MP3 vs AAC (MP4) vs. Ogg Vorbis -- battle of the formats

[SrinathK]

A few years ago, I remember converting audio from my cassette collection at 128-160 kbps MP3 -- this was approximately 1 MB per min. Now that we have TB HDDs in the average laptop, I've been able to move on to better quality and for my ears, the difference is huge. After a short stint with 320 kbps MP3, I've moved on to Ogg Vorbis VBR between (224-320 kbps with capability of up to 500 kbps). My conversion software (Total Recorder) only works with Vorbis and MP3 mainly so after a comparison with an AAC MP4 from Youtube, I concluded that the Vorbis was marginally superior with a better size to track length ratio. FLAC is truly noiseless by comparison, but 15 MB per min is way too much for me (I couldn't tell the difference from Vorbis at this size at all). Also I noted (and this is also backed up by tests elsewhere), Vorbis ABR (Auto Bit rate) and CBR isn't as good as VBR (224-320 kbps). At 224-500 kbps Vorbis VBR I got around 4 min per MB, but despite my best efforts, I couldn't tell the difference. I find 720 p HD videos (esp. Youtube) to be Gigabyte guzzlers (Though if only a static picture is used with encoded audio, the max quality is around 3-3.5 MB per min which means I get the best audio encoding for a very effective size to track length ratio)

With android players that can play ogg vorbis, I have no issues listening on my mobile either. It's noticeably superior to even the max. 320 kbps mp3. The file size is now around 3 MB per min, but wow, I'm impressed at the improvements. The tanpura, the percussion, overall tone, noise control are all superior virtually no audible loss of frequencies (mp3 by comparison always sounds a little duller). I did the play test on Winamp (Still has the best sound quality of all players and far superior to VLC).

I sincerely request rasikas out there to consider Vorbis VBR (224-320 kbps) instead of mp3 in the long run as I think it's time we can afford higher quality that is affordable in terms of space and doesn't cause massive losses in extremely low bit rates like 32 or 64 kbps mp3.

PS : Cloud storage options are getting better -- install drop box app on select Samsung mobiles and get 50 GB free for 2 years - I got it using a Note 2. - https://www.dropbox.com/en/help/297

Would love to know if any one else here has tried out a detailed sound test on CM recordings. I had done it on recordings of quite a few past and present vocalists and instrumentalists and even a western classical violin solo and a violin + orchestra, In the process of my review, I found the Rs. 300 HP 1000 earphones on Flipkart as an amazing bargain. It sounds incredible on Winamp with the bass and mid tones (up to 3 KHz) slightly boosted, esp. on the WCM violin solos -- the sound of that tanpura or that Guarnerius can't be put in words!

[cacm]

I AGREE with your observations. As a member of the technical committe of the SPIE that decided the audio&video specs for DVD'S ETC I still must say the best is: .WAV FORMAT (44.1KHZ) & FOR THE CURRENT RECORDINGS 48KHZ SAMPLING IN DVD'S. In reality .WAV(44.1KHZ) RECORDINGS SOUND BETTER WHEN RERORDED WITH 48KHZ SAMPLING WHICH is a VIOLATION OF SAMPLING THEORY(& THE PHYSICS GOD WEINER); Actually i conducted CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS using Mcintosh tube amplifier & Altec Lansing Speakers(Voice of the Theater) still the GOLD STANDARD FOR RECORDINGS. Even the DDD Recordings are compared using this system in recording studios. Its unfortunate the NIMBUS system - a few recordings of Mandolin & Ramani are available)- the BEST FOR OUR MUSIC was given up because of economics!....VKV

[Nick H]

Would love to know if any one else here has tried out a detailed sound test on CM recordings. I had done it on recordings of quite a few past and present vocalists and instrumentalists and even a western classical violin solo and a violin + orchestra, In the process of my review, I found the Rs. 300 HP 1000 earphones on Flipkart as an amazing bargain. It sounds incredible on Winamp with the bass and mid tones (up to 3 KHz) slightly boosted, esp. on the WCM violin solos -- the sound of that tanpura or that Guarnerius can't be put in words!

