| Author
|
The ultimate Wave vs Mp3 showdown ;-)
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 16:24
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-24 15:14, The Chilling Spirit
You can leave out the bitrate range, the "--vbr-new -V 0" profile does the job well enough for you. 
|
|
In recent versions of LAME "--vbr-new" is the default algorithm, so actually "-V 0" is all you need
  (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Quantec
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
25
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 22:11
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-23 14:57, Seamoon wrote:
For the 16bit file is this order correct:
320kb/s, 192kb/s and the the 16bit wav ???
|
|
no it isn´t....
I´m sorry...but that is completely incorrect!
Louder isn´t better.... ;-) |
|
|
|
Quantec
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
25
Posted : Aug 24, 2008 22:16
|
great discussion here!
hehe...
But i only like to have short answers like seamoon did it ;-)
Don´t tell me your great research results, when you aren´t able to give me the correct answer :-D
or just any answer for my question.... |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 00:56
|
I don't operate LAME from a CLI. I prefer to make sure the GUI in CDex is indeed doing what it is supposed to do.  Also, does -V 0 imply a minimum bit rate?
UnderTow |
|
|
|
AcidForAll
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
135
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 02:18
|
Sorry Upsavas for gotto put a big 'Ironie-Sarkasm- hint-for-dummies' on my post
@Quantec u seem to be a master of logic, rofl
BTW where is the 32 bit wave, 24 just sounds aweful!! |
|
|
|
realtime
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
350
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 02:25
|
mp3 not only affects the pressure of the sound;
it also affects the mood on the floor.
just have seen last that weekend:
when i played the floor was rocking 
then the guy who played after me was bothering with mp3:
the floor stopped working within less than 10min 
http://www.myspace.com/realtimeproject |
|
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 04:19
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 10:45
|
Spindrift, I made plenty blind tests on plenty of parties, together with many friends, and we always agree... even the dj agrees after... and yes, the higher the bitrate the less bad the mp3, yawn...old news brother, I can still tell you the difference.
I have played on plenty parties and never bothered with mp3's, the guys after me usually have trouble keeping the levels up when playing mp3's, and it just sounds crappy, every time, and plenty of times.
Now I don't know where you work, if I would present a client an mp3 on any sound job whatsoever, film or music, I would likely get
a: fired and that would suck
b: the client would probably be pissed off.
c: I would likely not get a job in this town once I do this repeatedly.
I have no idea how things are handled in Europe, in North America this IS how things are getting done... and as long as the wav is in 16 bit or higher, I disagree with you, they are better than mp3's!
Let me requote wiki's mp3 article:
"The compression works by reducing accuracy of certain parts of sound that are deemed beyond the auditory resolution ability of most people"
There in quotation so you can relax...
Now who deemes and on what? And who is most people?
So quit bugging me dude, and just relax
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/ |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 11:15
|
I found this quote in O Reilly's MP3, The DeFinitive Guide
Who defines "Imperceptible"?
"Before moving away from the topic of perceptual codecs, there's an important point to be made about the category as a whole: They all make baseline assumptions about the limitations of human perception, and about how closely the end result will be listened to. The fact of the matter is that all that stuff being stripped out adds up to something. While no recording format, whether it be vinyl, reel-to-reel, compact disk, or wax cylinder, can capture all of the overtones and subtle nuances of a live performance, nor can any playback equipment on the face of the earth reproduce the quality of a live performance. All compression formats-especially perceptual codecs-are capable of robbing the signal of subtleties. While certain frequencies may not be distinctly perceptible, their cumulative effect contributes to the overall "presence" and ambience of recorded music. Once a signal has been encoded, some of the "magic" of the original signal has been stripped away, and cannot be retrieved no matter how hard you listen or how good your playback equipment. As a result, MP3 files are sometimes described as sounding "hollow" in comparison to their uncompressed cousins. Of course, the higher the quality of the encoding, the less magic lost. You have to strike your own compromises.
Many feel that the current digital audio standard offers less resolution than the best analog recording, which is why many audiophile purists still swear by vinyl LPs. Digital audio introduced a host of distortions never before encountered with analog, but hasn't had analog's 50+ years of research and development to eradicate them. Compressing and further modifying "CD quality" audio with a lossy perceptual codec like MP3, some might say, adds insult to injury.
