Bruce Swedien Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spokenward Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 This is True. Mp3 uses a psychoacoustic model of data representation. It is not time accurate. Different encoding algorithms produce different results. In my experience, the LAME encoder is somewhat more time accurate. The Fraunhofer codecs (they invented it) vary in their performance over time. Your ears, Bruce, do not lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 spokenward sez------->This is True. Mp3 uses a psychoacoustic model of data representation. It is not time accurate.... Brucie sez-------->Wow! Thank you, thank you..... The best tech support team in the world! That's what Music Player Forum is!!!! Brucie the Viking!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooden Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 I think you should try the VBR algorithm of musicmatch jukebox, try it at 100%, is the only mp3 that i can hear without the stress of "i am not listening to real CD quality". And its free. The files are like 3 times a normal mp3, but from that you can take an idea that it is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 Thank you people.... I am really impressed with our technical sagacity around these parts!!!! I will continue to use the MP3, It's so easy to send, but now I know what its limitations are!!! This info helps me a lot! Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spokenward Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Now, I am curious. Did you notice it on hihats or within grooves? Here's Fraunhofer's mp3 page . Something that you may want to Google sometime is "joint stereo coding". That will explain a lot too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 spokenward sez--------->Now, I am curious. Did you notice it on hihats or within grooves? Brucie sez--------->My ears tell me that the entire quality of the sound changes a bit when going to MP3. It's actually not always a degradation... On some mixes that I have encoded to MP3 they actually seem to "Warm" up a squirt... I am still getting used to the whole MP3 thing though.... I really appreciate your knowledge and your help! Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spokenward Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 We've gained a lot from your presence - thanks! I don't know if you are aware of it or not but FLAC - the free lossless audio codec is another way to send compressed files around. mp3 is "lossy" compression, FLAC is lossless. The files can be reinflated to their original size. It works on up to 24 bit integer files. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Bruce, the LAME MP3 encoders seem to sound the best to my ears... as has been mentioned, that algorithm seems to suffer from time based issues less than many other MP3 conversion algorithms. The other thing about MP3's that tends to really bug me is the highs. They can get pretty phasey and "swishy" on the top. Again, you can reduce that with higher conversion rates. I normally don't bother with anything lower than 192 kps because it gets REALLY bad IMO if I do. Not that they're not useful... I do use MP3's for various things / reasons, but I find the quality of the sound to be distracting at times - and some source files seem to do better or worse than others. YMMV (your mileage may vary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 I sent you 2 Bruce, I hear the issues..but they still rock decent enough to say...HEY BILL>>>would you mind bringing that snare up 1 db please??? BTW, after 21 hours of mastering, I donned a "Bose" Shirt, blushed and took this for your entertainment. EDIT (Bills picture was hard on the eyes, even mine, I will do better next time) Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Gunn Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Here is a question for Bruce. I am curious to know. Do you see a color difference when going from 24 bit to 16 bit to MP3 when comparing the same piece of music? Will the compression in the MP3 change the intensities of the colors you see? KB Gunn website: www.visionoutreach.net ....government is a necessary evil, but it is dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal. -Neal Boortz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: I normally don't bother with anything lower than 192 kps because it gets REALLY bad IMO if I do. Yes this is true. But 192 or above, with a good codec, can sound darned good! The specific material also makes a difference with MP3... some translates better than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Lander Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Jeez Bill, you just broke my glasses. Our Joint "When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Jeez Bill, you just broke my glasses. Wait until I do a 35 hr session.......... (One is coming, I promise) Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfonso Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 For me VBR algo in LAME encoder is the best sounding. Unlike other encoders it doesn't filter out frequencies but reduces bitrate (dynamic info) according to the needs. Not all passages in a piece of music need the same bit depth to represent dynamics, so information is reduced where it's not needed. This brings also a constant