If you download the free FooBar2000 player, you can add the ABX addon and blind-test yourself on the differences you think you hear . The last time I tried this on a couple of test files a friend sent me as a challenge they all disappeared! IIRC, that was comparing WAV to a high-bit-rate MP3.

This kind of testing/confirmation of one's own senses can be very interesting --- but it can also be somewhat tedious and hard work, and I usually end up deciding I'd rather just listen to the music

The important difference between FLAC and the other formats that you mention, is that FLAC is lossless. The data is compressed, to save space, but none of it is discarded. Whether or not it is audibly different to a given bit-rate in a lossy format is a whole other question, but nothing is lost, and when it is uncompressed, you have what you started with. Thus it seems to me to be the only choice for archiving, conversion, storage etc.

Everything on my PC, where I had a choice, is FLAC. For music in the pocket I go lossy.

I would not trust the "cloud" for anything other than convenient access. This bucks the trend, but it is only the trend because the marketing men have won. Commercial or personal, they would be thrown out of my office: I wish to be responsible for my own primaey data storage, not to trust somebody else --- although this is slightly simplified because off-site backups are an obvious part of data security. Even now, I keep a spare portable HDD at another house.

Aside... VKV, did you ever work with James D. (jj) Johnston?

[cacm]

Dear Nick,
I think we need to separate this discussion into at least TWO CLASSES.
1) REAL HI-FI NUTS WHO TRY TO USE THE BEST EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE& HAVE A LISTENING ROOM SUITABLE. I would like to think I am in this category. At least I have followed, designed many circuits myself & worked with artists of the calibre of Veena Balachander etc (Contact mics) reg. Carnatic music which I am OBSESSED WITH as I claim that ANYONE who has heard M.S.S.& MMI in person WITHOUT ANY TRANSDUCER INBETWEEN can truly realise what perfection can be.....
2) ALL THE PC BASED THINGS+ ALOGRITHMS which as PHYSICIST (THEORETICAL + EXPERIMENTAL) I have to consider POOR MAN'S SOLUTIONS to a PROFOUND PROBLEM FROM THE DAYS OF THE GREEK THEATER & THE GREGORIAN CHANTS ETC.
It would be nice if some one like you would address the SOUND CARDS IN P.C.'S WHICH ARE & CAN BE TERRIBLE& RESULTING IN REAL DEGRADATION OF THE SOUND. VVS & I- SURE OTHERS HAVE DONE IT TOO- DID lots of studies before recording all the 6GB MUSIC starting in the forties. We came to the conclusion that .WAV is the best AVAILABLE except I CLAIM 48khz sampling appears to improve 44.1khz sampling recorded already which as I wrote goes against PHYSICS theoroies....vkv

Nick, I have met but never worked with him. I was involved with BELL LABS IN THE "MOOG" SYNTHESISER EFFORTS AS WELL AS WITH SMITHSONIAN in IMPROVING the BLUES & SONGS RECORDED IN NINETEENTH CENTURY etc.. I have myself come up with theoretical analyses of the various pieces of Software being used etc. Consequently I know their LIMITATIONS. IT IS EQUIVALENT TO REDUCING "ENTROPY" & improving S/N WHICH CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT SACRIFICING SOMETHING SOMEWHERE......VKV

[SrinathK]

My goal here was to get something with no perceptible loss of quality (to my ears) at a size that would be portable enough ... .wav files are pristine (and better than FLAC in Winamp) -- but the size you know, is WAY too big for mass storage. The effect of slight dullness and some perceivable loss of tone in .mp3 LAME encoder is something I noticed earlier while converting some CDs I had into mp3 for my smartphone. I felt that with 1 TB, 2 TB HDDs in the market, 1 MB / min was no longer good enough anymore -- I am very pleased with ~ 3 MB / min for 224-320 kbps Vorbis. Though I could go up to 500 kbps, I haven't been able to hear any difference and the cost of the required equipment would be too prohibitive. I was also not Ok with 4-5 MB / min since that starts eating space.

