170's w/ low bitrate MP3

[KPFury]

I asked this question on AVS and got some very helpful feedback, but I'm wondering what people who specifically have the 170s think:

How do the 170s sound w/ lower bit-rate MP3, specifically 128kbps? A large part of my music collection is encoded in 128kbps, and I read one guy's review on how the 340s sounded terrible w/ downloaded music played at higher volumes.

I'm wondering if the 170s would be as revealing as the 340s (I assume the 340C would suffer the same fate if one were to play 128kbps MP3 in surround mode.)

[curtis]

Ascend speakers are very revealing.

You will notice the degradation of the sound in 128kbps encoded MP3's. I encode at 256, and that is the lowest I will go. You will notice the degradation with any good speaker IMO.

You have to remember the device you are using for playback is also important.

[bikeman]

I listen to Internet Radio at 128kbps when I'm working around the house and it's fine for that application but it wouldn't cut it if I going to sit down and listen.

David

[BradJudy]

I generally encode to 192kbps using LAME alt-preset-cbr (the encoder you used matters, particularly at 128), but I also use an iRiver h-120 player which has an optical output that I input into my receiver, so I use my H/K DACs and not the ones in my mp3 player. I think they sound pretty good in that situation. 128kbps can sound fine depending on the music (compression is more noticable on some types of music), the encoder, the player, volume levels, etc. I recommend reripping to a higher bitrate in general.

You can see the spectral analysis difference between 128kbps and 256kbps mp3s (and wma) on this post I made to my blog - http://www.bradjudy.com/audioblog/20...uency-content/

If you're really curious, here's the same analysis of FLAC and Ogg: http://www.bradjudy.com/audioblog/20...trum-analysis/

[KPFury]

My question is, will the 128kbps MP3s sound any worse on 170s than if they were played on less-revealing speakers like say, the Paradigm Titans?

[curtis]

Not sure how to answer that question.

As Brad pointed out, information is missing from the 128kbps MP3 files.....and what is missing isn't going to get played on either speaker.

If you are comparing the MP3 file to the original recording, then a more detailed speaker will reveal what is missing in the MP3 more readily.

[BradJudy]

My question is, will the 128kbps MP3s sound any worse on 170s than if they were played on less-revealing speakers like say, the Paradigm Titans?

I would give a qualified 'very possibly' as an answer. This largely depends on the type of music played. Mp3 compression has less audible impact on some music, particularly very 'busy' music (at least to my ears). I most notice the difference most on quieter pieces, especially solo vocal work. I haven't heard the Titans, let alone done an A/B comparison with 128kbps mp3s, so I don't know for sure what would happen. I know that when listening to a bad recording in my car, I don't notice that it's bad (stock audio system and road noise don't make a good listening environment) and when listening at home, I can certainly tell that it's a bad recording. On the other hand, I can't tell a good recording is good in my car, but it can sound great at home. It's a trade-off, but a worthwhile one IMO. Worst case, you feel motivated to re-rip your mp3s and end up enjoying them more.

[neilometer]

KPFury and all,

I am by no means a seasoned audiophile, but sometimes I am embarrased by what I think sounds good. I don't think that I have bad ears or anything, but I think that there is a definite difference between a badly encoded 128kbps mp3 and well encoded one.

Example: A few years ago, before I even got into the home audio hobby, I upgraded my car stereo to Boston Acoustic Rally's with a very nice 40wrms amp and a good sub. The Bostons are very detailed and crisp. I could tell a big difference between a badly mastered CD and a well mastered one. FM Radio listening was just out of the question (yuck!). So one day, I pop in Madonna's Ray of Light CD. It was created using mp3's that I downloaded via the original Napster waaaay back in '98. Now, back then you could get some pretty fugly sounding mp3's. No one had decided on any sort of standard and the crappy xing encoders were running rampant. So, I popped in it the player and.... what the heck it sounded just like the CD version to me! To this day, I have that ripped-and-reburned CD in my collection and it sounds better than the factory pressed version of her awful 'Music' CD (talk about badly mastered, but that's another topic.) I HAVE listened to bad/low bitrate mp3's on the same system and could immediately tell the difference, but for some reason, these mp3s sound really good to me.

Oh, and the Ray of Light mp3 were 128kbps. Forgot to mention that.

[einsteinjb]

I am by no means a seasoned audiophile, but sometimes I am embarrased by what I think sounds good. I don't think that I have bad ears or anything, but I think that there is a definite difference between a badly encoded 128kbps mp3 and well encoded one.

Example: A few years ago, before I even got into the home audio hobby, I upgraded my car stereo to Boston Acoustic Rally's with a very nice 40wrms amp and a good sub. The Bostons are very detailed and crisp. I could tell a big difference between a badly mastered CD and a well mastered one. FM Radio listening was just out of the question (yuck!). So one day, I pop in Madonna's Ray of Light CD. It was created using mp3's that I downloaded via the original Napster waaaay back in '98. Now, back then you could get some pretty fugly sounding mp3's. No one had decided on any sort of standard and the crappy xing encoders were running rampant. So, I popped in it the player and.... what the heck it sounded just like the CD version to me! To this day, I have that ripped-and-reburned CD in my collection and it sounds better than the factory pressed version of her awful 'Music' CD (talk about badly mastered, but that's another topic.) I HAVE listened to bad/low bitrate mp3's on the same system and could immediately tell the difference, but for some reason, these mp3s sound really good to me.

Oh, and the Ray of Light mp3 were 128kbps. Forgot to mention that.

Hi Neil,

Why would you be embarrassed by what you think sounds good? The fact that you can hear these differences means you do have at least decent ears and can discern differences that many people either can't hear or don't care about.

IMO, Madonna's Ray of Light CD is a very good album (though the lyrics are a bit repetitive and one-track-minded) and I think it's one of her best recordings. I realize Madonna isn't the first artist to spring to mind when most audiophiles think of great examples of proper recordings for speaker testing purposes but as a pro engineer I always listen as much to recording quality, production, and mastering as much as to lyrics or anything else, and as far as recording quality and production, I think Madonna and her producer(s) and engineer(s) really took this album a notch or two above your average bubble-gum pop programmed junk mentality. There's REAL guitars on there for example (gasp) and the mastering is quite good.

My point is, I believe it's such a good recording with such a polished sound that its quality probably shines through even on an old 128 kbps MP3. I bet if you bought the CD and compared it, you'd be surprised at how much better you'd like it.

That and you probably got lucky and downloaded especially good mp3s ripped with a decent decoder.

[KPFury]

OK I think I'll give the 170's a shot. I brought a CD burned w/ some of my 128kbps MP3s to an audio shop to listen to on some Paradigm Mini-Monitors. And although I could definitely hear a difference from the shop's demo CD, I was still able to enjoy my music. Also I noticed most of my MP3s are actually 160-192kbps, which helps even more. Thanks for everyone's help