MP3 Query

Hi,

Ignoring what some of you might feel about MP3s, I think they have their place, mainly to listen in my car and when I am out and about.

I apologies if it is a stupid question but my query is this:-

would an MP3 converted from High Resolution files be better quality than ones ripped from say a CD (given the same bit rate etc). I know that MP3 is very lossy, but given that the High Res files hold more data/information, would the MP3 retain a bit more of the depth/dynamics than one from a CD. Or would the algorithm render them identical?

At this point I put on my tin helmet and dive into my bunker ahead of any Flac (pun intended).

 

No; unless the mastering is different, they will be the same

 

I'm very much into punography so this is appreciated - as for the query I leave that to those that will know what they are talking about!

 

Thanks for the quick response, pretty much what I suspected.

 

My guess is that they would be the same.

 

I think V0 or 320CBR is more than enough for a car listening, with the motor/fan/road humming in the background.
Besides, isn't there a test data that shows people can't reliably point out if it's 320CBR MP3 or a lossless file anyway?

Looking at some spectrograms of some "high res" offerings, it's often it's just "air", if you mean the frequency range.
Considering that, also I'd suspect most of built-in or third party car MP3 players support only 44.1 or 48khz files anyway, so using 96khz or 192khz MP3 (if the format itself has a support for those) would not be playable. I think in any case the "High Res" audio source would have to be downsampled and converted to 16bit or 24bit 44.1 or 48k MP3, cutting off all that "high res"-ness out.

Only if the "High Res" version mastering is different than the CD. A lot of modern "High Res" versions have same mastering as the CD version.

I would actually prefer to get more compressed version (but not modern post-2000 super-overboard-limited of course) for car listening, due to mentioned background noise.

 

Thanks for a very comprehensive reply, I must admit I find it hard to tell the difference between say FLAC and MP3 files but my ears aren't what they used to be. I find MP3 at 196kps or higher is more than adequate for listening in the car. I might try converting some of my FLAC files to MP3 and listen back to back and see if I notice a difference (I probably won't).

Thanks again.

 

Enjoy your mp3s man ! Most people can't tell 320 kbps apart from the real thing. Next best thing to the original.

 

On a side note, Apple insists on making it's 256K AAC iTunes files from hi res sources. So, depending on your point of view using hi res sources is either very important or bollocks.

 

Many believe that Hi-Res and CD sound identical anyway.So i would say the answer is No.

 

Look into the iTunes AAC encoder. This should have better quality than LAME MP3.

 

If the high-res mastering and the CD mastering don't sound identical, then the (I assume high bitrate) MP3's derived from both probably won't sound identical either.

But it the originals do sound the same...well you see where this is headed.

 

Theoretically there could be some advantages in starting with a 24/44.1 or 24/high-res file when encoding to AAC or MP3. These reasons are why Apple recommended artists/labels start with high-res files when converting to AAC for their Mastered for iTunes program.

One advantage in starting with a 24-bit file is that MP3 and AAC is that MP3 and AAC have more of a floating point concept of bit depth rather than a strict integer 24-bit or 16-bit concept of bit depth. You can encode MP3 and AAC directly from a 24-bit file. Which means there is no need to first convert the file to 16-bit and apply dither. That results in theoretically better sound. And since the AAC or MP3 encoder doesn't need to try to encode dither noise could theoretically result in more efficient/better encoding.

AAC and MP3 still need the source file to be downsampled if it is a high-res source. The sound quality of the downsampling will depend on the quality of the sample rate converter you use. If you have a good sample rate converter program and use it correctly you can do a very good job of resampling. However if you have a poor sample rate converter program or use a good one incorrectly then a 44.1 or 48 file that has been resampled by a mastering engineer could be the better sounding version. So it depends.

 

I would agree with Ham Sandwich, in general...

in my experience with hi-rez files;
(some from HDTracks or 7Digital, and some of my own "vinyl rips"as hi-rez pcm)
it is absolutely worthwhile to make the mp3 from a higher-quality source file...

 

I believe that the lossy version of high resolution encoding is called now MQA. Still sound the same as MP3 but this time the bastards at Fraunhofer are not going to get a dime in licencing.

 

I always render client MP3s from the hi-res versions, not the CD version. Definitely sounds better to these ears.

 

Thanks for all the responses, The only FLAC files I have at the moment are all live, might experiment by converting one to MP3 and compare with the same gig downloaded as MP3. Probably won't notice any difference especially not in the car.

 

My experience with that has been that the sources are generally no better in quality than middling MP3s anyway. I rip stuff at 224k VBR high quality because from my experiments I also found 192k sounded very musical. Maybe not identical to a CD, however quite enjoyable. So I decided on 224k to have some margin, but still be small enough to pack into tiny clip players for running.