Possibly the wrong forum 🙂 but I hang around in here cos I go biking so I'll give it a go.

OK – I'm so old I can remember before CDs. Now I'm thinking of upgrading my CD-based hi-fi, which has done me well for +/- 15 years. It is/was a mid range separates system.

So my question is, should I be looking at a system that will be best at playing MP3s or stick with Cds? I might spend max £1.5k and I'm interested in it sounding as good as it can for the money.

1.5k on a system for MP3s is insanity, even if your MP3s are all 320KBPS or V0 Lame encoded. That sort of money it is lossless or nothing.

MP3 is a heavily compressed format, even at 320kbps. MP3's do not sound as good as an original CD, no matter what, so if you want an MP3 player, buy one and add it to your additional stereo. By the very nature of an MP3 it gets rid of a lot of the information contained within the CD source audio, hence an 80 minute album can be compressed to say 150MB of data instead of the 700MB it takes up on a CD.

If you wanna spend £1.5k on a new stereo, spend £150-200 on an iPod, then spend £1300 on a decent amp, speakers and a CD player… The iPod will be great for just listening to music conveniently on the go, or in the background, but when you really want to appreciate the quality, you can pop a CD in the CD player…

Cheapest thing to do though is probably just to add an iPod and dock (with phono connections so you can connect it to your current amp) to your current setup and see what you think…

MP3 is a heavily compressed format, even at 320kbps. MP3's do not sound as good as an original CD, no matter what,

lets see some encoding logs and ABX results then… 🙂

1.5k on a system for MP3s is insanity, even if your MP3s are all 320KBPS or V0 Lame encoded. That sort of money it is lossless or nothing.

People spend a lot more on systems to play vinyl … that's insane

bloody laptop (double post)

People spend a lot more on systems to play vinyl … that's insane

LOL

Depends on your viewpoint…

Vinyl is a totally uncompressed format, therefore it is in fact perhaps the purest audiophile source. As we all know though vinyl has many more cons than pros, but it if you are after the purest source, digital is not the way!

lets see some encoding logs and ABX results then…

LOL again

Ermmmmm, wouldn't know where to start! What I do know is that if I play the same track from a CD and then again ripped as an mp3 at 320kbps stereo in 16 bit, I can notice a difference. Granted, it's perhaps as little as 5% difference, mainly in the bottom end extension to be honest, which for an 80% saving in data storage space is might impressive… But ultimately you do lose out slightly.

Otherwise, why did they not bother using the mp3 format instead of CD's in the first place? It is not a new technology!

Hum – thanks – I recognise that MP3s are considerably compressed – hence the question really.

Have an Ipod clone (RIO Carbon FWIW) which is OK for on the move and heaps of stuff as MP3s (but its pretty much just my CD collection ripped on the PC – nothing much that I don't have on Cd, or even Vinyl).

What about CD players with MP3 decoders in them? Presumably this is simply reading the data and decoding as required – i.e. doesn't affect the playback quality of 'standard' cds?

cheers again

What I do know is that if I play the same track from a CD and then again ripped as an mp3 at 320kbps stereo in 16 bit, I can notice a difference

I'm pretty sure you can't. Mate of mine used to say the same thing and now his whole collection is on hdd and iPod.
The vast majority of DJs use MP3 and if you could tell the difference (even 5%) they wouldn't.

Oh – also I did patch the Rio headphone 'out' into the amp but it was pretty gruesome. A couple of guys at work swear that MP3 is the way to go, so I appreciate the second opinions.

MaverickBoy – Premier Member
People spend a lot more on systems to play vinyl … that's insane
LOL

Depends on your viewpoint…

Vinyl is a totally uncompressed format, therefore it is in fact perhaps the purest audiophile source. As we all know though vinyl has many more cons than pros, but it if you are after the purest source, digital is not the way!

LOL far 'purer' than making a metal plate, melting plastic and pressing a chunk of it out with said metal plate, then dragging a needle (!) round it, converting it to an electrical signal with a tiny magnet, pre-amplifying it before it even gets to your stereo.

… Far purer than doing a/d then d/a. Of course. 😆

lets see some encoding logs and ABX results then…
LOL again

Ermmmmm, wouldn't know where to start! What I do know is that if I play the same track from a CD and then again ripped as an mp3 at 320kbps stereo in 16 bit, I can notice a difference. Granted, it's perhaps as little as 5% difference, mainly in the bottom end extension to be honest, which for an 80% saving in data storage space is might impressive… But ultimately you do lose out slightly.

