MP3 vs. CD vs. Vinyl - What Are The Differences?

[The Heartical Don]

I now have a CD machine that accepts MP3 too. So: how does MP3 compare to CD (and vinyl) soundwise? Is MP3 compressed, more 'bland', or shrill?

Your thoughts please.

[c-man]

I now have a CD machine that accepts MP3 too. So: how does MP3 compare to CD (and vinyl) soundwise? Is MP3 compressed, more 'bland', or shrill?

Your thoughts please.

Not necessarily shrill, but definitely compressed and more "bland".  Kinda like if you heard an 8-track tape, or a cassette dub a few generations down the line (but without the hiss).  An mp3 of a really well-mastered track, however, will still sound pretty darn good, but you definitely lose a little of the top-end "sheen", and probably some of the bass as well.  In general, they're mostly "mid-rangy".

[The Heartical Don]

I now have a CD machine that accepts MP3 too. So: how does MP3 compare to CD (and vinyl) soundwise? Is MP3 compressed, more 'bland', or shrill?

Your thoughts please.

Not necessarily shrill, but definitely compressed and more "bland".  Kinda like if you heard an 8-track tape, or a cassette dub a few generations down the line (but without the hiss).  An mp3 of a really well-mastered track, however, will still sound pretty darn good, but you definitely lose a little of the top-end "sheen", and probably some of the bass as well.  In general, they're mostly "mid-rangy".

OK, thanks for that! It is about what I'd hoped for, so to speak.

[variable2]

I am by no means an expert, but, in a nutshell:

compressed Mp3s use less data to recreate the sound of an original uncompressed recording by taking away information that holds sounds that are less audible to most people's ears.  This results in a small file size, as well as left-over uncovered digital artifacts that detract from the original recording quality, especially at high volumes.  This compression allows for less dynamic range in the music, which goes along with the current trend in popular music of mastering everything flat and loud.  This is carried to extremes on the radio, where the already super-compressed tracks are compressed and boosted further for radio play.

Vinyl has the most dynamic range of these formats, allowing for a very organic and warm listening experience.. assuming the original recording you are listening to is well engineered and mastered.

The best way to find out the differences between formats is to compare side by side for yourself.  The differences are quite noticeable to a reasonably discerning ear.

[The Heartical Don]

I am by no means an expert, but, in a nutshell:

compressed Mp3s use less data to recreate the sound of an original uncompressed recording by taking away information that holds sounds that are less audible to most people's ears.  This results in a small file size, as well as left-over uncovered digital artifacts that detract from the original recording quality, especially at high volumes.  This compression allows for less dynamic range in the music, which goes along with the current trend in popular music of mastering everything flat and loud.  This is carried to extremes on the radio, where the already super-compressed tracks are compressed and boosted further for radio play.

Vinyl has the most dynamic range of these formats, allowing for a very organic and warm listening experience.. assuming the original recording you are listening to is well engineered and mastered.

The best way to find out the differences between formats is to compare side by side for yourself.  The differences are quite noticeable to a reasonably discerning ear.

...and I will do that. My new audio set up is due to be ready in two weeks. And I am planning, after carefully consulting my wallet, to buy a Sonic Impact T-amp Mk II, it is cheap and gets rave reviews worldwide. It has a Tripath chip and is said to sound like a fine tube amp. Nice: it has a headphone socket too. It is very small, ideally suited for the bedroom. To be had for around 80 Euros.

[the captain]

For what it's worth, I rarely care one way or the other to what format I'm listening. The ear and mind divine what was intended to be there more often than not and make it so. I realize other people care about such things, but audiophile I ain't.

