*sigh* I thought this was a complaint about Civil Disorders till I reread the op.

The quality of the recording itself hasn't improved, but the hardware (amplifiers, speakers, etc) could certainly make a difference.

I agree with abgemacht - on any axis that you choose to measure quality, MP3s won't be better than CD quality.

Additionally, if you're starting with a recording of one quality, you won't be able to make it better quality by changing the format (any change in format will produce a recording that is at least as bad as the previous format). This means you're definitely not seeing an improvement in quality when you rip to MP3.

However, some things might be missing in MP3 - in particular MP3 does weird things to cymbals and applause, so you MIGHT be hearing slightly different things. This is more noticeable at lower bitrates though. Personally, I don't think I'd be able to hear the difference in a 320kbps MP3 vs CD - and if I did, it would be more like "that bit sounds weird" than "hey, I never noticed that before". So, I doubt this is what's going on.

I suspect it's more likely that you're either paying more attention to the music as you listen to it again, or that you're listening to it on different hardware as suggested above.

Also, I find if I go back to music you haven't listened to in a while, I often notice things I hadn't noticed before anyway, because I'm coming to it with "new ears" from everything I've listened to since then.

Rip CD to FLAC if you want to maintain quaility. Size may be an issue...

Thanks for the answers. I had to rip to MP3 in order to import them to Amazon Cloud Player.

I have realized that the high bit rate coupled with the fact that I'm using Breakaway Audio Enhancer http://www.claessonedwards.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=135 is why things sound so amazing. It's bringing out every bit of the music.

Again -- thanks for the replies.

Mapu, you old fart. I've done the same thing in recent months. I just upgraded my "rockbox" hackware on my Sandisk Sansa mp3 player.

As for why you are hearing more with the new ripping at 320, it's because at 320 there is simply more data...thus more sound. So in that since, Abge is only partially right. The CD itself isn't better, but your ripped version at 320 is a better recording than (presumably) the 128 or 256 you had before.

Krellin it's even worse than that -- I ripped my hundreds of CDs 10 years ago at 64bit WMA. Yes, Windows Media Audio. Microsoft promised us MP3 was dead and WMA was the future. And I believed them. lol

@krellin

I don't think what you said is right.

Bitrate of an audio CD should be "lossless" 1.4Mbps whereas MP3 will be lossy 320kpbs. Why do you think a CD plays at 128/256kbps?

Now, if he's already ripped them at 64kbps, I don't think you can get that data back. There may be some uncompression possible, but it's going to be much worse than ripping straight from CD.

Yes I ripped them from CD again. The 64kbps CDs are virtual coasters.

abge - I didn't say a CD plays at 128/256. He is RE-ripping his CD collection, and I assume the NEW mp3's ripped at 320 sound better than his old mp3's ripped at a lesser bit rate.

not sure how much ripping you've done, but there is a huge difference in sound quality between 320 and lower bit rates...less data, less music, more "interpretation" by the mp3 player.

That's good. Ripping them from the old rips would have been a waste of time.

320kbps should be perfectly fine, but it's not *better* than an audio CD. I'm really not sure what krellin is talking about.

@Mapu...good god...64bit WMA. You might as well just listen to two cats in a blender, for the all the enjoyment that "music" was giving you..

@krellin

No, he's ripping at 320 directly from the original CD and wants to know if it should sound better than the original CD. The answer to that question is no.

I know that 320 will sound much better than 256, but you can't go from 256 to 320 and expect to to sound better. The data is lost.

abge - what I am talking about has nothing to do with your misinterpretation of what I said. But, as always, you find some way to criticize what I say, which often involves misinterpretting what I've said. Apparently this makes you feel smug.

An MP# ripped from an original source at a bit rate of 320, when compared to an old WMA ripped at 64 bit, is what the adults are talking about comparing. Each is ripped from the SAME source, and NOBODY said the rip is better than the CD. That is just you being a smug ass and trying to belittle. Get over yourself.

"An MP# ripped from an original source at a bit rate of 320, when compared to an old WMA ripped at 64 bit, is what the adults are talking about comparing. Each is ripped from the SAME source, and NOBODY said the rip is better than the CD. That is just you being a smug ass and trying to belittle. Get over yourself."

Mapu can feel free to correct me, but this is not, I believe, what he asked in his first two posts.

If he is actually comparing the MP3 to the CD...ok, then I am misinterpretting his question....and that is my bad, and it is a legitimate question.

It is certainly possible (improbable) that he has some device that is not streaming through all the data from the CD in playback. He would have to play the same CD from multiple sources and see if there is a difference. CD data is only as good as the device it is played back through., which, if some ungodly reason, was designed to drop data becaus the throughput on the buffers wasn't fst enough (how old is his CD player?) then it may be possible.

You would also have to look at his MP3 device, and see what sort of "tweaks" to the music it is doing.

My Sansa MP2 player with rockbox running in instead of the original OS, has options to do all sorts of stuff to the music which makes it sound "better than the original" depending on your taste in music, with channel cross-feeding and some other tricks.

Any -- whatever - not really worth arguing about. Yay for mapu - he has a "new" mp3 collection, and I am happy for him, and I am in the process of revamping my own collection and uploading it to the cloud, etc.
Yay for Mapu.

At first I was wondering if it was possible for a good rip to pull extra information from a CD that wasn't audible in listening to the CD directly.

I have since ascertained that the high bit rate of the rip, the digital audio enhancer, and the nice speakers/headphones have combined to reveal musical details and depth I hadn't heard before.