Is there really a difference in sound quality between burning a cd and just buying it

[Explicit]

I can't really hear a diffence between cd quality and getting it off the internet. The only thing i noticed is sometimes the sound is kinda fuzzy at the end of the song but other than that i can't really see a diffence. I usually download 192kb..

[rainbowdemon]

I can't really hear a diffence between cd quality and getting it off the internet. The only thing i noticed is sometimes the sound is kinda fuzzy at the end of the song but other than that i can't really see a diffence. I usually download 192kb..
If you stay at that bitrate or higher , they will sound fine. You are going to get a lot of responses full of technical b.s. But if your cd's sound good to you, don't worry about it. Home-made cd's are just fine with me.

[phalkon30]

Yes. Even if you buy the cd, and rip it to 320kb LAME mp3, technically its not the same quality as the CD (320 is the highest you can rip in mp3 format).

Whether or not you can hear the difference depends on how good/sensitive your hearing is, and the quality of your sound system.

Sadly enough, some people can't tell the difference between cd quality and 128k (yuck). On your system, your speakers may not be of high enough quality to noticed any difference, or your hearing just doesn't pick up some of the ranges that are cut out.

I can notice a difference up to about 256, then to 320 there's almost no change. Usually you hear "staticy" cymbal crashes, or extreme high/lows are cut off.

I think 192+ is good, but if you're ripping, use alt preset standard 32-320kb VBR. To 90+% of people, it will sound cd quality, at the file size of 192 or lower usually.

[Rickio]

Of course their is a differance but if you don't hear it, don't worry about it. Mostly audiophiles with expensive equipment and finicky ears are the ones who hear the differance.

I do hear the differance myself but it is acceptable to me.

peace

[MxRob]

I cannot tell the difference in quality on songs that are 192kb and above either.
128kbs and under seem to have that annoying hiss or scratch.
Remember the old cassette and 8 track days. I still have an old reel to reel player. Viva technology

[big otis]

the difference, really, is about 15 to 25 dollers (american), my ears can hear the difference but to my wife, its perfectly acceptable.

[origin]

just stay at 192 kbps audio or above and it should sound good. DOnt get me wrong there are shitty mp3s encoded at 320 kbps and really high quality mp3s recorded at 128 kbps, so looking to the individual song and what the source for it was might be something to look into.

l8

[Omyn]

Hell I cant even tell the difference at 128.

As long as its not anything lower than that your good to go, so many people complain about the sound though, I dont think there is much noticable difference.

[RACKnRAIL]

This debate is nothing new. It's much like the old digital vs. analog debate. Many highly trained classical and/or jazz musicians would argue this till the proverbial cows come home. Even though, what really matters is, how it sounds to the individual. I don't mind 160 kbp myself, but that's as low as I would prefer for burning though. 192 is seldom available with old blues, my prefered genre. I burn lots, but I also, still buy used and new CD's. I just wait till the price is affordable. File sharing has really opened a door to a broader range of material for me. Even if the bitrate is only 128.

[my name]

i have a great sound system, audio card and speakers, but i cant hear any difference. i always get 128 bitrate files.

[shawners]

i have noticed while downloading songs and albums, that the first track will have static or clicks.. And the rest will sound great, i think its cause of the copyprotection in the beginning of the album.

[begoodbebad]

Most of my rips are vbr 192, effectively 400 - 500. They sound great and 90% of the time I am happy to listen to mp3 via my audigy card into a yamaha home theatre amp and wharfedale speakers...but sometimes I play a CD on my sony CD player thru the same amp and speakers. It sounds...different...better...fresher...clearer... more natural...more open...it has more life. And this is only a £120 CD player and you really couldn't claim the amp or speakers are the greatest. ( I know coz I have some better sounding stuff too).

But mostly I am happy with mp3. Its when you listen to one medium for long periods then switch that you will notice extensive but subtle differences.

As for 128kbps....yuk. If this sounds fine then maybe get some cotton buds, a matchstick, an old paperclip, a pipecleaner, a twig....anything....but give your ears a really thorough clean! If it still sounds ok to your ears then you either have seriously defective hearing or a very bad chinese cd player. Or maybe you just listen to techno.

