MP3 Messes Up Classical Music

[Timcognito]

Effectiveness of MP3 Coding Depends on the Music Genre: Evaluation Using Semantic Differential Scales

MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3) is one of the most popular compression formats used for sound and especially for music. However, during the coding process, the MP3 algorithm negatively affects the spectral and dynamic characteristics of the audio file being compressed. The aim of this study is to evaluate...

www.mdpi.com

Please don't shoot the messenger FYI

 

[DVDdoug]

The results could be valid. We know MP3 is lossy and at lower bitrates more data is thrown-away.

It's not clear if the tests were blind.

And I probably wouldn't ask, "which is better" because someone may prefer the more lossy (lower bitrate) version. I'd want to know it they can hear a difference (regular-old blind ABX test) and if they are hearing a difference I'd want to know which sounds closer to the uncompressed original.

• The findings of this study can be used to optimize and adapt the MP3 standard, depending on the music genre and the music piece that needs to be encoded.

They are a little late to the party.

 

[pablolie]

I have fantastic sounding 320k MP3 albums from Deutsche Grammophon (this is how they used to povide high quality downloads on their website pre-2010). In some cases I have the 24/192 versions, and the difference -if any-is really negligible. But classic is one genre where you tend to grow an "archivist brain" and get the best possible version at several levels.

So - while these days I default to FLAC versions of classical recordings, I must say I disagree wit the premise that classical can't sound good as an MP3 (high rate VBR or 320).

 

[voodooless]

There isn’t much new here. Lower bitrate MP3 isn’t fully transparent, and it’s been clear for a long time that some genres work better than others.

The view on MP3 depicted in the article is a bit old-school: 128kbps is seemingly “recommended”? Maybe two decades ago, certainly not anymore. And it’s also not that much of a popular codec for streaming anymore. Most lossy streaming services have shifted to the superior AAC or Vorbis, and only offer MP3 as compatibility (if at all).

 

[restorer-john]

Who uses MP3 in 2024?

 

[Apesbrain]

My favorite classical station streams at 192 kbps; it's perfectly listenable.

 

[Soniclife]

It's not clear if the tests were blind.

They were vague about this, and how the switching was done, so I'm guessing it was single bind.

 

[pablolie]

Who uses MP3 in 2024?

Indeed! For music I truly treasure, I don't touch anything compressed anymore. That said I also think 24/192 may well be a total waste.

But for popular stuff, hey, Spotify sounds awesome.

I also am pretty confident I have deleted any vestige of 192k in my music library (although it may be a search term to find popular crap that would make me cringe if I listen to it again, think "Macarena" which may well be in a lonesome folder).

 

[Soniclife]

Who uses MP3 in 2024?

Well I use it often, and at fairly low bitrate, but only in the car.

 

[pablolie]

Well I use it often, and at fairly low bitrate, but only in the car.

Smart use case. I completely and totally support the notion I don't need to totally immerse myself in perfect music everywhere. In several cases it would be very detrimental to my ability to focus on far more immediately important stuff.

 

[Tell]

Who uses MP3 in 2024?

I still have lots of them at various bit rates, most at 320kbps or V0, sounds great!

 

[rdaow]

I still have lots of them at various bit rates, most at 320kbps or V0, sounds great!

Exactly. I'm surprised they even considered 160kbps or less.

 

[Daverz]

I don't see much use for MP3 these days except for situations where you don't have much bandwidth or storage space, e.g. being out and about with just a phone for playback. And in that case the compromise is quite acceptable.

 

[rdaow]

How can it be a compromise, I bet no one on here can distinguish 320kbps MP3 from FLAC.

 

[A Surfer]

How can it be a compromise, I bet no one on here can distinguish 320kbps MP3 from FLAC.

They can't. Perhaps in very exceptional circumstances. I conducted a 7 subject multiple trial blind listening test that I personally controlled very carefully comparing a 320mp3 well ripped and compared directly against the flac master.

Not one of the participants could discriminate between the two at better than 50% so in other words guessing. I conducted the testing at a Head-fi meet I organized back in 2014 I think.

 

[Doodski]

How can it be a compromise, I bet no one on here can distinguish 320kbps MP3 from FLAC.

I agree. I tested MP3 and flac files extensively and was baffled as per which was which. MP3 is a great file as long as the recording is up to it.

 

[A Surfer]

I know that Amirm has apparently trained himself to detect very subtle anomalies but that is not how people listen to music therefore it is not relevant.

When people are simply just listening to music a 320mp3 is absolutely capable of audible transparency.