quality perception. Guess the Amp .... now it's finished... Here it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblue1 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Originally posted by Bruce Swedien: Thank you people.... I am really impressed with our technical sagacity around these parts!!!! I will continue to use the MP3, It's so easy to send, but now I know what its limitations are!!! This info helps me a lot! Bruce Swedien I'm sure folks have also suggested you look into the Ogg Vorbis format, as well. It's completely open source and most folks think it sounds great. It's also worht looking at WMA. Even though it's from the Beast of Redmond, most people find the current version (WMA9) sounds better than mp3s and some other 'advanced' formats. It's worth noting that WMA and AAC are the only major formats with DRM (digital rights management) built into them -- so they are pretty much the only formats sold by commercial sites. And, of course, I'm sure that many folks have recommended the LAME encoder for mp3's. Though it's slow at its highest quality settings, it arguably produces the best mp3's around. But I have found the latest version of the Fraunhofer mp3 codec (found in the last few MusicMatch versions, among others) produces very, very good results, mostly indistinguishable from LAME encoded mp3's -- and it does it very, very fast. bookmark these: news.google.com | m-w dictionary | wikipedia encyclopedia | Columbia Encyclopedia TK Major / one blue nine | myspace.com/onebluenine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Ogg vorbis has consistantly been down about 1db at 11K up to sound "smoother". Perhaps I need to update my Ogg. In here, 1db is noticable. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooden Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 So everyone likes lame hu? i have to try it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Clematide Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 A 24-bit/96k file at 60.000000 Bpm to MPEG-1 layer 3 (MP3) *.mp3 at 320_kbps HQ on the MP3: 1) the stereo width is narrower 2) the Bpm is slower, exact 59.999899 Bpm 3) at 15k a flexible cutoff starts 4) the Ogg is from 19251Hz on flat at a noisefloor of -80 dbFS. 5) the LAME is from 18k on flat at a noisefloor of -56 dBFS. 6) the FH is from 19000k on flat at a noisefloor of... 6) Lenght: all encoder add data, circa 22 millisecond in front and 22 millisecond at the end. 7) All files converted to mp3 are 42ms to 45ms longer then the original 24-bit. - -Peace, Love, and Potahhhhto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Clematide Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 s--t, i should sleep at this time, instead of writting mp3 doo doo at 04:50 AM -Peace, Love, and Potahhhhto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I think my ogg/vorbis decoder is faulty, clearly, a db down above 11K up. Actually, some flanging of the lower fq's sound apparent but like you Angelo, I don't have the o scope our nor the energy after a long day to putz with that. Ears game Bill. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Clematide Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Robert, i don't see a bump at 11k with the OggVorbis encoder on the oszillo... but the MP3 are so circa -2.5 dB RMS avg. lower overall then the original 24-bit. Means a: -12.01 dB RMS avg. 24-bit is as MPS 3 -14.64 dB RMS avg. -Peace, Love, and Potahhhhto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulc Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 This guy has done a fair amount of testing as well. The tools he was comparing may not be of the most recent vintage but the information is quite enough to be getting on with. The Womb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Here's something I want to know. And please plead ignorance, despite your collective education and experience, if you are not sure based on evidence or one heck of a reputable souce. I ragged on mp3, with good reason, for several years before hearing several sound clips for our very own moderator's stuff. At the time, I had run into one or two situations mirroring this, but it was Craig's mp3 that really piqued my interest. Phil and Lee (Flier) have both described artifacts present in mp3's encoded below 192bps, yet Craig's mp3's encoded at 128bps sounded absolutely incredible. No swishing, no audible artifacts. I'm quite sure I would hear the difference if I had his original .wav, .aiff, etc., but I was rather shocked to not be able to identify any mp3 issues without the reference. What gives? (This goes back a year or more, so maybe Craig will know what algorhythm he was using for compression. Whatever it was, it sounded great. I've never been able to get an mp3 to sound that good, regardless of the source material. It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 KB Gunn asks--------->Here is a question for Bruce. I am curious to know. Do you see a color difference when going from 24 bit to 16 bit to MP3 when comparing the same piece of music? Will the compression in the MP3 change the intensities of the colors you see? Brucie answers--------->When I listen to one of my MP3s, the colors that I see, with my mind's eye, don't seem to be much different other than the fact that the colors are much less intense.... I haven't really made that comparison with your question in mind, of course. Will get to it later.... Brucie the Viking!