| Author
|
The ultimate Wave vs Mp3 showdown ;-)
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 04:00
|
Spindrift, more compression doesn't do it. That will just destroy your dynamic range even more, than the tightly compressed psy sound already is. I was referring to the fact that with more spl you can easier tell a difference between an mp3 and a wav, now of course if you have something with enough spl and a wide frequency range I would notice it even more, you are right about the fact that freq range is less on a pa.
I myself have had it plenty times, and researchers are right when they say that mp3 has the same spl than wav but does not appear to be that loud, only logical when one thinks that frequencies are taken out for compression sake. Thus it has been scientifically proven that mp3 players tend to ruin peoples ears. And so do all the so called dj's that rip sound rather than paying for it.
MP3 compression works by reducing accuracy of certain parts of sound that ARE DEEMED beyond the auditory resolution ability of most people.
MP3 is a lossy compression format. That says it all!
  Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 05:51
|
Obviously I mean data compression as in lower bitrate.
I understand you was claiming that higher SPL will make the difference more obvious, but you still haven't substantiated that claim whatsoever.
"Researchers are right"...what research are you referring to?
Should I dig up a bunch of more blind tests for you?
Just find me one test that backs up your claims.
Obviously you don't understand how perceptive encoding works. You don't remove frequencies to reduce the data. Of course audio is frequencies and you remove information, but the frequency range is intact apart for a little bit of LPF that should only really be an issue for dogs or some children.
Indeed you do loose information, but with a perceptive encoding the idea is that the information removed is what you do not hear.
And obviously it works in practice since people when performing blind tests cannot tell if audio is compressed if you use a high enough bitrate (again we are talking about data compression, not dynamic range).
Sure you can find out that it's lossy by doing a bit- comparison to the original, but you claim that you can hear the difference and I do find that interesting.
I wonder if it's your ears that are superior to participants of the blind test I have come across?
Or could it be the case that you have not made a proper blind test and you base your assumptions on placebo and/or some badly encoded or low bitrate mp3's?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 08:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 05:51, Spindrift wrote:
Obviously you don't understand how perceptive encoding works. You don't remove frequencies to reduce the data. Of course audio is frequencies and you remove information, but the frequency range is intact apart for a little bit of LPF that should only really be an issue for dogs or some children.
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3
That's funny, I simply quoted stuff from the link above.
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 11:15
|
So copy and pasting from an wiki article and not even bothering to put quote tag or quotation marks around it means that you understand a subject?
You said that "mp3 is a form of delta pulse code modulation where some frequencies simply are taken out of the original wav file. "
First of all mp3 use auditory masking and not DPCM so it's pretty clear you have no clue about how the encoding works.
And to me "some frequencies simply are taken out" implies that there is less spectral content in a compressed signal, and that is not true apart from an irrelevant amount of low pass.
And if you read the section on audio quality you would see that the article does mention the fact that I'm trying to get trough to you:
Quote:
|
The transparency threshold of MP3 can be estimated to be at about 128 kbit/s with good encoders on typical music as evidenced by its strong performance in the above test, however some particularly difficult material, or music encoded for the use of people with more sensitive hearing can require 192 kbit/s or higher. |
|
I'm still waiting for a reference to the following statement:
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 04:00, Upavas wrote:
researchers are right when they say that mp3 has the same spl than wav but does not appear to be that loud |
|
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Seamoon
Seamoon
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
314
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 14:57
|
|
Partzi Floch
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
126
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 15:51
|
Nice one. Case closed. (?!)  |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 18:54
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 15:51, Partzi Floch wrote:
Nice one. Case closed. (?!)
|
|
There is still people who believe the earth is flat as well so I guess for some people the case will never be closed.
That article is many years old now and have already been mentioned several times in this forum.
Since then encoders have been improving further, but placebo is not subject to technological development and I guess the debate will go on regardless.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 20:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-20 03:31, Upavas wrote:
mp3 is a form of delta pulse code modulation where some frequencies simply are taken out of the original wav file.
|
|
Not true. The signal is separated into bands which are encoded with less bits thus causing quantisation distortion. The levels of each band is measured. If a band's level does not fall below the masking threshold and thus becomes audible, more bits are assigned to that band.
Frequencies bands, are "replaced" by quantisation noise, not discarded.
Quote:
|
With more amplitude (e.g.a big sound pa) you will hear most definitely a difference between an mp3 and a wav ...
|
|
Masking is relative, not absolute.
Quote:
|
Another effect is that the music still has the same amplitude as a wav file, but does not appear with the same spl intensity to the human ear.
|
|
Rubbish. If anything, due to all the distortion, they will seem louder.
Quote:
|
Thus so many youngsters these days are ruining their ears with mp3 players...
|
|
This has nothing to do with data compression but has everything to do with small ear buds in loud environments. The same thing happens with portable CD players.
UnderTow
PS: Just take a wave file, MP3 it and load both into an editor like Sound Forge. Check the RMS power for each. If frequencies (which amount to amplitude when summed) were discarded, the numbers would differ greatly. Case closed.  |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 21:22
|
[/quote]
So copy and pasting from an wiki article and not even bothering to put quote tag or quotation marks around it means that you understand a subject?
