MP3s any good for vintage gear?

[Gingahippy]

Probably a noob question, but I'm a noob so you get what you pay for.

I recenly ot into vintage audio gear (Kenny KA-3500 running ESS Model 8) and have always played MP3s from my laptop, mainly borrowed from friends. Then it hit me, how much of the quality of the vintage gear am I missing by suing standard MP3s?

Should I be using the highest bit rate files I can? Should I be using FLAC, WAV or OGG? Are CDs far superior? Is streaming Spotify an insult to my refined equipment?

And then I hear about DAC something or other, is this more equipment I need to turn MP3s into better packages for data or something?

I don't want to begin a record collection so that's out, but I did pick up a cheap CD player and have noticed that I can only turn the amp up to 2 rather than the usual halfway mark I use on the Macbook. Are CDs the way to go? I only have 2 CDs, a couple of albums I had many years ago that I couldn't find to stream so i bought them on CD to make sure I don't lose them again. Skylab #1 and #2. Great stuff.

Just wondering what you people think.

 

[KDAC]

Probably a noob question, but I'm a noob so you get what you pay for.

I recenly ot into vintage audio gear (Kenny KA-3500 running ESS Model 8) and have always played MP3s from my laptop, mainly borrowed from friends. Then it hit me, how much of the quality of the vintage gear am I missing by suing standard MP3s?

Should I be using the highest bit rate files I can? Should I be using FLAC, WAV or OGG? Are CDs far superior? Is streaming Spotify an insult to my refined equipment?

And then I hear about DAC something or other, is this more equipment I need to turn MP3s into better packages for data or something?

I don't want to begin a record collection so that's out, but I did pick up a cheap CD player and have noticed that I can only turn the amp up to 2 rather than the usual halfway mark I use on the Macbook. Are CDs the way to go? I only have 2 CDs, a couple of albums I had many years ago that I couldn't find to stream so i bought them on CD to make sure I don't lose them again. Skylab #1 and #2. Great stuff.

Just wondering what you people think.

Short answer (from me, at least...): Unless you waste copious amounts of time focusing your listening on upper frequencies that most adults beyond a certain age are most likely unable to hear (age/noise exposure...) or portions of silence the encoding algorithm encodes at a lower bitrate that also beneficially reduces the overall file size so as to make optimal use of storage space - portable or stationary - you are missing zero quality as far as the use of the .mp3 format is concerned. Simply endode the material in VBR or 320 kbps with 256 kbps being the absolute floor in regard the storage space/quality ratio and continue to do what you have been doing: enjoying your music via mp3s by way of a computer. I've enjoyed music via PC-->receiver or pre/power amp -->loudspeakers non-stop since 2001 and have missed neither a beat nor a note. The addition of an AudioQuest DragonFly USB DAC on New Year's Day 2016 simply made transmission of the 0s and 1s just a bit sweeter.

The bashing of this great file format has proven to be beyond ridiculous at this point given its still worldwide popularity and convenience. Honestly, it's plain tired. Yes, some of the upper frequency sibilance of the recording environment and/or certain instruments is subtracted so as to obtain an optimal file size/quality ratio. At the end of the day, are you sitting around focusing your ear on the trace of cymbal decay "cut" at 10 kHz and above and the fact that you may not be able to hear the air flowing around the pop filter in front of the mic in the recording booth? Or are you actively enjoying your music? I've seen more than enough frequency charts proving that the aural energy of virtually all music is concentrated between ~21 Hz and 8,000 Hz - live or prerecorded. This anal-retentive idea that you are "missing something" if every single atom of a sound wave fails to caress your tympanic membrane (i.e. ear drum) removes a massive amount of enjoyment from this hobby and explains why some "audiophiles" receive looks of anything from astonishment to pity. In conclusion: Encode your .mp3s at the appropriate bit rate in regard to storage space and sound quality as perceived by your ears and enjoy your music. Let some of the audiofools of the world spend eight hours a day staring at spectrograms while their life passes by.

