The Much Maligned MP3?

There is a school of thought

It is an observation. MP3 simply sounds like crap. 

As well as the inescapable fact that provenance matters far more than the means of transmission.

Provenance is history of ownership. Where it came from. Provenance really only matters when counterfeit and stolen property, in other words criminal activity, is a concern. That is why provenance is so big in the art world. Or with real estate. Absolutely essential you be secure in your title of ownership.

You're saying provenance matters ... with digital??! Really?!?

So isn’t it high time for audiophiles to shed some of these long held prejudices?

First it was "a school of thought". Then it's where it came from. No wait, never mind. Now it's prejudice. Make up your mind!  

PS- you posted this in music. But the subject- which granted it is hard to tell just what the subject is, but it sure ain't music- would seem to be tech talk. Or philosophy. Or prejudice. Care to clarify?

There are differences between lossless and too much compressed files in any relatively good system, especially if rightfully embedded...

But most dont even own an audio room adequately acoustically controlled then how to listen and perceive differences without the shred of a doubt?


We could be spared by all these steriles controversies and polemics about files, sources, analog and digital , tube and S.S. if we could concentrate on the main audio problem for ANY system at ANY price: controls of his 3 main working dimensions or embeddings ...

We could even be able to listen to the audible differences on any relatively low cost good system...

Now it is not the case because MOST people had never listen to their system at his peak utmost level to begin with...They prefer to argue about secondary choices of sources or formats etc instead of concentrate in fundamental installation decisions and about the measures to be taken in the 3 working dimensions...

Simple....

@millercarbon,

"MP3 simply sounds like crap."


I would like to start by apologising if you were triggered by the word prejudice, but your reply perfectly highlights the very point I was making.

You do realise that many folk cannot distinguish between CD and 192kbps, let alone 320kbps?



"You’re saying provenance matters ... with digital??! Really?!?"

Provenance refers to the original source of something. In painting or photography it would be the original canvas or the negative.

In audio it’s usually the original master tape.

2nd or 3rd generation tapes can never be improvements, can they?

Even with digital there are often different masterings, so comparing like for like is not always so straightforward.

When you stream you are often presented with different masterings. Sometimes their provenance is made clear, but not always.

For example when listening to Revolver you might want to know is it the 1987 or the 2009? Is it stereo or the mono.

It gets even worse with Pepper.


"PS- you posted this in music. But the subject- which granted it is hard to tell just what the subject is, but it sure ain’t music"


The clue is in the title. For sure it’s a wide ranging subject but I hope we can both agree that the music matters most.




@mahgister,

"There are differences between lossless and too much compressed files in any relatively good system, especially if rightfully embedded..."


Yes, but at what point are they too much compressed?

Is ’too much’ at 128, 160, 192, 256 or even 320kbps?

I don’t mind confessing that I can’t easily hear any difference above 192kbps. As far as I know, no one else can either.

Yet the derision for MP3 continues.