But out of the lossy formats, vorbis VBR at 224-320 kbps was virtually indistinguishable from the original file and I'd say it's the best, esp at capturing percussion sounds. Vorbis at 128 kbps (common on Youtube videos) is almost identical to MP4 AAC at 192 kbps (The last is the encoding for 720 p HD videos on Youtube).

I started noticing the differences after listening more to WCM (which actually developed my tonal sense better than CM due to the superior tone and recording quality) and I can assure you that unlike ordinary violins, the sound of a Strad or a Guarneri or a piano is very sensitive to the EQ and compression settings. Even the difference between 128 kbps and 160 kbps is noticeable -- it is not something so perceivable (if at all) in small test samples -- try a full movement of a sonata or a concerto instead. I also found Winamp and Foobar2000 to be superior to Itunes (was it the earphones or the player I can't say, but a Bach sonata was the test file).

[SrinathK]

The average CM recording available apart from Youtube in my collection is around 128 kbps mp3 although there are plenty of 32-96 kbps. Those are so lossy and accompanied by so much noise and scratches and pitch fluctuations that it requires the mentality of an archaeologist to dig between the noise and hear the music out of it. In some cases, someone has tuned the equalizer at the time of recording to such bizarre settings that the entire bass or treble or mid tones have been lost and the recordings sounding bizarre as a result. I had this beautiful Italian violin sounding so nasal it could have passed off as a bad student playing (the violin recording was LGJ !!) (My personal advice while converting from a tape is NOT to use the equalizer while recording or keep everything in neutral, whether it's the stereo or the software equalizer). Don't know how many of these recordings turned off many potential listeners and perpetuated the disconnect between CM and shruti shuddham -- but all in all, rasikas have to be appreciated for the massive overall effort despite some bad apples.

I cannot count how many recordings of MSS in my collection are badly hit by pitch instability, noise and other artefacts since they out of all other recordings in my collection particularly depend on perfect shruti shuddham (just like that Guarneri violin -- it's world class tone). Yet another problem is recordings being very slowed down or sped up that makes some musicians sound really strange (Fortunately the Pacemaker plugin in Winamp is up to the task). Strangely, MMI's music sounds good always even with some cases of pitch instability, the difference I attribute to MSS's long kaarvais.

I can never forget the time I downloaded a 32 kbps recording of LGJ which was just pure noise and echo and managed to cancel enough noise to recover music out of it,after which I realized it was a Siva Siva enaraada. If we are committed to preserving our music collections, I think we can make better use of present day technology which wasn't so common even 5 years back in India. I would, based on my listening experience, advocate moving away from mp3 to better formats like Ogg vorbis at the bit rates I've used. Well worth it.

Last piece of insight -- the Youtube player used for online viewing REALLY kills the tonal colours -- a downloaded video of the same recording is substantially better. The current popular trend on Youtube for CM recordings is to upload audios using a single background pic of the artiste and append the audio to that. This is actually the simplest way to optimize the upload as it keeps the video size to a minimum while the audio encoding is of superior quality -- at 720 p such a video occupies about 3 min / MB. An actual 720p video with visuals would occupy MUCH more space.

