There still exists a never-ending debate with regards to MP3 quality as compared to lossless digital file formats such as WAV, FLAC and the open source, OGG among others. Even the rock legend Lou Reed of the Velvet Underground, commented on the proliferation of MP3, which he believes, ruin the artistry of music. On the other hand, studies proving that the MP3 quality is at par with that of a CD file has long been existing and yet audiophiles and other techno buffs still insist that there is a big difference if you get to listen closely.

For starters, it has to be explained how the MP3 technology works as an audio file format. The MP3 format has been developed with the factor of storage in mind. It means that the MP3 file format is specifically made so that we can store and playback thousands and thousands of music files at our own convenience. The compression system used in MP3 works just like the compression method of any other files, such as images or documents. Just like in JPEG, for example, a low resolution image means space is directly proportional to quality – the lower the space consumption, the lower the quality. Same goes with audio files. It is a given that a compressed or digital file has lower quality as compared to the analogue ones. In the process of compression, some details of an audio file is lost just like how lower resolution images tend to be more pixilated compared to a higher one.

The next question would be: Are these losses really noticeable when you play a music file? How different is the MP3 quality as compared to the CD quality we have fully accepted for so long now without ensuing such debates like what we have with MP3?

It actually depends on some factors. First and foremost would be the bit rate. MP3 quality would vary depending on the speed of the compression or encoding. Studies show that a 192kbps MP3 is at par with the CD quality with quite a reasonable compression size. You can do it more than 192kbps and you will find out that there is no significant difference between the sound quality at least for average listeners. Do it below 128kbps and the MP3 quality is adversely affected. To illustrate: a 10 MB WAV file compressed with 320kbps will take 3 MB of storage space with relatively superior quality as compared to CD. This is highly recommended though practically, you can do it 192kbps and you will take 1.8 MB space with a standard CD quality which is not so bad at all.

However, another factor has to be considered when it comes to MP3 quality and that would be the output equipment for the playback. Studies would show that MP3 done in 128kbps is a-OK with most portable MP3 players played in earbuds or even full size headphones but the same bit rate will sound relatively off when you play it on high end surround speakers. The MP3 quality encoded in 192 kbps is greatly at par with any other CD format played in the car stereo or with your home entertainment system. Obviously, for an audiophile, neither of the two formats will suffice the high standard sound quality that can only be provided by anything analogue.

But honestly, who cares? What needs to be proven has already been proven with average listeners. The fact is that music lovers get what they want with the convenience of MP3 players and if Lou Reed does not like that then it might be high time for him to retire with his cassettes and LP’s for the rest of his life. MP3 shall survive.