this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
58 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48349 readers
820 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello! This is probably stupid.

So I have recently gotten rid off my streaming services to save money and I have been into transferring my new and old CDs into MP3 form (320 kbps) and listening to those either on my Sony Walkman (NWZ-B162F or something) or on my PC with the Windows Legacy Media Player/VLC and now the music sounds so, so different than the same songs sounded from Spotify or YouTube Music. (Official apps on Android, iOS and PC or the web version on PC while having the "HD Settings" on.) Headphones and the soundbar is the same as before, no changes there.

Like the MP3 form, that should be much more poorer quality and inferior in all the ways, but it sounds "deeper"? The streaming services have sounded so.. flat? Sorry, English isn't my native language but yeah, flat or shallow? Empty even? Hollow?

Is this because of I now "own" the music and possibly respect it more and that makes it sound better? Am I turning into an audiophile, which I have never had any interest in before? Or is there something real in this? Not complaining really, just been pondering this a while and my fiancé agrees on this as he's been doing the same on his old iPod..

Thanks in advance or anyways. :)

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 11 points 13 hours ago

Many factors at work here.

First off, mp3 at 320 kbps (or 256 for that matter) encoded with modern algorithms will be nearly idrntical to the original source. I defy you to reliably tell it apart from a FLAC in an A/B test. Where it usually fails is in stereo imaging, not obvious distortion or frequency limitations.

Secondly, many people have mentioned normalization (actually compression) in streaming services. When applied after the mix, i.e. exactly what they do, it ruins music. If you can turn off every 'feature' in these services that modifies the sound, you'll find improvements.

Thirdly, you're not necessarily getting great sound from them anyway. Spotify defaults to 96kbps Vorbis which is comparable to 128kbps mp3. And if your network speeds are low or laggy, it may well drop the quality dynamically to keep playing without glitches.

Fourth, there's the issue of mastering. You may have a differently-mastered release than what is on the streaming site. This can make a HUGE difference in some cases. If you can, try listening to Dark Side of the Moon releases from 2003 (Doug Sax) vs. the 2023 blu-ray.

And those are only the most likely candidates. There could well be other factors at play.

[–] AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev 7 points 13 hours ago

320kbps mp3 is actually very good.

Most steaming services will use much worse than 320kbps mp3. Some of the premium plans have options to do lossless but even then, it won't be much better unless they're encoding it from a higher-quality master.

Also, most phones have okay-at-best DACs. Devices designed specifically for music (like mp3 players), even very old ones, could realistically have better DACs.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 27 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

320kbps mp3 is practically indistinguishable from lossless audio, so it is going to sound amazing compared to more compressed audio that streaming services tend to use by default. Also the hardware in the mp3 player is likely much better than anything in your phone or PC, if you never invested in anything audio specific. I always recommend to purchase a DAC/AMP for PC.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I'm getting good tips for my next PC build here, thanks!

[–] warm@kbin.earth 5 points 16 hours ago

Good luck, lets hope RAM and storage prices come down sooner rather than later.

[–] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

When you're ready about the sound part of your build, take a look at JDS labs atom 2 amp, I use it (don't have a DAC because my motherboard onboard audio is surprisingly clean) and have paired this amp ($129) with Sennheiser HD600 headphones. I play lots of games and listen to music. This pairing is really good at giving you the sound nearly exactly how it was meant to be heard. There's a reason HD600s are used in many recording studios. JDS labs also has a DAC+Amp combo which many like. I was using a $60 altoids tin cmoybb amp from them for 13 years prior to this for hd5xx series Sennheiser headphones before this, just wanted a bit more.

You can't really use good headphones without an amp, they should really be thought of as a package deal.

I'm a huge Sennheiser fan, there are many other great options out there too, but just wanted to share my own setup. There have been some great deals on the HD600 lately, around the $250 mark.

Atom Amp 2 - Shop JDS Labs https://share.google/jwmHJ9MJXTKgxaRk7

Sennheiser HD 600 Wired Open-Back Headphones – Sennheiser US - Sonova Consumer Hearing USA LLC https://share.google/gqrl9ngR9Dih8uV3U

[–] wiccan2@thelemmy.club 28 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

It could be that your MP3 player is applying some level of equalisation where your streaming services aren't. It's amazing what just alittle bit of EQ can do.