But then there's reality, and the reality right now is that the vast majority of us do not listen to music with the trained ears of a true audiophile, nor do most of us possess magnificent playback equipment. Most of us use middle-ground sound cards and PC speakers, most of us have limits to the amount of data we can store conveniently, and most of us connect to the Internet with relatively low-bandwidth modems. Reality dictates that we make compromises. Fortunately, the reality of our sound cards and speakers, the quality of which lags far behind the quality of decent home audio systems, also means that most of these compromises won't be perceived most of the time.
The bottom line is that the perceptual codec represents a "good enough" opportunity for us to have our cake and eat it too. As things stand now, it all comes down to a matter of file size if we want to store and transfer audio files with anything approaching a level of convenience. In a perfect world, we would all have unlimited storage and unlimited bandwidth. In such a world, the MP3 format may never have come to exist-it would have had no reason to. If necessity is the mother of invention, the invention would never have happened. Compression techniques and the perceptual codec represent a compromise we can live with until storage and bandwidth limitations vanish for good. "
Yes, hollow is the right word for 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/ |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 12:49
|
Upavas,
Not only is that all just opinion with no hard facts but also that book is 8 years old. The MP3 perceptual models have evolved quite a bit since then.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 13:35
|
I think the main point Upavas is missing is that no-one is saying that all mp3's are transparent. Obviously a 64kbps will sound hollow compared to the original, just like an 11k/8bit wav would not be an accurate reproduction. That doesn't mean that neither mp3's or wav "sucks" though.
Since you do not provide the detials for the "plenty of blind tests" you have done they are of course completely irrelevant.
Since the results is extremely different from serious tests carried out one can only assume that you did not play back the files from the same equipment, had some settings messed up on the mixer or used low bitrate or badly encoded mp3's.
Just the fact that your description of the actual result is "we always agree" implies a 100% accuracy in spotting the mp3 makes it obvious that either your methodology was flawed or that you are lying.
As for using mp3's in production it's not recommended but not unheard of even in the mainstream recording industry. There are a few studios providing streaming mp3 recording using state of the art hardware encoders if you like to have session for example recording a singer live who is located in New York from a studio in London.
And obviously encoders that costs thousands of dollars is not targeted for home use.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
realtime
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
350
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 17:48
|
i think it depends on the source material and on the encoder used ...
on some sources you will hear less difference ... but on some others: definitely.
http://www.myspace.com/realtimeproject |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 25, 2008 21:01
|
Spindrift, your last comments are an insult to my intelligence. Hollow remains the right word for me and I stick to it.
Mp3's in the movie industry, a big no no. At least here.
For you to tell me that you do not work in the movie industry you seem to know an awful lot about it, mp3's are unheard of in any major production in North America, and you telling me otherwise shows me that you do not know squat about it.
And my blind tests are not irrelevant, your last comment is.
Generally people use a bitrate of 192 or higher. I can tell you the difference on a PA even when the bitrate is 320, and so can many other people. Needless to say that 64 sucks even more. Yes, I AM AWARE OF THAT duh.
Also needless to say that the average so called dj who uses mp3 does not have your multi1000ds of dollar mp3 encoder you praise so high, hence the sound tends to suck even more!
You don't even read my posts properly before replying. I am well aware of the differences in quality and the bitrates that go with mp3's, I stated it in a previous post.
And you tell me I am lying. Who the hell are you to imply that I am lying?
As to the last post, I am not one for compromises when it comes to sound quality. Since I don't have Spindrifts 1000ds of dollar encoder ( I could buy myself a lot of nicer and more fun toys with that kind of money...)
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 25, 2008 22:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-25 21:01, Upavas wrote:
Spindrift, your last comments are an insult to my intelligence. Hollow remains the right word for me and I stick to it.
|
|
I think you do that on your own without my help since you are not capable of making a distinction between different uses of mp3's nor understanding the results of any and all serious tests done on the matter.
Quote:
|
Mp3's in the movie industry, a big no no. At least here.
For you to tell me that you do not work in the movie industry you seem to know an awful lot about it, mp3's are unheard of in any major production in North America, and you telling me otherwise shows me that you do not know squat about it. |
|
Again...the movie industry is full of lossy codecs, both for use in the cinema and at home.
Why do you think the mp3 format is named after the Moving Picture Experts Group?