[cacm]

Dear Srinath,
YOUNG ENERGETIC& KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONS LIKE YOU SHD. IN MY OPINION EDUCATE RASIKAS TO ASPIRE FOR BETTER & CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE & NOT JUST SUCCUMB TO EASY CONVENIENCES. IT TOOK THEIR ENTIRE LIFE TIME FOR M.S.S., PMI, PSP & LGJ TO ACHEIVE THE LEVELS OF PERFECTION THEY REACHED.
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS VERY "MEDIOCRE" & "POORLY DISCIPLINED" MUSICIANS TODAY ARE ABLE TO BE COMPARED WITH GIANTS IS BECAUSE OF THE TENDENCY TO LOWER THE BAR& ACCEPT MEDIOCRITY NOT ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERFORMERS BUT EASE OF LISTENING PORTABILITY ETC AS THE "NORM".
I APPEAL TO PERSONS LIKE YOU TO BE MORE CRITICAL SO THE STANDARDS OF YESTERYEAR CAN AT LEAST BE KEPT UP IF NOT IMPROVED WHICH I STRONGLY BELIEVE CAN BE ACHEIVED IF THE RASIKAS DEMAND IT. I PERSONALLY AM SURE THE TALENTS OF TODAY'S ARTISTS ARE NO LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS GENERATION.....VKV

[Rsachi]

Gents, a brilliant discussion, thanks! Those of us like me love to have the best listening experience. But our boundary conditions are:
1. Audio in cutcheris is generally woeful and loud.
2. Streaming and already compressed MP3 files like SPriya are the staple for online music. Even subscription services like Twaangg, Radioweb etc. seem to use high quality MP3 equivalent.
3. YouTube is suboptimal to share music but yet most livecasts are of that quality.

In this scenario, I need to follow Hamsa-ksheera Nyasa and salvage the best between my ears for my enjoyment.
It does seem like a No-win situation right now!

[SrinathK]

Well, all software players that can play mp3 can play vorbis now, as well as all Android smartphones. Vorbis is as far as even a trained ear goes, indistinguishable from the original at high bit rates and 3 MB / min is way more portable than CD sized .wav files. And I for one, would never compress an existing mp3 as it would only create more losses. I also did tests on streaming audio by capturing it in various formats and once again, vorbis VBR 224-320 kbps offers the best optimized quality / size ratio while sounding indistinguishable from the original audio file.

The problem here is that while software players and Android smartphones can play Vorbis, Ipods, iphones and dedicated mp3 players, CAN'T , and MAC OS until some time ago did not have native Vorbis support for Ogg Vorbis and that's precisely why mp3 is still very popular. (IMHO Apple particularly sucks big time at how versatile and open their software is). However, Xiph Quick Time Components are now available for free allowing itunes and mac os to play ogg vorbis (Someone please do a test on Mac and confirm it, as I use Windows) : http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/download.html

[SrinathK]

Update : However, my bad, iphones still can't play OGG vorbis and I would be forced to use AAC MP4 instead. I'm not an apple user, so I was unaware of this until this morning and this will probably ensure that I never switch over to the iphone . In such a case, I still strongly recommend at least to try MP4 AAC instead at 192 kbps minimum -- from my experience MP4 AAC audio is far superior than even the best .mp3 at preserving fine tonal nuances. Youtube natively uses 192 kbps AAC for MP4 videos so downloading Youtube collections isn't a problem in this regard. Total Recorder VideoPro edition supports this format (the standard one doesn't )

I guess that will be a nail in the coffin for apple iphone users with regard to Ogg Vorbis -- no wonder this format hasn't caught on despite it's advantages. I mean half the user base of sangeethapriya would start complaining they can't listen to it on the iphone so now if I were to become a sangeethapriya uploader, I would have to ponder as to whether to use .ogg vorbis or .mp4 or maybe provide both options. I think I'll just look forward to Android and Windows, thank you.

In the event that there isn't any other option to convert than .mp3, I'd plead the use of 320 kbps (the max) -- it's around 2-2.5 MB / min and is way better than the old 128 or lower bit rates!

Overall, Youtube is still the best source for overall quality as the quality of uploads has increased noticeably in the last couple of years, though it will be a long time before it can stand shoulder to shoulder with sangeethapriya / sangeethamshare. Oh yeah, and unless you have a well trained ear and know the impact of each knob on the equalizer settings, seriously DO NOT use the equalizer either in the stereo or in the software while converting from tapes or plates !

