Do normal people notice compressed audio (MP3 etc) sounds bad?

Yes, I think most people can. The problem is, it doesn't occur to most people that there are options at all and those who are aware of the options don't realize they sound different from one another.

To most people, buying your music on iTunes is equal to buying it on CD, so what's the big fuss about?

Where I'm convinced that people can hear this is that, when I've played them straight A/B comparisons of 320kbps MP3 files against the same track ripped from the same CD in FLAC, they've always been surprised. "Wait, the bass can hit that hard?" "Wait, the vocal is supposed to be that up front?" It's not magic and it's not something only enabled in audiophiles by some secret section of cerebellum that others lack. Anyone can hear it because it's pretty obvious stuff. What people don't realize absent a comparison test is that there's something wrong with what they're hearing.

Overly compressed music leads to listener fatigue. Bad EQ can lead to emotional reactions (even just "Ugh, turn it off!"). But people who aren't aware of all the different variables in music will just say, "Oh, I didn't like that at all." They take the music as a solid piece that must be taken as a whole and it opens a new world for them (if they'd care to explore it) when they realize that there are different masters, different ways to play back the same music, and even just the option of ripping CDs at higher quality.

As for MP3, lest we forget, it's a hatchet job on the file even in the highest conventional bitrate. You lose room reverb, harmonics, and the lowest frequency information even on songs that are already compressed and digital as hell.

So yeah, I think people do hear it, but they don't know what they're hearing because most people don't have a frame of reference - especially if we're talking about younger people who have grown up with earbuds, iTunes, and Spotify. Sit them down in front of some good speakers with even the straight CD of what they've been listening to compressed and they'll light up - I'd almost guarantee it. Most people who like music at all are won over by having the beauty come to the forefront or just having the beat kick them in the chest. I've even gotten positive reactions to this comparison test from people who've actively said, "I don't care enough to change my listening, but WOW that's awesome."

 

Most people don't have the equipment to distinguish between good compression and bad compression. Unfortutely I can and do. XM is horrible, particularly in the higher channel numbers. It drives me bonkers when cymbals sound like glass.

 

It's kind of like the difference in fidelity between top 40 AM and FM radio, back when that was still a thing.

Yeah they notice, it's just not much of a problem. Normal people just have an ability to enjoy listening to music.

 

Unless a 'normal' person has heard the original un-compressed music, they might not be able to tell the difference. This goes back to stereo vs. mono. A 'normal' person who mainly heard music on AM radio and their portable mono record players, when they hear that same recording in stereo on good equipment, or even FM radio, most realize what they've been missing.

 

I am sure "normal" people are out there enjoying music just as much as the forum elitists here, maybe even more so. I just don't know how some people here even enjoy music at all with this deep and pervasive fear of missing out combined with an irrational paranoia about what other people are doing. Seems like hell to me.

 

For many years, my next door neighbor - an elderly bachelor - could be heard on weekend afternoons listening to classical music or jazz on his porch using an ancient portable radio.

I have no doubt that this man had a genuine appreciation for music, and was not "missing out" on anything at all.

 

I knew that guy, he was totally deaf. He just played the music loud to keep the neighborhood dogs away from his garden.

Just kidding. In all seriousness his appreciation of and pleasure derived from music should be a lesson to us all. Instead it's more likely to be fodder for forum elitists.

 

It's not really a question of "missing out" as much as it is wondering if people are dismissing music because they're having a subconscious reaction to things like MP3 encoding, bad compression, and the like.

I can't speak for anyone else in the conversation, but it's not about elitism to me and I don't A/B different compression methods for ripped music for friends just to lord over them. I do it because I've enjoyed the effects of upgrading my setup and many of them have as well once they've seen the reason for it. Music is about sharing. If someone wants to hole up in a bunker with all-analog tube-driven whirlygigs and listen only to Edison Cylinders to get closer to the music (I've always hated the way Neil Young talked about music when marketing Pono), that's their business, but wanting to listen to quality music played back on a decent sounding system isn't necessarily elitism any more than it's elitism to take a friend out to a nice burger joint instead of having them go for the McDonalds they're content to eat. If it can be done better and experienced better, why not share that and multiply the joy of the experience?