[/quote]
No, it merely means I fooled ya ...
and all of you guys can tell me whatever the hell you want. I can clearly hear on a pa if a file is mp3 or wav. And about 100 friends can tell me the same, accurately! MP3's for some reason are never louder, always less loud and overall thinner in sound quality.
And Undertow, distortion does not equal loudness.
Mind you, since Spindrift tells us that the ear cannot tell the difference, then that must be why labels release wav files and not mp3's on their cd's. This must then also be the reason that in Film wav and never mp3 is used. Chuck an mp3 into a film mix and then do the same with a wav. I did that once a long time ago in school in a studio, all the teachers could tell the difference right away, no exceptions... and I could too, easily as a matter of fact.
Now as far as delta pulse code modulation is concerned I was totally wrong, but please do not go on telling me that mp3's and wav files sound the same, simply because it was proven different to me, many times and audibly so!
The fact that I have had ear training for years might or might not have anything to do with it.
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 23, 2008 23:24
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 21:22, Upavas wrote:
No, it merely means I fooled ya ...
|
|
Oh, yeah....I think we have the placebo effect working again here.
I'm not the one coming with unsubstantiated claims that is completely incorrect and copying from articles and trying to make it out to be my own words.
Convincing yourself that you are not the fool here does not make it reality.
Quote:
| and all of you guys can tell me whatever the hell you want. I can clearly hear on a pa if a file is mp3 or wav. And about 100 friends can tell me the same, accurately! MP3's for some reason are never louder, always less loud and overall thinner in sound quality. |
|
Interesting, you have made blind tests then?
Care to share the method used and a bit more detailed on those 100 people who participated?
It's a funny coincidence then whenever someone claims they or others can hear the difference there is never any mention of the methodology used in the test.
Without even a mention of the bitrate used in the tests and how the equipment was configured of course your statement proves nothing.
Do you seriously think that any thinking individual work think that the countless test done on the transparency of mp3's must be wrong based on a completely unsubstantiated claim like that.
Quote:
|
Mind you, since Spindrift tells us that the ear cannot tell the difference, |
|
Me and pretty much anyone who bother to actually study the facts.
If you think the statement on the wiki is wrong, find facts to disprove it and do the edit (me and 100's of friends heard will not cut it I would guess).
Quote:
| then that must be why labels release wav files and not mp3's on their cd's. |
|
I don't know if your just playing dumb here and it feels stupid to even mention the fact that putting 100 tracks on a CD is not really convenient for customers nor labels and that there is still a lot of CD players that doesn't play mp3s.
Looking at downloads, where mp3's does provide advantages and not only disadvantages, a very small share of the market is lossless (IMO a shame since I prefer lossless for archiving)
Quote:
| This must then also be the reason that in Film wav and never mp3 is used. |
|
Are you for real?
And you even claim you work with film?
Do you know what mp3 stands for?
MPEG-1 Layer 3
And you know what MPEG is an abbreviation for?
Moving Picture Experts Group
But yeah, film audio is always uncompressed 
Of course using mp3 during production is not recommended, the format is intended to be used for playback of the final mix.
Quote:
|
Chuck an mp3 into a film mix and then do the same with a wav. I did that once a long time ago in school in a studio, all the teachers could tell the difference right away, no exceptions... and I could too, easily as a matter of fact. |
|
Again one of the wonderfully detailed reports of a test that apparently should dispute all the test that claim the opposite.
It's just a bit suspicious that the only tests that come to the same conclusion as yours falls into one of two categories:
There is no details whatsoever about the methodology used or there is obvious flaws in the methodology used.
What bitrate did you use?
What encoder and what settings?
Was it a proper ABX test?
Quote:
| Now as far as delta pulse code modulation is concerned I was totally wrong, |
|
I think it's easier to list the claims you have made that was not wrong:
1)...
Quote:
| but please do not go on telling me that mp3's and wav files sound the same, simply because it was proven different to me, many times and audibly so! |
|
You mean "please do not tell me about the undeniable evidence that mp3's generally are transparent to the human hearing if using a good encoder and 192kbps or higher"?
Do you also want me to stop posting links to double blind listening tests like this:
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html
Maybe the mastering engineers doesn't have the same golden ears as you, or the definition of your setup or the PA's you conducted tests on is far superior to a pair of B&W Nautilus 803 speakers?
I have heard the difference between mp3 and wav as well. Sometimes because of bad encoding, sometimes because of low bitrates and sometimes due to placebo.
But I'm not discussing the worst case scenario...in that case I can easily tell CD audio apart from an mp3 due to the annoying skipping.
Using the recommended presets for LAME on high bitrates you will not be able to tell the difference in an ABX test.
If you believe I'm wrong, get foobar with the ABX comparator, encode a bunch of tracks with LAME using the "- b320" switch, do the test and then post the log here.