What about AC3, DTS, SDDS?
Do you think they are lossless codecs or have you never heard about them?
I don't care how many years you worked in that industry, but i do find it shocking that you don't seem aware of the fact that lossy codecs for the final mix is more of a rule than an exception...in North America or anywhere else on the planet.
Quote:
|
And my blind tests are not irrelevant, your last comment is. |
|
Of course they are irrelevant if you do not provide any detail whatsoever about how they where carried out.
I do find it somewhat odd that someone who have the know-how and takes the time to set up proper blind tests on a party would not give a bit more detail when describing how the tests was carried out.
I know it can be stressful at parties and taking the time to ensure that the equipment is set up for a good ABX comparison is obviously not something you do on a whim.
And you have even done it several times, but all that effort and when you account for it you don't describe how you ensured that you could exclude hardware differences and not even what bitrates and encoder you used.
And your summary of the results is "we always agree... even the dj agrees after".
So I really do think that if these blind tests ever happened and you got the methodology right you would also have been able to describe the tests a little bit better.
Quote:
|
Generally people use a bitrate of 192 or higher. I can tell you the difference on a PA even when the bitrate is 320, and so can many other people. |
|
I have linked to a few tests that prove the opposite. What about if you provide one test that confirms your claim?
Quote:
|
Also needless to say that the average so called dj who uses mp3 does not have your multi1000ds of dollar mp3 encoder you praise so high, hence the sound tends to suck even more! |
|
There is no need for a realtime encoder with top quality converters for a DJ, so that would not affect their sound at all.
Grabbing from a CD can be done without conversion and does not have to happen in realtime.
Quote:
|
You don't even read my posts properly before replying. I am well aware of the differences in quality and the bitrates that go with mp3's, I stated it in a previous post. |
|
You did not mention what bitrates you used in the many blind tests you carried out and the quote you provided did not have any mention about at what bitrates you would actually hear the hollowness of the sound.
Without considering how to make the best possible use of a format any format can sound completely shit, so you do have to define some parameters to be able to discuss the quality, something which you have failed to account for throughout the debate.
Quote:
|
And you tell me I am lying. Who the hell are you to imply that I am lying?
|
|
You are making a very extraordinary claim.
According to you tests carried out by major publications is wrong and you claim you have made proper tests that reaches a very very different conclusion.
Not only was it possible to spot the difference with a convincing margin, but you all your many friends could "always" spot it.
I said "it's obvious that either your methodology was flawed or that you are lying".
Since you have not provided any details on the methodology used I think it's fair to assume that that could account for the differences.
If you provided the details of the methodology used and that turns out to not be flawed I would surely seriously doubt your credibility.
Quote:
|
As to the last post, I am not one for compromises when it comes to sound quality. Since I don't have Spindrifts 1000ds of dollar encoder ( I could buy myself a lot of nicer and more fun toys with that kind of money...) |
|
The studios I mentioned are very serious studios in which probably neither of us could afford to rent for even a day.
A dedicated hardware encoder is not a toy but a tool to be used when it enables you to record a session with that great singer that is located on the other side of the world that cannot take time to fly to your producer.
The professional world is many times full of compromises and maybe you would instead make the choice to take that local singer who is not half as good for the track, but at least the recording won't sound as hollow as a 320kbps mp3?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 26, 2008 00:36
|
[quote]
On 2008-08-25 22:22, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-25 21:01, Upavas wrote:
Spindrift, your last comments are an insult to my intelligence. Hollow remains the right word for me and I stick to it.
|
|
I think you do that on your own without my help since you are not capable of making a distinction between different uses of mp3's nor understanding the results of any and all serious tests done on the matter.
[quote]
I know what my ears tell me, and that is sufficient , at least to me. If not to you then tough luck. I understand the results very well, and I disagree with them.
[quote]
Mp3's in the movie industry, a big no no. At least here.
Quote:
|
For you to tell me that you do not work in the movie industry you seem to know an awful lot about it, mp3's are unheard of in any major production in North America, and you telling me otherwise shows me that you do not know squat about it. |
|
Again...the movie industry is full of lossy codecs, both for use in the cinema and at home.
Why do you think the mp3 format is named after the Moving Picture Experts Group?
What about AC3, DTS, SDDS?
Do you think they are lossless codecs or have you never heard about them?