While all this might sound too geeky at times, at least I have the answer on what to do with my cassette collections. For the next few years, I can record and listen in peace. I'll do a playtest on converting .ogg to m4a or mp4 audio sometime later and see if it meets my standards. I think that will settle this topic.

[Nick H]

Srinath, an invaluable source is the forum Hydrogenaudio --- http://www.hydrogenaud.io

My very old brick-shaped Cowon portable player can play some OGG files, but not all --- so I settled for using MP3 for ease. There remains a whole world of us who couldn't care less what iDEVICES can or can't do, because we will never buy one, partly because it goes without saying that one does it Apple's way or not at all. (Yes, I know, MS and Google are not far behind, but not quite as restrictive)

There are threads on what bitrates are transparent, and people take the trouble (which, as I have confessed, I am rather lazy to do) to confirm their findings with blind tests and measurements. Just saying it sounds different is not acceptable on the forum. Whilst that means that people like me/us may not be able to post our findings there, it also means that I find what is posted there a great deal more reliable than a lot of the stuff to be found on audiophile and hifi threads, which all-too-often cross the line into a hard-line-religious attitude about subjective experience, but with no understanding at all of just how our subjective experience actually works.

It is generally thought, as far as I remember, that 320kb MP3 is absolutely indistinguishable from FLAC or WAV, even by "golden-eared" audiophiles. There is a huge saving in file size. The potential problem with MP3 is that it is a commercial format, with licence fees payable for the software, and not all MP3 software is equal. OGG is not commercial --- but neither can we expect that all portable players, phones, etc, will play it, although I think that, more recently, this may not be a practical problem any longer.

VKV, as an innumerate maths dumbo dunce, I have JJ's writings and presentations to thank for the fact that I understand anything at all about digital sound, and also some things about the ear/brain relationship. I'm a fan!

Monty of Xiph, the developers of OGG and FLAC, also helped me with his videos which do away with the misconception that there is something missing from sampled music (the misconception that is the basis of the new "high-res music" industry: a complete scam). The output of a DAC is not a stepped graph!

[SrinathK]

At high bit rates (224-320 kbps), the order in my opinion would be OGG Vorbis > AAC > MP3 >> Youtube online player -- They are all around 3 MB / min as far as file size goes. Mp3 at 96 or 128 kbps doesn't compare, but it's still better than online Youtube. Again there is a notable difference between low bit rates (where they're all almost equally worse off) and high bit rates.

For downloaded Youtube videos (There is a firefox addon for it that can extract both video and audio or either) : 720p MP4 (w/192 kbps AAC) ~ 480p WEBM (w/128 kbps OGG Vorbis) > All lower formats.

I tried to extract the audio from youtube, but I found that the .m4a Audio files from the MP4 could not be played. This later I found was not possible.

On the other hand the OGG Vorbis audio extracted from the .webm (480 p size) could be played and it was in all ways identical to the downloaded video. But it is only 128 kbps, so while it's still noticeably better to 128 kbps mp3, it's still not as good as it could get. I also tried using Total Recorder mp3 to record the audio stream from the online video and it was somewhat muffled esp. the mridangam and tanpura. Again there is a problem in that .webm videos don't play on apple devices.

Again if you look at even 1080p HD videos, they don't encode better than 192 kbps AAC so increasing the quality beyond 720p doesn't really make a difference to the audio.

For recording from online streaming (all other sources), I prefer .ogg, which I found was superior to .mp3 and maintained best fidelity to the original. I don't think you see these issues in small test sample files because they are usually original. But in real life scenarios, such as recording from a tape or if you were to record or extract an (already compressed) audio stream, or converting a .wav from a DVD you bought into an .mp3 for portability, then each further processing worsens the output.

I don't find .wav and FLAC suitable for mass storage owing to the huge file sizes involved and I don't see any difference between very high quality Vorbis and AAC and the original CD. I have over a thousand hours and it's growing. At 3 MB / min, I could fit the next 1000 hrs in around 60 GB which is peanuts for today's hard drives.