 

[A Surfer]

This realization is why I am content with streaming from my phone, eliminating the PC with JRiver setup that I used for years.

I do have plenty of lossless music on my phone as direct rips from my cd collection, but I'm fine with my Tidal lossy service. I think it is 320 isn't it?

 

[neRok]

How can it be a compromise, I bet no one on here can distinguish 320kbps MP3 from FLAC.

When talking quality vs file size, mp3 is redundant these days. Sure it was good in the days of ADSL1, and CD-RW's full of files in players that supported it - but that "data constrained" era didn't last long. Hence I moved my collection to FLAC ~15 years ago now, and even kept it portable thanks to devices like Sandisk Sansa Clips running 128gb SD cards.

These days if you want to prioritise file size, modern codecs like Opus are much better. Like pablolie, I don't really care about having the optimal audio quality in all siutations any more, and so my phone has a transcoded copy of my music using Opus VBR 160kbps, and it sounds fine! And the file size is way less - like 200gb flac vs 50gb opus.

They are a little late to the party.

Indeed. I wonder if it will ever go away though? Because it's got a lot of cultural/historical "momentum" behind it. Imagine a gen-X/Y'er giving advice to someone younger - they will probably remember mp3 as the file format and suggest it. When people search the net for "portable music fil format", they are going to results going back over 20 years suggesting mp3. Even ChatGPT recommends it! (I just checked with it).

i want to put some music files on my phone. What is the best file type?​

---

When it comes to putting music files on your phone, the best file format depends on a few factors like audio quality, file size, and compatibility with your phone’s music player. Here are the most common file types and their pros/cons:

1. MP3 (MPEG Audio Layer III)​

• Pros:
  • Widely compatible across all devices and music apps.
  • Good balance between file size and audio quality.
  • Most common music file format.
• Cons:
  • Lossy compression, meaning some audio quality is lost during the compression process.
  • Best for
  : General use, especially if you're concerned about file size.

2. AAC (Advanced Audio Codec)​

• Pros:
  • Generally better audio quality than MP3 at the same bit rate.
  • Used by popular services like Apple Music, YouTube, and iTunes.
  • Smaller file sizes compared to MP3.
• Cons:
  • Still a lossy format, though better quality than MP3.
  • Not as universally supported as MP3 (though still very common).
  • Best for
  : iPhones or devices using apps like Apple Music, or if you're streaming from services that use AAC.

3. WAV (Waveform Audio File Format)​

• Pros:
  • Uncompressed, so it provides the highest possible audio quality.
  • No loss of data compared to MP3 or AAC.
• Cons:
  • Very large file sizes.
  • Not ideal for mobile storage if you're dealing with a lot of music.
  • Best for
  : Audiophiles who prioritize audio quality over storage space.

4. FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec)​

• Pros:
  • Lossless compression, meaning it maintains original audio quality while reducing file size (compared to WAV).
  • Supports high-definition audio.
• Cons:
  • Larger files than MP3 or AAC, though smaller than WAV.
  • Not as universally supported on all devices (though many modern Android phones and apps like VLC support it).
  • Best for
  : Those who want the highest quality without going to WAV file sizes, and have devices that support it.

5. OGG (Ogg Vorbis)​

• Pros:
  • Open-source format, good audio quality at lower bit rates.
  • Smaller file sizes compared to MP3, with comparable or even better audio quality.
• Cons:
  • Not as widely supported as MP3 or AAC.
  • Best for
  : Android users or those who prefer open-source formats.

---

Which format should you choose?​

• For compatibility: MP3 is the safest bet, especially if you're not sure which apps you'll be using.
• For quality with smaller files: AAC is a good choice, especially for iPhone users or if you’re using a service like Apple Music.
• For the best quality: WAV or FLAC if you don’t mind large files and your phone supports it.

Most smartphones and music players can handle MP3 or AAC without issues, but if you're concerned about quality, FLAC is the best option—just keep in mind that it takes up more space.

 

[LTig]

I know that Amirm has apparently trained himself to detect very subtle anomalies but that is not how people listen to music therefore it is not relevant.

When people are simply just listening to music a 320mp3 is absolutely capable of audible transparency.

With my ears I was never able to hear a difference between 192mp3 and CD, so that was the data rate I used in the past to encode MP3s.

The german magazine ct´ did a blind listening test back in 2000 with all sorts of people including professional mixing engineers. With one exception nobody was able to hear a difference at 256 kBps or higher. The exception was a student with a hearing problem - the explanation was that masking did not work for him as it does for people with normal hearing.