster on my windows machine and it uses copy-protected WMA files.... how are you getting mp3s?

[theblue1]

Originally posted by Quarterwave:

...

 

But anyway, back to my initial query, is MMOD the way to go ? What about ipod ? Are their files also converted @ 128 ?

 

Thx again,

 

Quarterwave

Well, one size never fits all. MMOD works great for me, but might not for others. Happily, you can check out the selection and quality with no hassle (as long as you have MM 9 or 10 on your system). You should be able to browse their stacks freely and play the first 30 seconds of tracks without any signup. But if you want to get the real feel, you can sign up for a 'free trial period' (just make sure you unsign during the allotted time or you'll be out the $27 for the 3 month min. pay period.)

 

I've heard very few people complain about their iPods. (Like maybe 2 or 3 out of scores of happy owners.)

 

But when you have an iPod you're pretty much stuck with either Mp3 or AAC format. And the only major outfit selling AAC's is Apple (128 kbps).

 

You can buy Mp3's from (the 'new') Emusic [they have an odd subscription feature that replaced their former way-too-good-a-deal of unlimited DL's for $15 a month). And there are other small outfits that sell Mp3s. But because Mp3s don't have any copy protection/DRM, all the majors beside Apple sell WMA's. And, as far as I know, only MusicMatch's online store sells WMA's in a format over 128 kbps (160kbps at MM). One good thing about MM's store is that (as far as I know), you don't have to be any kind of 'member' to buy from the store.

 

But -- as long as I can subscribe with at least the coverage that MMOD offers [and that's really an issue, since, like the rest, there is simply some content that is not available on MMOD] -- I don't see any reason for me to buy tracks.

 

I already have 69 GB of [mostly LAME-encoded high VBR mp3s] and, frankly, they're a bit of a hassle. It's far easier to just punch up what I want on MMOD. Others' mileage may differ, of course.

[where02190]

The Apple AAC format is fantastic, and while not completely lossless, it takes a high end system and a studio listeining environment to hear the detailed differences.

 

With an ipod you can also, since they have a much increased HDD space over standard MP3 players and the capability, keep your CD collection in .wav format.

 

If you want quality and portability, the ipod is the way to do IMHO.

 

Also, you are not stuck with Mp3 or AAC format. The ipod plays mp3, AAC, AIFF or .wav files. With itunes (which you can DL for PC or mac free) you can convert to and from any of these formats.