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 Here's the real deal for me....... Thanks for your kind help.... I now realize that an MP3 is an MP3 is an MP3. For me it has a definite use or applicatiion. I will happily continue to use it as is..... (In stereo at 128) When it comes to a finished track , mix or whatever, I doubt if the internet will be involved for me, ever! (But, you never know!) You people are the greatest! Ask me your questions, if it's something I can help with, i will tell you no lies!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I got one Bruce! What power amplifiers do you currently use (for your facility)...and also..... Are your westlakes self powered? Away from the desk, in your home, what do you use (audiowise) for your home audio system? (the whole system, speakers, et al) If you don't mind. Just your fav. consumer system. As a junkie of audio, I have 5 different systems and enjoy going around and listening to them and their flavors. BTW, the Gasser certificates look nice..but they need reprinting by the printer on some better stock. Then I need to go frame shopping..this is taking longer (due to my schedule) than I wanted it to..but no worries, give me a couple more weeks.. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Originally posted by fantasticsound: Here's something I want to know. And please plead ignorance, despite your collective education and experience, if you are not sure based on evidence or one heck of a reputable souce. I ragged on mp3, with good reason, for several years before hearing several sound clips for our very own moderator's stuff. At the time, I had run into one or two situations mirroring this, but it was Craig's mp3 that really piqued my interest. Phil and Lee (Flier) have both described artifacts present in mp3's encoded below 192bps, yet Craig's mp3's encoded at 128bps sounded absolutely incredible. No swishing, no audible artifacts. I'm quite sure I would hear the difference if I had his original .wav, .aiff, etc., but I was rather shocked to not be able to identify any mp3 issues without the reference. What gives? (This goes back a year or more, so maybe Craig will know what algorhythm he was using for compression. Whatever it was, it sounded great. I've never been able to get an mp3 to sound that good, regardless of the source material. I agree that you can make an MP3, even at 128, that doesn't have any of the artifacts that are often associated with MP3's. Most people are quite happy with the 128k MP3's that I make. It depends on the material, how balanced the frequencies are, how much processing has been applied to the mix and what kind, and which codec is used. That said, I still prefer 192 for different reasons, mostly that reverb tails and imaging are better than 128. IOW, you can make an MP3 at 128 that would sound good to someone who hasn't heard the source, and not have many audible artifacts, but 192 sounds closer to the way it was intended by the mixer to sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Roberts Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I just did a test. It really is an eye opener for those who want to try it. I took a really clean 160kbs MP3 that I ripped off D Matthews Cd of the track "crash". We all know this is one of the finer productions out there.. Ok. I made 3 files of it converted to .wav. Sample one was a direct transfer. Sample two, I inverted the phase of the entire track and flipped the channels. Sample 3, same as sample 2. I took this 6 channel "production" and brought the sample one faders to -3db of unity, (1/2) and then I brought 3/4 panned left center slowly up to -3 unity and the same with sample 3 only panned right of center to the same level. At this point, all of the swirling and swishing, commonly associated with "bad MP3's" reared its ugly head in spades. I did the same with the wav files right off of the CD. none of the swishing and phasy natiness. Mind you, I could not hear the phasing in the sample 1. So...this leads me to conclude that mp3's do not have the ability to be modded as you can with a higher density file. Now..in the DJ days of the 70's, I remember putting on 2 identical albums and making them flange. Some tracks would do it and others would not. Do we suppose that this is true with the source issues with MP3? Their is just a lot more going on with MP3's than meets the ears..IMHO. Try it. It is easy. Bill Roberts Precision Mastering -----------Since 1975----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Swedien Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 Bill Roberts asks the musical question--------->What power amplifiers do you currently use (for your facility)... Brucie sez------->My Favorite Power Amp in the entire Universe is made in Norway.. (Surprise!) It's the Electrocompaniet.... I have many of them. A special Anvil travel case.... Bill Queries-------->Are your Westlakes self powered? Brucie sez------->Who you calling a Query, Bill? No - No, they are passive Bi-amped(With the Electrocompaniets).... Away from the desk, in your home, what do you use (audiowise) for your home audio system? (the whole system, speakers, et al) Very pedestrian..... Brucie the Viking!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.