 

[N8Nagel]

Better to listen to music you enjoy, IMHO, than be a bitrate snob. That said I would look into a good DAC and if you have CDs rip them to FLAC or play them directly and compare, form your own conclusions.

There is no dispute that Redbook is superior to lossy compression but the question is how much can you hear it with your ears and your gear?

 

[Gingahippy]

Cool, I tend to shy away from the higher tones anyway since I'm listening to ESS Model 8s with Heil tweeters that are just a little too sharp for my ears in many cases. I turn the Hi filter on and off for each artist as needed and keep the tone down a few notches, love the detail though.

And I found out today about the Spotify Premium extreme option that plays at 320 kbps, so it's seems I already good to go.

Thanks guys.

 

[N8Nagel]

Yeah I forgot to mention that SWMBO has the Spotify Premium family plan so I use that. Unfortunately I just traded for another DAC with an AKer and my music laptop recognized it once and then never again :/ I could take it to work but I use that system so rarely and Spotify is blocked there anyway (really? You let people watch Netflix but you block Spotify?)

 

[Gingahippy]

It has been shown that listening to certain kinds of music greatly helps those with ADHD to focus, some school shave even trialled it with headphones in class playing quiet music, repetitive beats seem to help.

There may be an avenue there to twist the truth about your 'medical condition' status to force them to allow you to stream Spotify. I'm devious, it's a gift.

 

[N8Nagel]

It has been shown that listening to certain kinds of music greatly helps those with ADHD to focus, some school shave even trialled it with headphones in class playing quiet music, repetitive beats seem to help.

There may be an avenue there to twist the truth about your 'medical condition' status to force them to allow you to stream Spotify. I'm devious, it's a gift.

I work in a design/engineering department. We're all assburgers.

We're also probably all in the 90%th percentile on HR's Most Wanted list so I dunno about rocking the boat...

 

[JoeESP9]

The only answer is to compare MP3 @320kbps or VBR with FLAC and the original CD. If you can't hear any difference by all means go with MP3. As for me, I listen to a lot of classical and the difference between 320kbps or VBR MP3's and FLAC is quite audible to me. Consequently I use FLAC files.

IME an external DAC usually produces better sound than the onboard DAC in most computers. However, all my files are FLAC and that may have something to do with it. IMO with the low cost of storage in todays world there is really no reason to rip to any lossy format. A USB DAC can be bought for as little as ~$30 (Behringer UCA-222). The one I have sounds better than the onboard DAC on any of my three laptops and two desktops. Unfortunately it only works at 16/44KHz and 16/48KHz. However, it also functions as an ADC (analog to digital converter) and enables the ripping of analog sources such as LP's and tapes.

FWIW: I have other DAC's that go as high as 24/192.

 

[Andrei]

I think you are missing a lot. This is not about hearing certain frequencies, but about soundstage, focus, timbre, realism, etc, and most of all: musicality. MP3 is just castrated music, music lost its vitality being converted to mp3.

 

[KrisM]

The only answer is to compare MP3 @320kbps or VBR with FLAC and the original CD. If you can't hear any difference by all means go with MP3. As for me, I listen to a lot of classical and the difference between 320kbps or VBR MP3's and FLAC is quite audible to me. Consequently I use FLAC files.

IME an external DAC usually produces better sound than the onboard DAC in most computers. However, all my files are FLAC and that may have something to do with it. IMO with the low cost of storage in todays world there is really no reason to rip to any lossy format. A USB DAC can be bought for as little as ~$30 (Behringer UCA-222). The one I have sounds better than the onboard DAC on any of my three laptops and two desktops. Unfortunately it only works at 16/44KHz and 16/48KHz. However, it also functions as an ADC (analog to digital converter) and enables the ripping of analog sources such as LP's and tapes.

FWIW: I have other DAC's that go as high as 24/192.

I think that first paragraph hits the nail on the head.
We all hear differently, so testing out your own rips with your own equipment is the way to go.
I'm no golden ear type, but I often hear the differences. Sometimes I don't. Cymbals are the big one for me. A lot of cymbals on MP3 files sound 'swishy' to me.

