How are you playing these on your home system? With the empeg? If so, then EQ will still be a factor. Also, bass doesn't require much data... but high frequencies do. In fact, I think I remember svferris (a MusicMatch employee) saying that there isn't a setting in MM that has NO high frequency cut off.... I'm assuming that MM cuts the highes so it makes the LAME files sound overly bright. Who knows, it might even boost the bass curve?

I don't understand the file size thing tough... Can you post the file sizes of two compressions of the same song? And get the average bit rate too..?

Hi Brad

When I play music through my home system, I primarily use Winamp and to a lesser extent, Windows Media Player. I use no equilization on either player so I am sending the music to my home system "as is". I am currently using a US Robotics Sound Link (to be replaced with a Rio Reciever soon) to transfer the music over a distance of about seven metres.

Today, after this latest round of discussion between MisterBeefHead and I, I played one song that was kinda bass heavy encoded with both EAC/LAME and MM Jukebox and the source CD through my CD Changer. Doing the comparison, I again found the bass and treble variation with the EAC/LAME file, and virtually no differance between the source CD and the file encoded with MM. The bass was much deeper and fuller with the source CD and the file encoded with MM. I don't know where to go from here other than to experiment with the EAC/LAME settings to try and find that sound I desire.

I will post the two file properties here tonight for you once I get home from work....

As I stated in another thread...

You can't compare apples to apples when you're playing an audio CD compared to a computer file, if you use a computer to play back the computer file. The computer and the audio CD player have different circuitry to produce the sound.

The audio CD player itself introduces its own tone coloration to the audio signal. For instance, most CD players artificially boost the bass before it even leaves the player.

The only way to properly compare an encoder to the audio CD is to decode the encoded MP3 to a WAV, then burn that WAV as an audio CD track. Then you can accurately compare the original audio CD track to the MP3 encoder in the proper apples-to-apples environment.

I think I should make this into a FAQ entry with pictures. Anyone think we'd benefit from such an entry?

Myself, I ripped the wav file, and then encoded it several ways, and then threw the wav and the mp3s all onto my Empeg. I then did listening tests in my home and in my car. I thought about burning the mp3 to a cd, but I thought that I once read somewhere that different decoding programs can result in somewhat different wav files. Rather than pursue that possibility, I just used the Empeg.

I ripped the wav file, and then encoded it several ways, and then threw the wav and the mp3s all onto my Empeg

This works, too. Doesn't convince audiophiles who refuse to believe that the perfect sound of their favorite CD player is the only way to listen to music. Generally, whenever I hear the complaint that the "MP3s don't sound like my CD player", what they need to be convinced is to hear the MP3s played back through that particular CD player. Only way to do that is with a decode-to-disk and a burn.

Everyone, check out this link on the variences in decoders.... how do you think this factors into the equation? Where would the empeg fall into this?

Haven't followed the link yet, but I assume it's talking about the old sample-precision-in-the-decoder issue. I remember Hugo discussing this point with someone here on the BBS last year, but I can't find the link to the thread. Anyone have that?