What about ac3, DTS and SDDS?
[quote]
Still, mp3's in the movie industry are a no no.
[quote]
I don't care how many years you worked in that industry, but i do find it shocking that you don't seem aware of the fact that lossy codecs for the final mix is more of a rule than an exception...in North America or anywhere else on the planet.
[quote]
Dude, what does that have to do with using mp3's?
Quote:
|
And my blind tests are not irrelevant, your last comment is. |
|
Of course they are irrelevant if you do not provide any detail whatsoever about how they where carried out.
They may be irrelevant to you, not to me.
I do find it somewhat odd that someone who have the know-how and takes the time to set up proper blind tests on a party would not give a bit more detail when describing how the tests was carried out.
[quote]
I told you how it was carried out.
[quote]
I know it can be stressful at parties and taking the time to ensure that the equipment is set up for a good ABX comparison is obviously not something you do on a whim.
And you have even done it several times, but all that effort and when you account for it you don't describe how you ensured that you could exclude hardware differences and not even what bitrates and encoder you used.
[quote]
I don't know about the parties you go to, usually the hardware, in many cases Pioneer cdj 100ds or 1000ds were excactly the same.
[quote]
And your summary of the results is "we always agree... even the dj agrees after".
So I really do think that if these blind tests ever happened and you got the methodology right you would also have been able to describe the tests a little bit better.
Quote:
|
Generally people use a bitrate of 192 or higher. I can tell you the difference on a PA even when the bitrate is 320, and so can many other people. |
|
I have linked to a few tests that prove the opposite. What about if you provide one test that confirms your claim?
Quote:
|
Also needless to say that the average so called dj who uses mp3 does not have your multi1000ds of dollar mp3 encoder you praise so high, hence the sound tends to suck even more! |
|
There is no need for a realtime encoder with top quality converters for a DJ, so that would not affect their sound at all.
Grabbing from a CD can be done without conversion and does not have to happen in realtime.
[quote]
That may be true, I still can tell you a difference.
And no matter what you tell me, it is not going to change.
Quote:
|
You don't even read my posts properly before replying. I am well aware of the differences in quality and the bitrates that go with mp3's, I stated it in a previous post. |
|
You did not mention what bitrates you used in the many blind tests you carried out and the quote you provided did not have any mention about at what bitrates you would actually hear the hollowness of the sound.
Without considering how to make the best possible use of a format any format can sound completely shit, so you do have to define some parameters to be able to discuss the quality, something which you have failed to account for throughout the debate.
[quote]
I did however mention that I am well aware of the subject above. That in itself should be sufficient.
Quote:
|
And you tell me I am lying. Who the hell are you to imply that I am lying?
|
|
You are making a very extraordinary claim.
According to you tests carried out by major publications is wrong and you claim you have made proper tests that reaches a very very different conclusion.
[quote]
All I have claimed is that I can hear the difference, on pretty much every partuy I go to. And I have probably been to a hell of a lot more parties than you dude.
[quote]
Not only was it possible to spot the difference with a convincing margin, but you all your many friends could "always" spot it.
I said "it's obvious that either your methodology was flawed or that you are lying".
[quote]
It is obvious that we disagree here. However, I do not like to be called a liar.
[quote]
Since you have not provided any details on the methodology used I think it's fair to assume that that could account for the differences.
If you provided the details of the methodology used and that turns out to not be flawed I would surely seriously doubt your credibility.
Quote:
|
You want me to provide details and methodology, for what, pearls before swine, come to think that you doubt my credibility anyway.
Quote:
|
As to the last post, I am not one for compromises when it comes to sound quality. Since I don't have Spindrifts 1000ds of dollar encoder ( I could buy myself a lot of nicer and more fun toys with that kind of money...) |
|
The studios I mentioned are very serious studios in which probably neither of us could afford to rent for even a day.
A dedicated hardware encoder is not a toy but a tool to be used when it enables you to record a session with that great singer that is located on the other side of the world that cannot take time to fly to your producer.
The professional world is many times full of compromises and maybe you would instead make the choice to take that local singer who is not half as good for the track, but at least the recording won't sound as hollow as a 320kbps mp3?
Quite wrong, I would record the better singer, likely onto a 24 bit wav file!
|
|
Oh and I know, I work in the kind of studios you mentioned 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/ |
|
|
|
|