Otherwise, why did they not bother using the mp3 format instead of CD's in the first place? It is not a new technology!

they also didn't use lossless, it was just about making it as simple + cheap as possible

😉 still waiting on those abx results with lame 3.98 encoded mp3s …

I'm pretty sure you can't. Mate of mine used to say the same thing and now his whole collection is on hdd and iPod.
The vast majority of DJs use MP3 and if you could tell the difference (even 5%) they wouldn't.

I am a DJ, have been for almost 12 years… I will only use an MP3 if I absolutely can't get a track on CD or download it as a WAV file, and then only a 320kbps version.

The "vast majority" of DJ's are tone deaf! Honestly… I've seen DJ's that get paid thousands of £'s per set (no names mentioned, but you can probably imagine a few) who don't know what the hell they're doing when it comes to controlling the levels and gains on a mixer, so a track will sound all over the place… Often with the levels bouncing way into the red (like +10db into the red) so the amps are just clipping the sound all the time!

You lose perhaps 5%, if that, with a good quality mp3 over CDs. It's certainly no different in terms of clarity, but as I've stated before, on a good system (my hifi amp was about £600 and my speakers about the same) you can tell the difference. CD source just seems to have a bit more bass extension mainly.

Why do a lot of DJs use MP3's? Simple… Same reason we use MP3 players instead of CD walkmans now… Ease! I've gone from lugging a bag of 100 12" vinyls to a gig (and often leaving out a lot of stuff I might wanna play) and nearly breaking my back, to carrying 2 CD wallets with approx 150 CDs in each (each CD with approx 10 tracks on, giving me approx 3000 tunes in total versus 100 or so), which as you'll agree is a damned sight less to carry… Now imagine you can stick that all on a few MP3 DVD's or CD's, or even better, 2 memory sticks or a portable hard drive (see Pioneer's CDJ2000 for some inspiration here) so you've got a whole lot less to carry, and it's more readily organised… MOST DJ's would much rather forgo the last word in sound quality, especially as the majority of Club sound systems are setup by numpties who don't know what they're doing so they will sound shit anyway, for ease of use, besides most punters won't know the difference anyway! I'm a bit of a stickler for quality myself, but I have played in a couple of places where you couldn't tell the difference between an MP3 and the same tune on CD for certain… But I know I can tell the difference on some decent hifi gear, or a decent club system, even if it is only slight…

LOL far 'purer' than making a metal plate, melting plastic and pressing a chunk of it out with said metal plate, then dragging a needle (!) round it, converting it to an electrical signal with a tiny magnet, pre-amplifying it before it even gets to your stereo.

… Far purer than doing a/d then d/a. Of course.

Versus a sound source at 1411kbps, 16 bit stereo, 44.1KHz… YES, absolutely! So an MP3 will be blown into the weeds by a decent vinyl source too… Remember that CD Audio is still fairly heavily compressed Vs the original studio recordings in most cases.

Maybe if your Digital Source is recorded at 96Khz, or even 192KHz and in 24 bit stereo… You might be talking then… But you'd need a whole 4.7GB DVD to fit a 60 minute album on then most probably.

The whole point of vinyl being seen as an "audiophile" source is that it is not limited by sample rate… A CD can only send 44,100 bits of data per second to the speakers, a vinyl record is not limited at all.

This is not to say I think vinyl is the best source, far from it truth be told. As a format to DJ with it was unsurpassed until Pioneer managed to create a CD player with the kind of control you get by physically touching a record. But for the few audoiphiles out there that to whom only the absolute best will do, there are mega bucks turntables and phono amps, that combined with a perfect recording kept in perfect condition, will return an audio source of higher quality than anything a CD can manage… It's all a bit like being into concourse for cars though… Owning a Mk2 Jag Saloon or other similar classic, in perfect condition, that you NEVER take out from underneath its dust sheet in a hermetically sealed garage except to compete in a concourse competition… Bit sad if you ask me… I'd rather just use the thing daily if I had one!

they also didn't use lossless, it was just about making it as simple + cheap as possible

still waiting on those abx results with lame 3.98 encoded mp3s …

Indeed, you're right. CD audio was probably the most they could commercially and easily compress music at the time. That and as in the late 80's making a disc that held 700MB of data was damned expensive enough, to make one to hold more would've been prohibitively expensive.