[runnersdialzero]

I am by no means an expert, but, in a nutshell:

compressed Mp3s use less data to recreate the sound of an original uncompressed recording by taking away information that holds sounds that are less audible to most people's ears.  This results in a small file size, as well as left-over uncovered digital artifacts that detract from the original recording quality, especially at high volumes.  This compression allows for less dynamic range in the music, which goes along with the current trend in popular music of mastering everything flat and loud.  This is carried to extremes on the radio, where the already super-compressed tracks are compressed and boosted further for radio play.
A bit misleading

Vinyl has the most dynamic range of these formats, allowing for a very organic and warm listening experience.. assuming the original recording you are listening to is well engineered and mastered.

A bit misleading - the compression of an MP3 is different than actual audio compression that happens with the loudness war.

And, sadly, CDs are supposed to have a better dynamic range than vinyl. The potential is there, but the loudness war killed any of that potential. Despite the potential for it, most modern albums have much less dynamic range on CD than vinyl, although some vinyl is still squashed and compressed to hades.

[variable2]

I am by no means an expert, but, in a nutshell:

compressed Mp3s use less data to recreate the sound of an original uncompressed recording by taking away information that holds sounds that are less audible to most people's ears.  This results in a small file size, as well as left-over uncovered digital artifacts that detract from the original recording quality, especially at high volumes.  This compression allows for less dynamic range in the music, which goes along with the current trend in popular music of mastering everything flat and loud.  This is carried to extremes on the radio, where the already super-compressed tracks are compressed and boosted further for radio play.
A bit misleading

Vinyl has the most dynamic range of these formats, allowing for a very organic and warm listening experience.. assuming the original recording you are listening to is well engineered and mastered.

A bit misleading - the compression of an MP3 is different than actual audio compression that happens with the loudness war.

And, sadly, CDs are supposed to have a better dynamic range than vinyl. The potential is there, but the loudness war killed any of that potential. Despite the potential for it, most modern albums have much less dynamic range on CD than vinyl, although some vinyl is still squashed and compressed to hades.

That's true, I just meant to say that historically it fits that the 2 things are going on around the same time.

[Dr. Tim]

While the prior statements are basically true, the final factor is how the disc or LP is mastered and manufactured.  Most classical CDs are uncompressed, and thus have a very wide dynamic range - meaning the soft parts are really really soft.  Tough for iPod listening.  So a lot of players will compress the recording for you when you play it back through headphones, if you set the player to do that for you.

LPs can be released in largely uncompressed form if they're mastered that way, but it takes a lot of care to get there.  At most a tiny bit of compression will be applied to soften big transient sounds that could make the lathe jump and ruin the cut.  Example: Lindsey Buckingham's last LP, which was deliberately mastered with large volume changes, like Beach Boys Today!, which Lindsey was consciously imitating.  But historically most LPs are compressed and rolled off, so that the cut will proceed with less bother.  Most US LPs were rolled off much more than those made in Europe or Japan.

LPs actually have a wider audio spectrum, capable of reproducing sound up to 30+ kHz.  All CD's cut off at 22 kHz, to avoid interference with the harmonic of the sampling rate (44.1 kHz).  SACD is not so limited, its audio spectrum  is much wider as its sampling rate is exponentially higher.

[absinthe_boy]

CDs are cut off artificially at 20khz, and this has to be done with something known as a low pass filter (it allows frequencies lower than 20khz to 'pass'). But there's no such thing as a perfect low pass filter...so some frequencies above 20K get through and end up as undesirable artifacts when reconstructed into an analogue audio signal in your CD player's D-A converter. That's one problem with CDs. Another problem is that they are cut off at 20Khz at all....since vinyl LPs will have some response above this with a natural roll off (not an artificial filter) up to 25-30KHz.

As for dynamic range...in theory a CD could have a slightly but significantly wider dynamic range than vinly LPs. But in the early days of CDs (1980's) they were mastered to have a similar dynamic range so that amps and speakers wouldn't be damaged...and later the dynamic range was reduced still during the loudness war and it seems that today the horribly compressed dynamic range is just what popular music sounds like.

