Are MP3s really that bad?

There is a widely held view in sound recording circles that the MP3 format is responsible for degrading the quality of the listener's musical experience. Vocal critics include Neil Young and George Massenburg. They maintain that MP3s are unlistenable. But is the format really that bad?

Initially developed to overcome storage and network distribution limitations in the early years of the world wide web, many feel that it is no longer needed and that modern technologies such as FlashRam and broadband permit fun bandwidth uncompressed audio.

It is true that if you study the theory of how the MP3 codec works it looks like bad news for audio quality, but before we jump to the conclusion that that format should be abandoned here are a few points that we might want to consider when deciding how our recordings should be published and delivered to a listener.

1. Many critics refer to the MP3 format without qualifying data rate. There is a vast quality difference between 320kbps (the upper limit) and 128kbps, and no-one would seriously argue that 64kbps should be compared to even CD quality. If we are going to compare MP3 with other formats, lets agree to use 320kbps.

2. When was the last time we made a comparison for ourselves? Do it now. Grab a favourite CD, rip an MP3 version at 320kbps and a do a blind test comparison, preferably with family or friends. You may be surprised at how difficult it is to identify differences.

3. Now try the same comparison in your car and using a mobile phone with ear-buds. This is how most people experience music.

4. When was the last time you saw a hi-spec hi-fi system in a friends home (no not other audio enthusiasts! just regular folk who like music). Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's you saw hi-fi separate systems everywhere. Now most folks use their PCs, TVs or mini systems. Will they hear a difference?

5. With the increasing popularity of vinyl, many music fans are looking for a different way to experience music recordings. No one could argue that vinyl can faithfully reproduce the sound of a studio mix master yet many of us still love that distorted analogue sound. How come that's a good fashionable thing?

6. Maybe it's because we don't regard an MP3 file as aesthetically "valuable" as a physical fixation like tape, vinyl or CD.  It doesn't resonate culturally. We can't define ourselves with a MP3 collection the way we can with a record collection. MP3s are much less visible!

7. Has the sheer convenience of MP3 devalued them? It takes dedication to maintain a physical music collection doesn't it?

At Project Studio Handbook we have no clear opinions on this debate. Most of us record at 44.1kHz / 24-bit and master for MP3. Some of us burn CDs to listen to at home and in the car. In our studios we listen to the mix masters. What do you do and what are your thoughts on this subject? It would be great to hear them.

Thanks for watching and reading
FairFax