[SrinathK]

To sum up a long and fruitful discuss, hopefully in the future, rasikas will take more efforts to record their precious collections at higher quality. I recommend the following for best results :

#1) Ogg Vorbis : 224-320 kbps VBR. Can be played in Mac OS with the xiph codecs, but doesn't work in ipods, iphones, etc. No problems in windows and android.
#2) AAC or m4a : Min 192 kbps. Recommended 256-320 kbps. Universal
#3) MP3 : Recommended 320 kbps (But still not as good as vorbis or aac at similar bit rates). Universal

4) Youtube videos : Min. 720p HD MP4 with 192 kbps AAC -- Youtube automatically does the encoding. For converting audio tracks into a video, a static background pic of the artiste is MOST PREFERRED as it keeps the size low and 1080p does nothing to improve the audio quality while guzzling space on your drive.

Webm (480p) with 128 kbps Ogg Vorbis is a good 2nd choice to save space, but webm is not playable on ipods or iphones.

5) Best players : Winamp, FooBar2000 and MX player on android. Itunes has to take 2nd place. VLC for all it's versatility is nowhere near this level.

Beware : Youtube's online player is by far in last place. You're better off downloading the video and making better use of your internet bandwidth.

All the above are around the 2.5-3 MB / min of playing time which offers the best size for today's drives and smartphones.

Last and not the least : Don't use the equalizer or noise reduction while converting or encoding unless you know what you are doing and have a REALLY good ear. You will lose tones if it's even slightly overdone.

[Nick H]

I am not arguing with what you say, only that I find it hard to see FLAC files as "huge."

I now have terrabyte-plus storage available on my PC (actually, multi-terrabyte, including backup disks). This is more than the total of the several Unix servers which I used to administer that held the data for the London branch of a Japanese insurance company, and, unlike those IBM SCSI discs, I do not need a board meeting to consider the purchase of a new disc. Really, that is is how storage prices compare to a decade or two back, even allowing for the considerable premium (which, in the end, we stopped paying) for the "IBM" label on the disc.

But that is a matter of personal choice, and I do appreciate that some rasikas have archives that are simply huge. But once the data has been thrown away for a lossy format, it can never be recovered. Also, like JPEG pictures, every encoding further reduces the content, so any editing work should be done in a lossless format.

Here is an assertion worth thinking about: All media players actually sound the same. That is, they sound the same unless they have been specifically written to sound different. See the Foobar200 FAQs on this. One exception I do find to that is if they are doing sample-rate conversion (up or down). I don't think all real-time software sample-rate converters are made equal. I do notice a difference, but I have not tested it blind or attempted to make measurements.

FLAC has a great advantage over WAV in that it can, like the lossy format, be tagged. For archivists, this must be a huge advantage.

There are various pieces of software that extract audio from Youtube without downloading the video. There are two that I use in Linux: Mediahuman "Youtube to MP3," Has a graphic interface, easy to use, also, I think available for Windows and command-line youtube-dl

[SrinathK]

Neither am I. I did try FLAC, but it gave me about 15 MB / min which for 1 cassette is around 1.35 GB and with all the stuff I need to have in my one system I couldn't exactly afford that. Not to mention that it gets tough to share or upload stuff at that size. The 1000 hrs or so at this rate will come to around 900GB. So I settled on the next best -- for me it's ok if my ear can't tell the difference despite my best efforts any more -- In my circumstances it's too big a leap from 128 kbps mp3. But I will consider it in the future, maybe just for the cassettes.

In fact most of my collections have been obtained from other rasikas' uploads so for the most part I have to accept whatever I get. I however, wouldn't extract only the audio from a Youtube unless the video size was too high. Youtube video and audio downloader Add on for Firefox is a great and simple plugin that gives me the video at a size that I can afford without loss of audio quality.