 

Some of my CDs are burned from mp3 files (320kbps mostly) because they're unobtanium or so obnoxiously expensive I can't afford them and FLAC versions are not available. I dunno whether or not I could detect slight variations A/B-ing them with the originals but I'd rather listen to those than missing out on them

 

I think Mp3's on earbuds sounds okay for the purpose of mobility. Wouldn't want it to be my sole access to music, but even if it was, for financial reasons or whatever, it wouldn't be the end of the world. It's brickwalling that really hurts the music, imo.

 

No question on that front. Having the content in some form is better than not at all. I've got a few of those myself. Fortunately, we live in a rush of reissues where all manner of tuneage is coming back into circulation and that's good times all around!

 

I actively seek out the best possible sound I can get from my gear and my source material. One could call me an audiophile - but as far as say - Sirius XM goes - it crossed the line for me on tolerable sound (Calgary location).

We bought a new Highlander on New Years Eve 2015 and got the obligatory "free" trial . While we did check it out while the trial was on - I was consistently horrified by the absolute lack of any redeeming sound quality on any of the channels we listened to.

The best part (for me) has been the Sirius XM reps calling (at least 6 times now) trying to figure out why I will not sign up - and I have had some very detailed conversations with what I feel is a brutal product to even consider paying for - when the sound quality makes my iPod sound like a 30000 dollar system in the truck.

Oddly - as soon as one starts yakking to them about sound quality - that's where the pushy sales call ends

For these ears - until these guys actually deliver something/anything resembling a good FM signal - I will never commit to 12 or 15 dollars a month for that.

VP

 

Alas, I've been finding the word "remastered" often simply means "brickwalled" when it comes to CD reissues.

Two semi-conflicting examples:

I just eBayed an original 80s-era CD version of Kansas' "Point Of Know Return" because it has a much higher dynamic range (DR12) than the 2002 remaster (DR8). I was disappointed to find that, yes, the original CD release does have good dynamic range, but the mix on this version is terrible compared to the vinyl - very veiled with rolled-off highs. The original CD sounds like it came from a multi-generation mixdown tape compared to the original vinyl, even with the good DR value.

Another case in point relevant to this thread's discussion: Culture Factory's CD release of Rare Earth - One World. The company claims they took great lengths to avoid compression, use a flat EQ while mastering it in 24/96 to create a "High Definition CD". And the Amazon reviews are glowing, with one person calling "punchy and clean". When I got the CD, I found it to be loud, shrill, and bright - DR6 compared to the vinyl's DR13.

 

Most Bluetooth audio receivers do sound terrible as that is mainly a lossy codec as well.

 

The Aaron Copland book is still in print.

 

However, I continue my subscription for talk radio and news, not music.

 

I think the key to your question is whether the original recording is digital processed or not. Heavy metal in analog can have all kinds of transient punch and energy even if the soundstage is somewhat flat. But digital processing sands it all down. So if that is the comparison I can understand how listeners can shrug at CD vs 320 MP3.

 

Not only that but a dog rolling around in the grass is having more fun than any human would. The dog will roll around in beautiful flower beds too and chew up expensive rugs and scratch furniture. It's all unalloyed happiness to Fido. You are right that the amount of happiness has no relation to the activity.

 

We don't know what a dog experiences. We don't know how they hear music. One thing is for sure, most of them can hear higher frequencies than adult humans can.

 

Oh I disagree. They can't talk but is it so hard to tell when a dog is happy or sad or angry or bored? As for music appreciation I would think that it is not pleasant for dogs. Even young children are more sensitive to loud music or high pitched sounds.

 

One thing that is very obvious, is that an mp3 file of high quality from a very good vinyl front end, will sound much better than listening directly to a normal quality vinyl front end.

On another thing, I believe the reason that talented people don´t care that much what they are listening to with; even with best components the sound just is what it is, and not nearly close to live acoustical music. So it matters very little to some.

 

My point is that we don't know that a dog rolling in the grass is having more fun that any human. To think so is like thinking that people are happy because they're singing while working in the fields. It's ignorant thinking.

 

Sure we do because no other thought about paying the bills or going to work etc etc is intruding or subconsciously lurking. But it is possible that some kids have the same level of untroubled unalloyed happiness.

 

In the 80s i mostly listened to music on cassette. I didn't know the difference until after getting into CDs for a couple of years. If a younger person's music experience has been mainly mp3, then how would they know the difference?

I'm weird about mp3. Sometimes I hear a difference and sometimes I don't. It is the same with remasters. I have read plenty of posts slamming a remastering due to sound quality whereas when I hear the same edition, I don't get the same experience.