Quote:
| The fact that I have had ear training for years might or might not have anything to do with it.
|
|
Ear training doesn't affect the placebo effect much, so I don't think that's why you think you can hear a difference.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
AcidForAll
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
135
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 00:16
|
This is so funny
Who needs blindtests, we all know it is a matter of fact that mp3s always suck coz
1. it is a fact
2. my friends also see it this way
3. tv says it
and of course everyone knows it is a fact.
so fuck of mp3s
 |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 02:58
|
Thank you acid!
Spindrift, I don't believe in anything. You are the one that keeps telling me you believe in tests, I simply go to a party and tell you the difference. And that's all. You clearly are going on an ego trip here, which was what I meant when I said gotcha in a previous post. I can hear it, 100'ds of my friends can hear it, now even you tell me you can hear it. So what the f*^#!
MP3's suck, especially when played on a big PA.
As to working in the movie industry, I have been doing so now for several years, so please get off my back dude.
If you disagree with me that is your business.
BTW. ear training does affect the placebo effect that is coherent with mp3 compression!
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 05:53
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-24 02:58, Upavas wrote:
Spindrift, I don't believe in anything. You are the one that keeps telling me you believe in tests, I simply go to a party and tell you the difference. |
|
Why should I not believe in tests?
What way do you think it's best to determine perceived audio quality if not by blind tests?
Quote:
| And that's all. You clearly are going on an ego trip here, which was what I meant when I said gotcha in a previous post. |
|
Let me see...I'm presenting actual tests with clear and repeatable results.
You claim that those are wrong based on your subjective impression on top of that claim that you "don't believe in anything"?
And I'm the one on the ego trip??
Quote:
| I can hear it, 100'ds of my friends can hear it, now even you tell me you can hear it. So what the f*^#! |
|
I have been saying all along that you need to use a minimum bitrate for an mp3 to be transparent.
If you want to compare worst case scenarios 11k/8bit wav does not fare to well even compared to low bitrate mp3's.
So we can agree that wav sucks and mp3 actually sounds better?
Quote:
| MP3's suck, especially when played on a big PA. |
|
Yes, we got that you think for example the djmag test is incorrect and the very eloquent "MP3's suck" statement you put forward certainly carries a lot more weight.
Quote:
| As to working in the movie industry, I have been doing so now for several years, so please get off my back dude. |
|
It was you who claimed "This must then also be the reason that in Film wav and never mp3 is used."
I never worked with film, but I have had to study the various lossy codecs used by the film industry regardless.
I just find it somewhat surprising that someone who actually works with audio for films would not be aware of those.
Quote:
| If you disagree with me that is your business. |
|
Yes, and I have provided you with a some references to explain why but you have provided nothing but wild claims that you cannot substantiate.
Quote:
| BTW. ear training does affect the placebo effect that is coherent with mp3 compression!
|
|
???
Are you saying that trained ears are more susceptible to placebo or the other way around?
How can placebo be coherent with mp3 compression...if it's coherent with anything but your subjective impression it's not placebo.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 14:18
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 23:24, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 21:22, Upavas wrote:
No, it merely means I fooled ya ...
|
|
|
|
If you fooled everyone this thread wouldn't still be going.
Quote:
|
Interesting, you have made blind tests then?
Care to share the method used and a bit more detailed on those 100 people who participated?
|
|
I wonder how MP3 encoding fares after going through Ableton Live's time stretching algorithms. (Or any other DJ software).
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 21:22, Upavas wrote:
This must then also be the reason that in Film wav and never mp3 is used. |
|
Are you for real?
And you even claim you work with film?
Do you know what mp3 stands for?
MPEG-1 Layer 3
And you know what MPEG is an abbreviation for?
Moving Picture Experts Group
But yeah, film audio is always uncompressed
|
|
Not to mention that editors often do throw in MP3s into their edits. Often these editors have bad speakers and/or acoustics (or are just deaf) and the MP3s used sound like crap. 
Also, data compression of audio files should never be done twice. That breaks the whole model and usually sounds bad (even at high bit rates)!
Quote:
| the format is intended to be used for playback of the final mix.
|
|
This is the most important point!
Quote:
|
You mean "please do not tell me about the undeniable evidence that mp3's generally are transparent to the human hearing if using a good encoder and 192kbps or higher"?
|
|
Personally, when I encode files with LAME I use VBR-New, VBR Quality 0, Min Bitrate 192Kbps, Max 320 Kbps. There are still some (combination of) sounds that don't go through the perceptual models perfectly at 192Kbps.
Quote:
|
far superior to a pair of B&W Nautilus 803 speakers?
|
|
There are situations where lesser playback systems and/or lesser acoustic environments can reveal things that better systems don't.
One reason is cumulative distortion. When a certain level of distortion already present in a file cumulates with distortion in the playback system or indirect reflections in the listening environment, it can be brought up to and above the hearing threshold. In a "perfect" system, this distortion might be _just_ below the hearing threshold.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
The Chilling Spirit
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
332
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 15:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-24 14:18, UnderTow wrote:
Personally, when I encode files with LAME I use VBR-New, VBR Quality 0, Min Bitrate 192Kbps, Max 320 Kbps. |
|
You can leave out the bitrate range, the "--vbr-new -V 0" profile does the job well enough for you. ;)
http://enjoys.it |
|
|
|
|