MP3 compression is different. As someone above said, the MP3 codec software basically decides that there are some sounds you won't hear and it cuts them out. MP3's generally sound OK on the move because of background sounds....but in the home you can hear some horrid aliasing whenever there are high frequencies involved. BUT...there are many factors with MP3s. You can encode using low or high sampling rates, and low or hi bit rates...variable bit rates so that more data is used when the codec thinks its necessary.

For example.....an MP3 encoded at a high bit rate using 192KHz sample rate will sound better than one sampled at 32KHz with a low bit rate. The latter might be fine for an audio book in mono...the former might pass muster on a stereo system at home.

Compression on vinyl is generally to stop the needle jumping out of the groove. Because vinyl is considered an audiophile format, an LP might well be more carefully mastered than a CD of the same material. Having said that, even with decent mastering a poor pressing or inferior quality vinyl can end up in poor sound quality...just compare (for example) the US and European pressings of SMiLE. Unusually the US pressing is vastly superior.

DVD audio is a format that has not made much impact....but its stunning...maybe as good as vinyl. 192KHz sample rate, 24-bit, minimal compression.

[Stegibo]

Just finished a mix TAPE 

[Jay]

Other than what others have said, I have a few things to add about MP3's. The more compressed the file is, the more you are likely to hear a very annoying and slightly shrill sounding "metallic", or "mechanical" sound. Also, it is impossible to remaster a recording that is MP3 sourced. I have consulted a professional music engineer friend of mine about this. He told me that when a file is compressed, it also removes essential data needed to remaster or "clean up" a recording. My friend's final thoughts on MP3's was "avoid MP3's like the plague".

[absinthe_boy]

MP3's are OK for what they tend to be used for.....mobile music. Its convenient to have several entire albums stored on my phone for my listening pleasure during my daily commute by train to work, for example. But even on the packed train I can hear the imperfections - the mechanical or metallic nature of the music. But its OK for that purpose.

As for listening to MP3's in the home...never, unless its proved to be the only way I can find the material in question....ie podcasts.

Remember MP3 was invented at a time when we swapped files on floppies, when the internet was generally accessed via dialup. I downloadad my first MP3 files in 1997, took me something like an hour to get 18 minutes of music down. Today there are better compression methods, but the MP3 is cheap to use (licencing) and has become ubiquitous.

Also remember this...I bet each and every one of us had some sort of stereo system by the time we were in our mid teens....today kids have laptops and MP3 players/iPods. We may be seeing a generation who will grow up having never heard what recorded music at its best sounds like....

[Custom Machine]

Other than what others have said, I have a few things to add about MP3's. The more compressed the file is, the more you are likely to hear a very annoying and slightly shrill sounding "metallic", or "mechanical" sound. Also, it is impossible to remaster a recording that is MP3 sourced. I have consulted a professional music engineer friend of mine about this. He told me that when a file is compressed, it also removes essential data needed to remaster or "clean up" a recording. My friend's final thoughts on MP3's was "avoid MP3's like the plague".

Jay is absolutely correct that the more compressed an MP3 is, the more sound quality will suffer.  Anything below 96 kb/s can sound quite irritating.  128 kb/s can sound quite good, and MP3 files at 256 and 320 kb/s can sound fabulous.

Although I love the programming on XM Sirius satellite radio, their service is a prime example of how music and voice quality suffer dramatically when too much compression is used.  The better your listening equipment, the more noticeable the loss of quality.

I would disagree that an MP3 files cannot be successfully cleaned up, as I have successfully done so many times.  But, you are always better off starting with an uncompressed file.

As for vinyl, it can sound wonderful, but often suffers from irritating clicks, pops, and surface noise.

