IS CD quality is better than MP3 ...?

[freshseasons]

IF CD quality is better than MP3 then ...?

CD quality definatly kills mp3 but what i was wondering is what exactly happens in this scenario?
We take a say 128kbps mp3. Convert it to CD via some software. Now how is quality of that mp3 going to be from below choices.
1) It will increase in quality since its now cd format?
2) though in CD format the quality will be same?
3) Rather the quality will detoriate more since more conversion is being done?
Tell me Exactly what will happen ?

 

[drvarunmehta]

The quality will deteriorate more since more conversion is being done but you won't be able to make out the difference. It will sound just like the mp3.

 

[adit_sen]

When you convert from CD to MP3, the outermost frequencies get cut off or downsized, and the average sound frequence curve is normalized. But since the human ear is not that sensitive to these outer frequencies, we tend not to notice any loss in quality.

Now when you convert back from MP3 to CD, the sound quality obviously does not get any better. However in order to get it back to CD quality, those missing bits of frequency have to come back. Now the softwares that convert it back have different techniques of re-calculating (read: mathematical guessing) as to where those missing frequencies were. This may or may not degrade the original file, and in most cases even if it does, it would not be detectable by the human ear.

hope this answers ur question...

peace..
aditya

 

[freshseasons]

You mean there is a chance converting them back to Cd format may actually increase the quality .And even if we dont consider the human ear audibility there is always a difference to mp3 and cd and that exactly is what this man wants ?
Thanks !
But still is there actually some software that add the extra frequencies by guessing when mp3 is again converted to CD?

 

[drvarunmehta]

There isn't really any software that can do what you want reliably, but it would interest you to know that Creative's latest line of X-Fi soundcards upsample the mp3 and improve it's quality.
Go through these links to understand it better:
*techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/soundblaster-x-fi/index.x?pg=1
*www.guru3d.com/article/sound/265/

 

[freshseasons]

Re: IF CD quality is better than MP3 ...?

Yaa thanks for the link. That really is one nice product from Creative ! Think its now time to replace my Audigy 2 Zs to X-hi From Creative.
But still it doesn't solve my problem. Sound from my sony HIFI is way superior compared to my computer Audio ( Even when me using Audigy 2 Zs and Creative Megaworks 550) .And so i wanted to transfer those mp3 files to CD quality so i could play them on my Sony HIFI ( Even tough it can play mp3 but Cd quality is i think best suited).
Is there actually some software that actually upstreams or increases the Quality on mp3 ?
Reason is i got All Original Pink Floyd Collection in DTS digital which simply blows and i want to now listen to hindi songs too on hifi.But sadly most are mp3's. So you got me?Can some on put in his 2 cents ?

 

[robin345]

It is really harsh to compare Cd quality (1411Kpbs) with Mp3 128kpbs .Yuo can easily find the difference b/w Audio cd & Mp3
Mp3 128 kpbs totally sucks .Anything below 192kpbs(Whether it is Atrac,Mp3,OOG,AAC,Mp4,WMA etc etc) is bad IMO

 

[Darthvader]

Hell Atrac3 has a 8 kbps encoding feature. How does that sound?

 

[freshseasons]

It is really harsh to compare Cd quality (1411Kpbs) with Mp3 128kpbs .Yuo can easily find the difference b/w Audio cd & Mp3
Mp3 128 kpbs totally sucks .Anything below 192kpbs(Whether it is Atrac,Mp3,OOG,AAC,Mp4,WMA etc etc) is bad IMO

You couldn't be more right ! It a shame as an audiophile to even consider 128kbps mp3.

 

[freshseasons]

Hell Atrac3 has a 8 kbps encoding feature. How does that sound?

Atrac3 format came last in quality encoding tests! Howdoes that sound for music lover !

 

[Darthvader]

But it is perfect for a 128 or 256 mb audio player since it saves precious space

 

[bukaida]

The answer is quite simple- Any compression technique chops off some data.
Hence the quality has to be degraded. Encoding with high bit rate (256Kbps or more) reduces the amount of compression and hence improves the quality.
Since human ears are more sensitive to sound than human eyes to video, hence dropping of a few frames donot get noticed but dropping off a few signals in audio easily gets noticed. So there is no problem(loss of quality) in converting a video in mpeg or DivX.
While doing the back conversion(mp3 to Audio) , the quality does not improve as the redundant data has to be put in order to make it CD complience and those data does not come from the original mp3 source.The lossless compression cannot give this much high compression rate (as in MP3). Hence by principle of lossy compression, the quality will detoriate and cannot be re-produced exactly as the source.

 

[mehulved]

Now, I am going a bit off topic but I wanted to know. How does ogg, flac, aac and mp3 score against each other in sound quality and file size? So, I am asking for two comparisions - file size and sound quality.

 

[speedyguy]

well these days u quite frequently get mp3's wit 256, 384 kbps...those wud sound good enuf for u....even if u compare to audio (1411kbps)....may be dats reason why u have tons of mp3's in a single cd but audio can manage at max 10-12 of em.....

i dun think converting from mp3 to audio wud enhance anything like dat....i mean take a practical example...convert a 24 or 32 kbps mp3 to cd....twill sound same b*sh#t like it does in mp3 though twud claim to b 1411kbps audio....now convert it back to say 192kbps mp3....again wud sound d same but will show u as a 192kbps sound....so never mind if u converting low bitrate mp3 to cd....just make sure wen u convert cd to mp3, select higher bitrates so u dun compromise on sound quality...
gud luk

cheers

 

[robin345]

Now, I am going a bit off topic but I wanted to know. How does ogg, flac, aac and mp3 score against each other in sound quality and file size? So, I am asking for two comparisions - file size and sound quality.

You can get your answers here --> *www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php

 

[robin345]

Hell Atrac3 has a 8 kbps encoding feature. How does that sound?

My SonicStage CP 4 doesn`t show Atrac3 8kpbs ..what are you taking about ??
There are two types of Atrac Files
Atrac3 (105,132kpbs)
& Atrac3 Plus (48,64,96,128,160,192,256,352kpbs )
Atrac 3 plus is much much better than Atrac 3.
*i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/robin345/Bit.jpg

 

[kalpik]

Now, I am going a bit off topic but I wanted to know. How does ogg, flac, aac and mp3 score against each other in sound quality and file size? So, I am asking for two comparisions - file size and sound quality.

I really cant seem to find the link right now, but OGG aoTuV (not the normal OGG) is the best lossy format right now.

 

[Darthvader]

here u go tech_your_future
*www.cdburner.ca/digital-audio-formats-article/digital-audio-comparison.htm

 

[alienspiesu]

arey mamu...
it deteriorates the quality n dnt think doin frm a cd to mp3 wil increse quality..
u disturb anythngs originality n try to do it sumthin diff.. its f****d.. a bit but yes. it is f****d...

 

[mehulved]

here u go tech_your_future
*www.cdburner.ca/digital-audio-formats-article/digital-audio-comparison.htm

Thanks for this. So, what about FLAC in comparision to others. Also, the above link seems to show wma as a really good format. So, why isn't it that common. And is wma easily encodable in OS'es other than windows?