[Nick H]

You know that it is often the case that first, one has to admit to having a problem? I admitted to being a bit of an audiophile and, ever since, have been seeking rationality and sanity in the audio world. it's hard to find. It is especially hard to find among those who are trying to sell us stuff, and I was refreshed and delighted to read some of the stuff that Mr Sanders has on his Sanders Sound Systems site.

I may never be able to afford any of his equipment, it might not even be my first choice if I could, but I am delighted by some of the reading I have just been doing of his "white papers." Manufacturers are not usually the first at busting audio myths.

Anyway, to get to the point, I thought of you and this thread when I was reading his comments about MP3, towards the end of his paper on digital recording.

... If you want MP3 recordings to sound exactly like the source, you must use 192 KBPS or higher. 192 KBPS is considered "CD quality." No human can hear any difference between an MP3 at that rate (or higher) and a CD. ...

[SrinathK]

My ears tell me you need to do a little better than that to get to CD quality.

[Nick H]

That could be the beginning of a loooong conversation

I don't remember if 192 MP3 cuts off at 16kH, which most adults can't hear beyond anyway --- but being dogmatic about these things is always dangerous, because the children can, and the occasional adult might still have the ability. Perhaps Mr Sanders might have gone a little but far with "no human." Maybe at 320, though.

Minidiscs used a lossy compression. Moving to them from cassette was like moving out of the fog, but there was one thing that I found they could not handle: they did weird things to the sound a sruti box!

[cacm]

I want to let rasikas know that the logic of 44.2khz sampling was BASED on extensive experiments that seemed to show 10 to15-20000 cycles was what human ears could respond to. However when sub woofers as well as NASA LAUNCHES became common further more accurate experiments showed 5-25000cycles was possible esp. among younger persons. THATS WHY THE dvd sampling ratye of 48k came about....A bit of history +science....VKV

[shankar vaidyanathan]

Thanks for the excellent discussion! From personal experience, I make a mp3 and audio (WAV or CDA) copy of every new CD that I buy. I never play the original CD again. I never buy mp3 music either from internet or physical disc. I had been told by knowledgeable folks that frequent playing of original CD leads to low fidelity.

Even with all that, every 10-15 years bring in new technology in audio file formats, recording and playback instruments, and, storage media. Is it true that when the potential "friction points" are eliminated, such as using cloud based music instead of physical media, sound quality is improved? Looking to the future, what do you'all think as to the file formats and playback devices for the average listener?

Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge and expertise.

[cacm]

SOUND QUALITY emnatesfrom the SOURCE & THATS THE ONLY PLACE IMPROVEMENTS CAN OCCUR. After that its deterioration all the way unfortunately! VKV S/N CANNOT BE IMPROVED WITHOUT SACRIFICING SOMETHING. So if one is serious starting with the auditorium, mics, reverberations etc have to be compensated for & indeed its done with high quality recordings.....VKV

[SrinathK]

Like I summed up earlier : Vorbis VBR (224-500 kbps), AAC (256-400 kbps) and MP3 (256-320 kbps) are going to be the way to go for lossy formats and FLAC (48 KHz, 24 bit stereo) is a good lossless option. In the future, we ought to be recording at these bit rates if we want to preserve the quality of our music. As I have felt, Vorbis is the best out there at high bit rates with AAC M4a or MP4 on par and MP3 just a little bit behind.

For the time being, my PC and Hard drives are still the best option for music storage owing to the large HDD capacities. (The speed of an SSD is of no use for playing music and doesn't justify the huge cost). IMHO, 2TB hard drives are right now the best in terms of price per GB. However, smartphone capacities are now high enough where all my 1200 hours of music can fit inside one SD card with plenty of room to spare and even small earpiece headphones are now available with excellent quality (HP1000 is a bargain for Rs. 300 and sounds incredible on the classical preset of any player. I compared it with a 10K headphone of my friend and told him that apart from the noise cancellation, they were both on par).