[The Heartical Don]

I am by no means an expert, but, in a nutshell:

compressed Mp3s use less data to recreate the sound of an original uncompressed recording by taking away information that holds sounds that are less audible to most people's ears.  This results in a small file size, as well as left-over uncovered digital artifacts that detract from the original recording quality, especially at high volumes.  This compression allows for less dynamic range in the music, which goes along with the current trend in popular music of mastering everything flat and loud.  This is carried to extremes on the radio, where the already super-compressed tracks are compressed and boosted further for radio play.
A bit misleading

Vinyl has the most dynamic range of these formats, allowing for a very organic and warm listening experience.. assuming the original recording you are listening to is well engineered and mastered.

A bit misleading - the compression of an MP3 is different than actual audio compression that happens with the loudness war.

And, sadly, CDs are supposed to have a better dynamic range than vinyl. The potential is there, but the loudness war killed any of that potential. Despite the potential for it, most modern albums have much less dynamic range on CD than vinyl, although some vinyl is still squashed and compressed to hades.

...is, as is always the case with our Luther, a wise addition. Our own state at the moment determines how we perceive sound. And moreover, a couple of glasses of wine make almost everything sound better. Might be that a little alcohol helps us focus best on what is important to us, and filter out the other stuff. This is not really speculation: it is a scientific fact that directed attention is optimal with 2 glasses.

20+ glasses, however, have another effect: you can't remember anything anymore after waking up. Good with Coldplay, bad with you-know-who.

[Runaways]

i hate buying songs from itunes.  or just having an mp3.  I like to feel like i have a physical copy.  though i'm aware that tech will be gone in a bit.  sigh.

[Scott]

I'd like to add in a couple of points as well...vinyl most certainly is compressed for reasons mentioned above, i.e needles jumping out of groove.  Also don't forget that the stereo separation on vinyl is about 12 db if I recall correctly, which is why the Beatles Hard left/Hard right mixes were not initially a problem.

Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that none of us can hear 30k or for that matter, 22k anymore.  We probably never heard 30k.

I've owned a lot of vinyl in my youth and they were always problematic.  I'll take a well-mastered CD anyday.


Scott

[The Heartical Don]

I'd like to add in a couple of points as well...vinyl most certainly is compressed for reasons mentioned above, i.e needles jumping out of groove.  Also don't forget that the stereo separation on vinyl is about 12 db if I recall correctly, which is why the Beatles Hard left/Hard right mixes were not initially a problem.

Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that none of us can hear 30k or for that matter, 22k anymore.  We probably never heard 30k.

I've owned a lot of vinyl in my youth and they were always problematic.  I'll take a well-mastered CD anyday.


Scott

Hi Scott -

at the risk of turning this into a Hoffmann board: I once heard that, even if we can't perceive a 30kHz straight tone at all, it does influence what we can hear, because it interacts with the audible soundwaves. Soundwaves do influence each other all of the time in their medium, air. Is there anyone who knows more?

[Jim McShane]

I'd like to add in a couple of points as well...vinyl most certainly is compressed for reasons mentioned above, i.e needles jumping out of groove.  Also don't forget that the stereo separation on vinyl is about 12 db if I recall correctly, which is why the Beatles Hard left/Hard right mixes were not initially a problem.

Actually even a relatively inexpensive cartridge and a decent LP can get better than 25 db separation, with really good discs and cartridges achieving over 30 db. When you consider that a reduction of 6 db represents 1/2 of the voltage, even just 24 db is a "half of a half of a half of a half", or 1/16th of the information from on channel bleeding into the other. And at 30 db it's 1/32, or .031 %.  That's certainly adequate to present a good stereo image.

And while theoretically vinyl can achieve higher, a good LP will have a dynamic range of 40 db or so. 40 db range means the softest sound is 100 times lower than the loudest. CD can achieve in excess of 90 db. Realistically, LPs have a dynamic range in the 40-50 db range (theoretically they can do better, but in the "real world" they don't). So with program material with dynamic ranges above that range (i.e., the Telarc recordings of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture with real cannon shots!) some compression is needed. Sadly, today's CDs are so highly compressed and the "loudness race" so pervasive that even CDs like "That Lucky Old Sun" were very compressed (in mastering I'd imagine) and the large dynamic range advantage of CDs is not being used. Highly compressed rock/pop recordings use as little as 5-10 db dynamic range. A wax cylinder can do that!

Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that none of us can hear 30k or for that matter, 22k anymore.  We probably never heard 30k.

Yes, once over 40 or so even 15K can be a stretch - especially if you've been exposed to repeated or sustained loud sounds.

I've owned a lot of vinyl in my youth and they were always problematic.  I'll take a well-mastered CD anyday.

Well mastered is the key. For instance a lot of people prefer LPs now because they are generally produced for the audiophile market - and excessive compression/limiting and such aren't acceptable to audiophiles. But sadly, TLOS was so heavily compressed that it is actually a CD I use as an example of how compression is overused. Me - I'll take SACD or DVD-A as my first choices; but I simply won't buy poorly mastered highly compressed CDs - I'll live with a well made vinyl LP any day!

[absinthe_boy]

I am 36 years of age. I had my hearing tested three months ago, and all that could be determined is that I can hear "beyond 25Khz"

As a child I had a more sophisticated test which determined 36KHz was my limit at the age of 7.

Maybe I am just weird.

[Jim McShane]

I am 36 years of age. I had my hearing tested three months ago, and all that could be determined is that I can hear "beyond 25Khz"

As a child I had a more sophisticated test which determined 36KHz was my limit at the age of 7.

Maybe I am just weird.

Guard your hearing carefully! You are very fortunate!!

[The Heartical Don]

I am 36 years of age. I had my hearing tested three months ago, and all that could be determined is that I can hear "beyond 25Khz"

As a child I had a more sophisticated test which determined 36KHz was my limit at the age of 7.

Maybe I am just weird.

Guard your hearing carefully! You are very fortunate!!

The machine was broken.

[chris.metcalfe]

Don't forget that CDs mastered using the HDCD process - which includes a significant amount of Beach Boy / Brian Wilson material - have a better dynamic range than CD, being equivalent to 20-bit instead of 16-bit. However, you do need an HDCD-compatible CD player to appreciate this, and sadly these are getting rare(r).

[absinthe_boy]

I am 36 years of age. I had my hearing tested three months ago, and all that could be determined is that I can hear "beyond 25Khz"

As a child I had a more sophisticated test which determined 36KHz was my limit at the age of 7.

Maybe I am just weird.

Guard your hearing carefully! You are very fortunate!!

The machine was broken.

Well...using a calibrated signal generator I have also determined that my hi-fi at home ceases at around 22.7Khz. Not sure if that is the limit of the speakers amp or some intermediate component (ie crossovers). I built the speakers and crossovers myself and suspect it is the crossovers as they're around 20 years old....so I was 16 when I made them.

I assume if I can hear my hi-fi system up to 22.7Khz then the "over 25Khz" from the hearing test is probably true. Now if only I could find a permanent solution to my ear wax problem....I only have hearing that good when I've had my ears syringed...so maybe the wax has actually protected my hearing to some extent. I look after my hearing reasonably....few loud gigs and only three loud motorsports events. I can hear the difference between a good CD, vinyl and DVD-A immediately...generally the CD is totally unlistenable to me.

I have been told there is a tribe in Africa where every member has (by our standards) unusually good hearing, up to 28Khz in the adults....its reckoned it gives them an advantage hunting in the bush.

[Dr. Tim]

Chris Metcalfe gets it 999.99% right.  HDCD stand-alone players are getting rarer, and digital audio processors including it have to be found on eBay and similar places.  They hook up to the now-universally available digital output (usually a S/PDIF coaxial connection).  But HDCD IS NOT RARE!  Microsoft bought it and bundled it in Windows Media Player 9 and up.  So probably you have it on your computer, and it works automatically when you play the CD.  Just be sure you put the analog audio output through a good set of amp and speakers, or good headphones.   - Dr. Tim, B.R. (Broken Record)