Not tried lame to encode CDs to be fair, everything I've done is via iTunes with all the settings turned to maximum. I've heard lame might be a bit better than iTunes, which is plausible, but it's still a compressed source. I also don't have anything to conduct any ABX tests with sadly.

Oh, and my prediction/hope for the future is that as Data storage becomes even larger and cheaper, and computers get faster, hopefully BroadBand speeds will finally catch up and we'll all be on 20Meg connections soon enough (not the paltry 2.5Meg at best I get despite the fact we're paying for up to 20Meg), and downloading WAV's (or CD quality audio tracks) will become much more viable… Or even lossless! With laptop Hard Drives now coming in at 500GB, and no Desktop under about £400 these days having anything less than a 1TB hard drive, do we really need MP3's any more? Does anybody actually know anyone with a 160GB iPod that is remotely near full even?

Oh – also I did patch the Rio headphone 'out' into the amp but it was pretty gruesome. A couple of guys at work swear that MP3 is the way to go, so I appreciate the second opinions.

The only way to get a good quality source out of an MP3 player is to bypass the internal DAC and use a better quality external one. There are lots of reasonable quality iPod docks out there that you plonk your iPod into, that have a twin Phono connection to then plug into an input on your amp. The sound quality will be much much better this way…

Alternatively you can use your computer as an audio source. All you need is a decent sound card (internal or external) such as the Tascam US-144 that I use, that has a phono output on it that you can plug into your hifi amp. Thus bypassing the need to use an MP3 player in the first place as that's essentially what your computer now is (amongst its many uses).

Plugging any MP3 player into an amp by using its headphone out through a 3.5mm to twin phono cable will provide a very poor quality result.

What about CD players with MP3 decoders in them? Presumably this is simply reading the data and decoding as required – i.e. doesn't affect the playback quality of 'standard' cds?

This I don't know about to be fair… Worthwhile asking someone who works for a hifi company that makes them (ask RichPenny off this forum, he works for Naim who make this). Personally I'm of the opinion that whilst they probably look marvellous, they're a little expensive and redundant when you've already got a computer with all your music on, and a good soundcard with high quality 24 bit DAC and phono (and even digital if your amp has a digital input) outs on it can be had for under £150…

If you're thinking about using your computer as the audio source (which I'd suggest is a wise move if you're going to use MP3's at all), go along to a shop like Digital Village and tell them what it is you're trying to do. They deal with people who make music on their computers all day long (at which i've had a good go in the past) so know what they're talking about…

Right, now I've finished all that…

What's your current Amp/Speakers/CD Player setup? It might be that whilst it's old, it's still perfectly good… Or it might be that a decent new amp and speakers will make the world of difference perhaps!

If you can't hear the difference between MP3 and CD then you have tin ears – it is soooooooooooooooo obvious. Loss of dynamic range, loss of stero imaging, loss of clarity.

If you wanna spend £1.5k on a new stereo, spend £150-200 on an iPod, then spend £1300 on a decent amp, speakers and a CD player… The iPod will be great for just listening to music conveniently on the go, or in the background, but when you really want to appreciate the quality, you can pop a CD in the CD player…

Its what I do since I can't actually be bothered much these days to sit and listen to music like I used to.

Mine is hooked up to Audiolab 8000 S & 8000 P (pre & power combo) with some AVI 'speakers. I think it sounds mint.

Just make sure you have your cables running in the right direction 🙂

Hello 🙂

We've just launched a cut down Naim Uniti Which has the roughly the same functionality as the Uniti but with less I/O and no CD player. It's also half the size. Here's what the uniti looks like:

Basically, you stream music, radio, podcasts etc. via your wireless network. Music could be on a PC, mac or a NAS drive.

My thoughts on MP3 are fairly simple. Using compression, even lossless, will never improve the music. The only benefit is file size reduction. In areas where you have limited storage that's a big plus, but not in the home. When I eventually move to HD storage, I'll rip as native, and then encode from those files a separate library for my i-pod.

Cheers – very helpful. A recap then:

1) Theoretically perfect sound is vinyl (No compression, analogue signal etc) but to realise this in practice too arsey for the majority. (Actually I do have vinyl in the form of a rega planar so would hope to retain this.)
2) MP3 delivers convenience rather than sound quality and in domestic situations is likely to stay that way for a while.
3) There's a lot of life in the CD format yet
4) The wireless NAIM thingey looks like a good way to get access to MP3 files on other wireless enabled stuff when you can't be bothered with CDs, or want to download stuff
5) IPod/portable MP3 players need to be hooked up better than just via the headphone out.