I've found that my rips do sound better than the standard Spotify quality but are about the same as Spitifies High or Lossless options. I'm listening to both through my phone and same headphones.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 17 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Could be the opposite as well, youtube a while ago rolled out a “normalization” thing by default that absolutely ruins all audio on the platform and needs to be disabled on every device you have. Supposedly it was set to automatically disable for music but that depends on the uploader

Spotify streams have always been garbage in my experience, but I haven’t had a subscription in about a decade now so no idea if that’s still true

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Normalisation is pretty good if you need to keep your computer quiet

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

Normalization is a legitimate, effective, and popular technique employed across the entire entertainment industry. Most well produced audio will have degrees of the effect applied tastefully.

I have no idea what youtube’s “normalization” is doing that ruins the quality of their audio to such a noticeable extent. It’s also totally indiscriminate of the video’s existing audio production. It sucks for someone to work hard and produce a good mix only for youtube to ruin it without your consent, possibly years after release

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 2 points 18 hours ago

Very possible, very possible.. Thanks for your input!

[–] crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Afaik Spotify normalizes the tracks by default and from what I gather that means it boosts the volume across the track and applies a limiter to roll off the loudest parts, which I guess should make them sound much flatter.

You're not alone though, my gf reported the same thing so we've spent an afternoon comparing the same albums on Spotify and my Jellyfin collection. Same phone, same headphones, the differences listening to some albums were huge.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 7 points 18 hours ago

Yeah, I was suspecting some "normalization" trickery from the streaming services.. I absolutely wouldn't have noticed this if I had just continued using them.

Nice to know other couples spend quality time the same way we do! :)

[–] ominouslemon@sh.itjust.works 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Spotify and YouTube music are known in the audiophile world for their not-so-great audio quality. I.e. the audio files that you stream via those services are very compressed.

An mp3 file 320 kbps is not a huge jump in quality, but it's definitely noticeable without being an audiophile! You're definitely experiencing that

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

Thanks to you too! This seems to be a combination of so many factors, but the most important thing is that my tunes are banging. :) I didn't plan on learning this much today hah!

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Adding to all other good info here (mastering, compression rates) one thing old mp3 players had was often a very good DAC!

Digital to Analogue Converter. It is what generates enough "punch" to make your headphones vibrate exactly this or that much, and it makes a world of difference. People buy soundcards and stuff like that because computer and phone DACs are almost always abysmal.

[–] seathru@quokk.au 3 points 15 hours ago

Seconding this. A perfect audio rip will only sound as good as the hardware that is playing it.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Very good add, thank you! And possibly an idea for my next PC build..

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

My absolute favourite is the Music Streamer II, because it doesn't need an extra power source, just plug it in a USB port (windows, linux, no drivers needed) and it sounds Fantastic.

I got mine for around 50€ on the second hand market.

Ugly photo:

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 2 points 17 hours ago

Uh-huh, uh-huh, taking some notes..

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 4 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

Thank you! I did some searching and it could be because of this. I have used YouTube music most recently and it has, depending a bit on the source and the app and the settings, "only" 256 kbps at best so I guess that could be it. Weird if 64 bits make that big difference! Maybe I am an audiophile, or at least turning into one.

[–] kabe@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

In reality, the bitrate doesn't make all that much difference past a certain point. If you blind test it, you're hardly going to be able to hear any difference between a 160, 256, 320, or even a 1,000 kbps MP3/FLAC whatever. That's just not how it works.

The things that do have a big, noticeable effect on sound quality are primarily:

  1. different master recordings -- this is often what people mistake for "better quality" when comparing digital copies versus streams, or this streaming platform versus that streaming platform. In fact, it's because version A is based on a different master/remaster than version B.

  2. loudness. A difference in volume can have a big impact, even if the tracks and sources are identical.

  3. psychology. The placebo effect cannot be understated stated in terms of its impact on audio enjoyment. If your brain is expecting, either consciously or unconsciously, there to be a difference or an improvement in some area when comparing two sources, then you will most likely hear one (whether it actually exists or not).

The long and the short of it is: just enjoy the music in the way that feels most enjoyable! Once you start fussing over audio formats and bitrates, the whole thing can easily descend into silliness very quickly.

[–] sgh@lemmy.ml 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

That's 64 kbits, or about a 25% boost in bitrate.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 16 hours ago

If you're ripping the music yourself, you're going to be hard pressed to be able to tell the difference between 256kbps and 320kbps. Both are essentially indistinguishable from lossless.

If the streaming service is actually using 256kbps, then they must be transcoding them or using a really shitty method for encoding.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

.. Welp, that's a whole lot more! Thanks for this correction!