Also, it's not always about higher end gear, IME. I burn the odd MP3 data disc for my modest truck system, and due to it being such a near field situation I often hear differences.

This really is a YMMV thing.
And my thought on that is more about the time spent to rip stuff. Does anybody really want to go deep into a ripping project thinking MP3 is 'good enough', and then listen one day and hear that difference? And then start over with something like FLAC? I sure wouldn't. Again, another YMMV thing.

 

[ldatlof]

I would go with flac files and an external DAC. Storage is cheap so why not have a complete copy of a song? You can always convert flac to mp3 for use in the car for example but you can't go from mp3 to flac. The discarded parts of the song in mp3 files are gone forever.

Most likely an external DAC will sound better than the sound card in your laptop. Computers are noisy.

 

[c.coyle]

You'll have to decide for yourself. Storage is cheap, so for me, why not rip to flacs? PC to DAC to amp's AUX input. Can I hear a difference between mp3 and flac? Sometimes I think I can with 128kbps mp3s, but above that the two formats are indistinguishable to my ears and brain.

EDIT: And to answer the thread title, when it comes to digital files from a computer as your source, vintage or modern equipment makes no difference in my opinion. This old guy loves the convenience, quality, space saving, back-up-ability, and flexibility of playing digital files into a decent system, new or old.

 

[N8Nagel]

And my thought on that is more about the time spent to rip stuff. Does anybody really want to go deep into a ripping project thinking MP3 is 'good enough', and then listen one day and hear that difference? And then start over with something like FLAC? I sure wouldn't. Again, another YMMV thing.

Agree with this post. I may never hear the difference (although there are times that I think I can) but if I'm ripping a CD, I'm ripping to FLAC using EAC and accuraterip etc.

This way I know I have a bit perfect copy of the CD even after the media has long ago succumbed to bit rot.

Converting it to MP3/320 is trivial using Foobar2000 for use on systems that don't play FLAC files (e.g. the factory stereo in my car)

Storage space should be a non issue these days, a couple 3TB drives from Costco and you're good. Or get a NAS for your home network and set up a DLNA server.

Whatever you do, REDUNDANT BACKUPS. I've lost my music library twice now and had to rerip, although I'm glad I did because by the third time I was doing it right, this was a learning process.

I'm not going to say my way is right for everyone, but I am happy to share my EAC config with anyone because it results in a rigorous folder structure that keeps everything organized by artist and then below that by release date which seems to me the sensible way to do it. Classical gets a little weird but I deviate from "standard practice" by using the composer's name , last name first, in the artist field and then the conductor/symphony in performer field. That way I start by looking for "Beethoven, Ludwig van" rather than "Carlos Kleiber - Vienna Philharmonic" because I'm looking for e.g. what performances of Beethoven's 7th I have stored in my library.

 

[KrisM]

Agree with this post. I may never hear the difference (although there are times that I think I can) but if I'm ripping a CD, I'm ripping to FLAC using EAC and accuraterip etc.

This way I know I have a bit perfect copy of the CD even after the media has long ago succumbed to bit rot.

Converting it to MP3/320 is trivial using Foobar2000 for use on systems that don't play FLAC files (e.g. the factory stereo in my car)

Storage space should be a non issue these days, a couple 3TB drives from Costco and you're good. Or get a NAS for your home network and set up a DLNA server.

Whatever you do, REDUNDANT BACKUPS. I've lost my music library twice now and had to rerip, although I'm glad I did because by the third time I was doing it right, this was a learning process.

I'm not going to say my way is right for everyone, but I am happy to share my EAC config with anyone because it results in a rigorous folder structure that keeps everything organized by artist and then below that by release date which seems to me the sensible way to do it. Classical gets a little weird but I deviate from "standard practice" by using the composer's name , last name first, in the artist field and then the conductor/symphony in performer field. That way I start by looking for "Beethoven, Ludwig van" rather than "Carlos Kleiber - Vienna Philharmonic" because I'm looking for e.g. what performances of Beethoven's 7th I have stored in my library.

Makes a lot of sense.