What I have at present:

Arcam Alpha 2 integrated amp (lots of links, but mostly on ebay)
Technics CD player SLP 377A (http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/June%201990/152/761324/Technics+MASH)
Wharfedale 505.2 speakers (http://tiny.cc/sgI6a)

Decent stands and cables

Looks like I should settle on getting CD player, amp n speakers.

Love the look of that.

1) Theoretically perfect sound is vinyl (No compression, analogue signal etc) but to realise this in practice too arsey for the majority. (Actually I do have vinyl in the form of a rega planar so would hope to retain this.)
2) MP3 delivers convenience rather than sound quality and in domestic situations is likely to stay that way for a while.
3) There's a lot of life in the CD format yet
4) The wireless NAIM thingey looks like a good way to get access to MP3 files on other wireless enabled stuff when you can't be bothered with CDs, or want to download stuff
5) IPod/portable MP3 players need to be hooked up better than just via the headphone out.

5 BIG Yes's from me here… There are other (cheaper) ways of getting your music from your computer to your hifi though (read one of my earlier posts) than the Naim unit, but nothing quite so elegant to be fair…

Arcam Alpha 2 integrated amp (lots of links, but mostly on ebay)
Technics CD player SLP 377A (http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/June%201990/152/761324/Technics+MASH)
Wharfedale 505.2 speakers (http://tiny.cc/sgI6a)

Decent stands and cables

Looks like I should settle on getting CD player, amp n speakers.

Sheesh, blimey that's some quite old kit! I got into HiFi stuff around 1995/6, and that's all a good few years older than anything I know about!

That said… Arcam are well reknowned for making quality kit, and I'd bet a well serviced Arcam Amp such as yours is probably still as good as a lot of newer stuff. Worth speaking with someone who knows their stuff over the years, as I'd suggest the Amp isn't the weakest link here (unless it's in poor fettle).

The Technics CD Player and Wharfdale Speakers can definitely be improved upon massively though…

That's young Mark, we regularly service Naim kit from the 70's 🙂 Cheers for the comment Jamie. I'm looking at one now and it is very nice 🙂

To be pedantic, theoretically perfect sound would be an acoustic live performance in your house. But that hasn't been popular since the 19th century… Vinyl suffers from limitations too, such as how accurate your pressing is, what you can get from an MC cartridge, how much mechanical isolation you can get from the motor etc.

For the O/P, there are likely to be high quality upnp streamers coming onto the market constantly now, it's just a big growth area. So no problem upgrading your system now and then adding streaming capability in the future if you digitise your music.

Mark, you'll be pleased to know that the Uniti uses the digital out from the ipod, so no unnecessary d/a and a/d steps. You should see more devices with this capability, probably called Apple Authentication or something similar. We have to licence it from them 🙁

Versus a sound source at 1411kbps, 16 bit stereo, 44.1KHz… YES, absolutely! So an MP3 will be blown into the weeds by a decent vinyl source too… Remember that CD Audio is still fairly heavily compressed Vs the original studio recordings in most cases.

Maybe if your Digital Source is recorded at 96Khz, or even 192KHz and in 24 bit stereo… You might be talking then… But you'd need a whole 4.7GB DVD to fit a 60 minute album on then most probably.

The whole point of vinyl being seen as an "audiophile" source is that it is not limited by sample rate… A CD can only send 44,100 bits of data per second to the speakers, a vinyl record is not limited at all.

😆

I can't be arsed, you're wrong

I can't be arsed, you're wrong

Sorry, you'll have to speak up, I've got cotton wool in my ears at the moment trying to see what it takes to not be able to tell the difference between an MP3 and the original CD copy of a track… I can STILL tell the difference by the way! 😉

I'll tell you what it takes. Not listening purposely to the "sound quality" to compare, but listening to the "music".
Usually on a normal home system, in a normal home environment, or in a car, or on a portable system.
You know, the way human beings listen to music.

🙂

Haven't needed to upgrade my kit for a while, so I'm not sure what's available at the moment. Yamaha used to do a CD player with a hard drive to rip CD's onto. You could have the best of both worlds in one unit. I don't think that your amp really needs an upgrade, it's still a good model and amp technology hasn't really changed a lot in the past ten years. Maybe just add a power amp for bi-amping.

Usually on a normal home system, in a normal home environment, or in a car, or on a portable system.
You know, the way human beings listen to music.