[–] sgh@lemmy.ml 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Just to not sound like a complete asshole... ofc the 25% boost does not depend on bits/kbits, the difference is still 256 vs 320, but I just wanted to emphasize that the expected result is 25% bigger in all terms.

If it helps to imagine, the space needed to store a 256k 5 minutes song will store a 320k 4 minutes song. Then, you are already relying on a quite decent quality beforehand so it's all extra quality and details.

I usually hear the difference in the high frequency sounds, which is exactly what is otherwise sacrificed in low bitrate compression formats.

FLAC will produce an even better sound, as it's lossless, but for most songs I couldn't justify the file size difference.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

Not asshole-y at all, I'm real grateful and learning a lot today! :) I have never really even thought about these things.

I haven't really listened to my songs in FLAC, but the MP3 already sounds very, very good and it takes such a tiny space, so it could be enough for me. For now..?

[–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 4 points 17 hours ago

As you already noticed.

Same effect is even more noticable in video streaming services. Amazon/Netflix/etc full HD(1080p) video, even downloaded is visibly of worse quality than same video and same quality from lets say pirates sources. Difference is noticable even on something as small as a phone screen.

[–] Cornflake@pawb.social 2 points 18 hours ago

It's important to note that bit rate is only part of the story. Spotify uses the Ogg Vorbis file format which is a lossy compression algorithm (just like MP3). 256 kb/s .ogg vs 320 kb/s .mp3 both offer about the same sound quality, it's not likely one could differentiate between them in a blind test.

[–] tunetardis@piefed.ca 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Others have covered the subtleties of how the sound could be reproduced on older players in a different way. But there may a psychological component as well? And I don't just mean a nostalgia factor, though that could certainly be part of it.

One thing I miss is having a dedicated music player that will never interrupt my listening experience with a notification or anything like that. It's the same reason I still prefer going to a theatre to watch movies. Zero distractions compared to a home screening and I feel like I can get far more immersed in it.

[–] kabe@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

In the audio world, psychology plays a huge role in everything. It's far more likely to be this than the difference in bitrate, imo.

[–] RockBottom@feddit.org 8 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Codecs are psycho acoustics in practice, maybe there’s your answer.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

I am learning a lot today! Thanks! :)

[–] M33@piefed.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Maybe you are listening with a better headset, or a bit louder

[–] Edges@lemmy.zip 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Have you done and blind testing? I'd be curious if you can really tell or if it is the ownership thing.

[–] RockBottom@feddit.org 3 points 18 hours ago

What a claim for ownership it would be!

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 2 points 19 hours ago

Not yet, but I'm very interested into trying this out! I am happy and proud with my collection so far, so yeah, I'm absolutely biased.

[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

If you grew up listening on mp3s it might be a nostalgia thing.

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Songs on my cds sound much better. Always have.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Of course, but shouldn't transferring them into MP3 form still hurt the quality? It's such a tiny format. Apparently not that much.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It does technically hurt the quality, but 320 kbps mp3s are largely indistinguishable from lossless to most people.

On a side note, why mp3 instead of a lossless format?

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago

Oh, alright! Makes sense.

I "chose" MP3 because I had my old MP3 Walkman around and wanted to quickly test if I could have a few songs on that stick. Then the test grew into a bigger project and now I'm here with a about 20 hours of MP3 form music. So no real reason, just a quick, thoughtless decision while goofing around. :D

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 4 points 18 hours ago

Songs are often mastered differently for different media. Streaming services often do this automatically. Mastering is why vinyl often sounds better than CD even though CD should be better, CDs enabled the loudness wars which vinyl couldn't handle so vinyl got a more musical content.

[–] Steve@communick.news 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

It's almost certainly just your thinking different about the music. There could be real effects. Different masterings, different DAC in the old player. But those are likely less effective than it just being your own perception of music you own vs stream.

Also, I'd recommend ripping your CDs into FLAC for permanent storage, then converting to other formats for any specific purpose.

[–] manuremy@sopuli.xyz 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I am absolutely listening more carefully for the whole album, and the collection is very carefully hand-picked so I have tunes for all weathers.. While streaming I would just put on something, maybe change into whole another genre in the middle of listening to another album. This does make me more appreciative for what I happen to be listening to, as I only have a limited number or albums.. You're probably right!

// EDIT; I gotta look into re-ripping my CDs, feels like a bigger job than it is in reality. I'll leave that for some rainy day!