I'm happy with my EAC tag settings, they work great for me. I think I got it from hydrogenaudio a few years back.
The tag thing really can't be stressed enough, IMO.

Classical tagging, though? Ugh. I've got a real paralysis by analysis thing going on, lol.
I still have so much stuff to rip that I've been putting classical on the back burner.

 

[N8Nagel]

Classical tagging, though? Ugh. I've got a real paralysis by analysis thing going on, lol.
I still have so much stuff to rip that I've been putting classical on the back burner.

Understand completely. It is a pain in the unmentionables. A lot of classical in my library does not conform to my current practice because I ripped it a long time ago.

I would fix it but then the rip logs wouldn't match the folder structure anymore, and retagging is a pain. Or I could find the discs and rerip but I've been doing so much thrift store buying that my physical collection hasn't been sorted alphabetically in years.

 

[Gingahippy]

I guess I'm lucky in that I have no music other than a bunch of MP3 from a friend years ago on my hard drive, most of which I'm pretty much bored of. I loved Pandora and now Spotify because it introduces me to so much new music I didn't know existed. I have nothing non digital except those 2 CDs and they get used in the CD player. I will certainly be looking to get stuff as WAV or FLAC from now on given the chance. It takes a lot for me to like something enough to want to purchase it when there is so much at my fingertips now.

And therein lays the problem, what if the internet goes down, the grid fails, the infrastructure falls apart in some way? We could lose most of our culture without hard copies and back ups. I'll be scouring the CD shelves in thrift stores now. May as well since they never have any good audio gear in there.

 

[N8Nagel]

My CD collection has pretty much doubled in the last three years thanks to thrifts. People are dumping them apparently not realizing that they are higher quality than mainstream (heh) services.

I have no delusions that in 10 years my huge hard drive full of FLAC rips may be worthless as we'll all be streaming at 44.1/16. On the flip side, my whole collection by then will probably fit on whatever will replace the Micro SD card.

 

[KrisM]

My CD collection has pretty much doubled in the last three years thanks to thrifts. People are dumping them apparently not realizing that they are higher quality than mainstream (heh) services.

I have no delusions that in 10 years my huge hard drive full of FLAC rips may be worthless as we'll all be streaming at 44.1/16. On the flip side, my whole collection by then will probably fit on whatever will replace the Micro SD card.

Plus you'll most likely have a pile of stuff on your drives that isn't available on the streaming sites.
No way, no how, am I trusting any of them to curate a collection that works for me going forward.

I think AM is a great service, but as a music fan seeing this album list is just sad:
https://itunes.apple.com/kz/artist/paul-reddick/id80592942

 

[c.coyle]

. . . And therein lays the problem, what if the internet goes down, the grid fails, the infrastructure falls apart in some way? We could lose most of our culture without hard copies and back ups. . . .

Well, digital stuff is backed up.

If the internet "goes down," which to me means we "can't get on the internet," that doesn't necessarily mean it's "down" forever or that the digital music you have stored offsite in the cloud is gone forever. Temporary outages occur for portions of the internet and for varying lengths. Your ability to get on and off the internet may be temporarily gone, but your music will (should) still be residing on multiple redundant cloud servers, and it will be there and accessible once the "internet gets back up."

And you will (you should) still have local copies of all your digital music sitting on your computer or some other drive in your home, so you can still play your music in the meanwhile. And from a cultural loss standpoint, imagine how many digital copies of Kind of Blue or Beethoven's Eroica, to name two culturally significant works, are sitting on servers all over the world. Thousands? Tens of Thousands?

If some calamitous event destroys all the servers your stuff resides on, like a ballbuster electro-magnetic pulse, chances are we will have bigger worries than playing our tunes.

If the "grid fails," which to me means a loss of commercial electrical power, you aren't going to be playing your analog sources either.

 

[chicks]

Yep, the internet "grid" is as reliable as the phone system because, well, it's run by the phone companies! Virtually all your phone calls these days travel over the same grid, in digital form (which is why long distance calls are no longer noisy and expensive). Files are stored in massive, multiply redundant data centers, and will never be lost.