And you'd be right in 99.9% of cases I'm sure…

Most people do indeed only ever listen to music on a cheap stereo, or in the car, or on their computer, or on an iPod. And you certainly wouldn't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 on any of those!

For the small percentage of us that it makes the difference to though (ie. those of us with the equipment, the ear, and the understanding of why it is important) it makes a MASSIVE difference!

What's relevant on the High Street isn't necessarily what's relevant going on in the industry behind what's put that music there… Do you think for one second people actually make their music in MP3 format? Or for the most part, at CD quality format? Any recording studio worth its salt will be recording an artist at the highest possible sampling rates (probably 24bit stereo and 192KHz), on reference quality studio monitors, in order to give the best possible reproduction of the music being recorded. It will then be "mixed down" to CD audio quality from the original high quality recording for general release, and from this will also be a MP3 version created for sale over the internet…

Not listening purposely to the "sound quality" to compare, but listening to the "music".

Bang on target. I know that often the differences are not in what you can isolate sonically but what you feel emotionally. Not being in R&D, I don't have to do much A/B testing. I'm quite thankful for that to be honest. In truth, I'd be worried about becoming much too analytical about music.

My system at home is not especially optimised. When I have a chance, I might get one of the sales guys to sort it out but I wouldn't want to do it.

FWIW, try an Arcam Solo with ipod dock. CD*, amp, FM, DAB radio all in one box, and the dock allows control of your ipod from the remote control.

Bish, bash and bosh.
* IIRC it's the innards from a CD73.

The points about MP3 through a decent system still count, but if you simply must, there are worse setups out there.

DezB – Member

I'll tell you what it takes. Not listening purposely to the "sound quality" to compare, but listening to the "music".
Usually on a normal home system, in a normal home environment, or in a car, or on a portable system.
You know, the way human beings listen to music.

I guess at least 99.9% of the population would also regard bikes as something they grew out of when they were 12, and the concept of spending thousands on them is beyond daft. Also apply this to cameras, and the other middle-class hobbies most of us seem to have. It doesn't mean they're correct though.

I can't be arsed, you're wrong

Funnily enough, neither can, and came to the same conclusion, about you that is…

Hum – so tempted by Quad CDP2 and 99 Poweramp. Retain speakers for now.

Hum – so tempted by Quad CDP2 and 99 Poweramp. Retain speakers for now.

Hmmmmm…

Would say you'd be far better off spending some decent money on some new speakers first to be honest… Just IMO of course, but your speakers and CD player are the weak/cheap link… Though of course the Quad kit would be lovely!

I guess at least 99.9% of the population would also regard bikes as something they grew out of when they were 12, and the concept of spending thousands on them is beyond daft. Also apply this to cameras, and the other middle-class hobbies most of us seem to have. It doesn't mean they're correct though.

BINGO, in one…

An enjoyable debate!
I'm just jealous of audiophiles, because I simply don't get the time to listen to my music properly.

..I'm quite thankful for that to be honest. In truth, I'd be worried about becoming much too analytical about music.
That's bang on too. and I know rich has decent taste in music 🙂

Now, back to converting those .m4a files to mp3…

Danke 🙂

I'm looking after a mate's house at the mo and he's got a Naim CD setup with Royd speakers and I'm dreading going back to hearing music on anything else.

I'm just jealous of audiophiles, because I simply don't get the time to listen to my music properly.

Fair enough, but for some people it's a job, remember that…

Just the same as you can buy a £100 bike from Halfords and ride it, or buy a £50 digital camera from Tescos and take a photo, you're gonna need a top end bike costing thousands to compete professionally, or you need a top end Canon/Nikon/Hasselblad to take photos worthy of earning your keep with…

Music isn't a full time job for me (though I'd sincerely love it to be), but I do know a fair bit about it.

Likewise though, mostly I listen to music either in the car or when out and about these days, very rarely do I just fire up my hifi to actually listen to music. It's too inconvenient for the mostpart! It is there though for when I really want to hear the intricacies in the music, and my studio monitors are there for when I want to engineer a sound to as close to perfection as I can get it…

he's got a Naim CD setup with Royd speakers and I'm dreading going back to hearing music on anything else.

I've got a stupidly good Naim system, but listening on my i-pod still takes me to special places. A good system does improve things, but a fantastic song will always remain so, regardless of the equipment. I've got a 7" that was mastered using a $10 mic and a knackered portastudio. You could play it on a dansette and I would still be weeping like a girl 🙂