I am not sure about using cloud based media. For e.g. if you upload on Youtube, regardless of what was your original audio format, Youtube will convert it into AAC and OGG Vorbis and Mp3 extracts are also possible.

All said and done, if the original performance of the recording was terrible, we can't do anything. I remember the time when we had a micless Nagaswara concert of Vyasarpadi Kothandaraman @ IITM and it was one of the best concerts I've ever heard. The absence of the mike was a big relief to organizers and musicians alike -- just get up on stage and play in pure natural sound without all those issues to deal with. The acoustics of the BT auditorium were good enough that even regular conversation was audible to the last row so it was amazing.

[Nick H]

Thanks for the excellent discussion! From personal experience, I make a mp3 and audio (WAV or CDA) copy of every new CD that I buy. I never play the original CD again. I never buy mp3 music either from internet or physical disc. I had been told by knowledgeable folks that frequent playing of original CD leads to low fidelity.

Sadly, there are a lot of "knowledgable folk" in the audio world. Avoid them.

A CD is, like most physical objects, not immune to physical damage. "perfect sound for ever" was as much an exaggeration as the immortal GRP boat hulls that developed osmotic problems after a decade or three. I have some commercial (ie pressed, rather than burnt) CDs that no longer play: the physical damage may not be visible, but it is there. However, frequent playing, in itself, cannot change the data on the CD, so cannot change the "fidelity." People are not capable of changing their analogue ideas to accommodate the reality of digital.

Even with all that, every 10-15 years bring in new technology in audio file formats, recording and playback instruments, and, storage media. Is it true that when the potential "friction points" are eliminated, such as using cloud based music instead of physical media, sound quality is improved?

Again, beware the audiophiles, especially those who have no experience of computers: they will insist that computers work in the same way that [they think] valve amplifiers do. They will do stuff like changing network cables and hearing the difference. It is reality-challenged garbage, but hey, they trust their ears.

That is not to say that the PC is a necessarily perfect sound playing device. It is not designed for any "real-time" activity and can indeed give problems. I have had a PC that would not play sound properly at all; I have some memory-management issues with my current machine that can affect music playback --- these are (whether I understand them or not) computer problems, not audiophile stuff.

There is no "friction," as such, in the digital data transmission, whether it comes from online or internally. It only matters that the data comes fast enough to actually play it, and every body who uses YouTube knows what happens when that fails. What I'm saying is that it is not a matter of fidelity, but of working or not working. A PC will play music from a CD in the CD drive: that is incredibly slow compared to even a slow hard disc. High-speed hard disks are not required (in fact they create more heat, which requires more fan to cool, which makes more physical noise) and SSD is certainly unnecessarily (except for the luxury of having one's applications loading instantly ).

Looking to the future, what do you'all think as to the file formats and playback devices for the average listener?

First of all, the big answer has been given by CACM.

The music industry and various aged rock buffoons (whose music I love and respect) are trying to bamboozle us into all this high-resolution nonsense. We bought LPs (or even 78s if we and the music are old enough!), we bought cassettes, we bought CDs. They want us to buy again. The only possibly good reason to buy again is not the spurious and useless bit rates and depths, but better recording or, in terms of existing recordings, better mastering. That is the way to get better music, and the point is being hugely missed by everyone, especially the consumers who are rushing to buy their DSD converters and gigabyte high-this-and-that downloads.

Compared to the recording/mastering quality, nothing else, assuming it is good enough, matters.

That is not to say that the developers of hard and software can all retire. New formats continue to be developed and the future may bring us entirely new recording technologies, as different to the microphone as the the microphone was to standing in front of a big horn.

Second to the source, the other end of the chain is probably the next most important thing. Speaker technology. The electronics in the middle is pretty good, even at modest prices, but there is room for plenty of improvement in the the things that actually turn that electricity back into noise.

rant over

[shankar vaidyanathan]

Thank you, Nick, for the detailed clarifications.