[phalkon30]

Or maybe you just listen to techno.
Ohhh....I'm hurt. ;0)

One reason your cd player might sound better than your computer, is the cd player may have a better DSP unit. I've found that using Winamp, and Dee 1.2 I can get a superior sound to normal mp3 players.

Classic Dee 1.20 is still available for download at http://www.dee2.tk . You can also pay for the newest version, but I didn't find the sound quality as good as the original.

[CompuGeek]

One reason your cd player might sound better than your computer, is the cd player may have a better DSP unit.

I agree, it's probably a difference in hardware and not the actual music.

I think the general consensus is that, audiophile or not, if you can tell the difference between MP3s ripped with EAC(in secure mode)/encoded with "alt preset standard" and the original CD, either you spent WAY too much on your speakers, or you should be one of the X-Men.

:sw

[Potato]

There's a difference and you can hear it if you listen close. For me it's way easier to hear the difference using my sweetass headphones (sennheiser hd 280 I believe) than my crappy laptop speakers.

If you can't hear the difference, don't let it bother you. :)

[CompuGeek]

If you can't hear the difference, don't let it bother you. :)

So do you have any other mutant powers? What's your mutant nickname?

[XtraNtnse]

I usually do a search for the 1411 .wav version, since it's an exact duplicate of the cd track as far as audio quality goes. But if I get no results then I just go for the 320kbps MP3.

[Potato]

So do you have any other mutant powers? What's your mutant nickname?

I can't tell you that. :)

[matrix2003]

i dont notice any difference, as long as it sounds ok.. its good for me... but i buy or download most of my music... i never burn

[begoodbebad]

Ohhh....I'm hurt. ;0)

One reason your cd player might sound better than your computer, is the cd player may have a better DSP unit. I've found that using Winamp, and Dee 1.2 I can get a superior sound to normal mp3 players.

Classic Dee 1.20 is still available for download at http://www.dee2.tk . You can also pay for the newest version, but I didn't find the sound quality as good as the original.

I believe you are referring to the DAC (Digital Analog Converter) as DSP usually refers to Digital Sound Processor which is the environment/effect settings on a Home Theatre amp.
I was one of those people who really couldn't take computers seriously as music playing devices for a long time....because they were too noisy and the sound cards were crude and awful. These days the DAC on an Audigy card outperforms some very serious and expensive DAC home audio boxes. I can use my PC drive as a drive only and choose to convert the sound to analog using the audigy, or my Yamaha amp, or my stand alone audio DAC and an Arcam amp. So I know how good a CD sounds thru the PC and thru a Cd player with a variety of DACs. Believe me compressed audio will never be as good as uncompressed, that is its inherent nature, though it can be perfectly acceptable and enjoyable for most people most of the time and that includes me. Also even CD has its critics, hence the development of SACD and DVD-Audio and HD CD. It has always struck me as odd that while the CD and audio hardware makers strive ever more to make increasingly natural and brilliant sound reproduction we are all busy compressing the CDs by 80 or 90%, losing vast amounts of sensory information and experience and listening to the stuff thru shitty pc speakers and game standard surround sound.....strange world.

[xxleasxx]

i think that it all depends on $$$, it sounds the same if you rather get them for free whereass cds sound better if you paid for them... example: when a friend lends you a cd to make a rip.. he says his sounds better just bczu he paid for it whereass the rip sounds better to you bcuz you got it for free... ps i know that the cds sound better but im the ripper not the buyer :P

[Peter Stroker]

The biggest audible difference when you compress music will be with the dynamic range. Not hiss or pops.
Now if you download all wavs it will exactly the same, minus any erros that occured.

[ducttapeBigSexy]

Me personally, I get the band to come into my room and play for me - and even then, it's not quite to the quality I want.

jk, but seriously, I don't like anything under 192, but sometimes you just have to settle. Don't like it? Well, just think how much you paid for it ;)

[ROCKAMANIAC]

CD Quality is much better, if you listen to it carefully paying full attention with full volume! but you will hardly notice a difference if your a normal music listener....

[method77]

CD Quality is much better, if you listen to it carefully paying full attention with full volume! but you will hardly notice a difference if your a normal music listener....wrong. If you rip the cd correctly, the human ear can't tell the difference. Now, if you are a dog then yes, you can tell the dif

[LordNIkon]

Im fine with 128kbps or higher mp3s played in Winamp 5.0 pro w/ DFX 6.40. The sound quality seems great to me.