| Author
|
The ultimate Wave vs Mp3 showdown ;-)
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Aug 28, 2008 14:57
|
Whats up here?
Why is nobody guessing which of the loops is what?
As for my part. I can tell without listening to the loops, that I will definitly not hear a difference between 16/24bit wav and 320kbs mp3. Maybe if I had some really HighEnd speakers.. maybe.
I have listened to the 16bit loops on my sennheiser hd600 headphones connected to my macbook pro. The headphones are pretty good, but the preamp of the mac certainly isn't.
My guess is, (for the 16bit loops - first file) that the first two loops are wav 16bit and then 320kbps mp3 or possibly the other way round. The last loop is 192kbs.
But I'm definitly not sure about that.
I find the test a bit bad, because my experience is (I also read it somewhere) that almost noone can hear the difference between wav and 320kbps mp3. It would make more sense to have 128kbps vs. 192vs. wav. Because these are the commonly used bitrates.
Mp3 IS SHIT --- IF bitrate is lower than 192.. above that.. I doubt many can hear for sure... prove me wrong take the test.
Another thing to consider. Maybe such blindtests don't work for this subject at all. Since PSYCHOaccoustic phenomenons are used to compress the music it may only affect us unconsciously when we compress the music...
Sounds which can't be heard CONSCIOUSLY are being filtered out by the algorythms... but what is with our unconscious perception?
Maybe the effects of MP3ing are more long term?...
We probably never know...
I listen mainly to music in MP3 format. But I never compress lower than maximum Variable bitrate or 320kbps. Always set quality options to max. I'm happy this way.
  Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 28, 2008 23:23
|
Spindrift, as you might recall I did apologize for the misinformation about dpcm, I guess you did not read that one. I also did read your posts, all of them and it did not merely feel like merely correcting information, but at times quite arrogant and blown up. I do understand the reason why some studios prefer to meddle with mp3, that does not mean I agree with it, and it also does not mean it is what is being done in the world of sound for visual media. You simply claim because it is called mp3 that since it came from there it cannot be not used. MP3's are not used when it comes to motion picture industry standard here, not as a final mix playback and definitely not within a mix either. So maybe you guys do it in Europe, fine, it still remains a no no here, sorry dude.
As to the dj's who had problems with mp3's after wav set, not all of them are as amateurish as you think, quite a few of them know about proper equing, having said that it is only natural that I would not stake that claim if they had used different equipment, as a matter of fact they did use the same. If it was just spl, ok, but many times I detect a kind of hollowness to the sound, and I do adhere that to mp3's. You see, this was not just one experience, I have had this experience many times, over many years, on many sound systems with many dj's, some of them actually quite adept when it comes to equing and sound design in general. It is even more apparent when using dat. Now if the dj's had not agreed with me, things might have been different. They did agree so things are as they are.
You are telling me that there are so many factors in there and I do agree with you generally, however the amount of times I have experienced the same thing, a hollowness in mp3 files leads me to believe that mp3's are the root cause of this. Now we can argue about this for aeons to come, or simply accept and respect each others opinions, and respect is something that I have not seen from you, except from your last post.
So you see, you already know that I am wrong and I already know that you are wrong, I am simply speaking from my own experience, that makes it right for me. If it is not right for someone else that is not my problem. Remember, it is my experience, I do respect if you have a different one. The same cannot be said for you!
And I doubt that dj's playing mp3's are less experienced in general, most of the times they probably cannot afford to buy wav files.
And as far as not getting loud enough in the venue is concerned, usually it only seems to happen when they play mp3's, I have never really seen this problem with someone using wavs.
Now before you doubt my years of party experience, let me just tell you that the first party I attended was in Goa in 1985, well before the Israeli mainstream descended there. Yes they did not have mp3's then, they used sony professional walkmans in the later 80ies, you should have seen some of the equipment used in those days, it would probably make you cringe...
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/ |
|
|
|
Quantec
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
25
Posted : Aug 31, 2008 16:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-28 14:57, subconsciousmind wrote:
Whats up here?
Why is nobody guessing which of the loops is what?
|
|
Yes, I can´t understand that, too...
You can hear it! With an equaliser you can give more strength to the parts where this frequencies are, or not..
At least the 16bit loop!
Quote:
|
I have listened to the 16bit loops on my sennheiser hd600 headphones connected to my macbook pro. The headphones are pretty good, but the preamp of the mac certainly isn't.
My guess is, (for the 16bit loops - first file) that the first two loops are wav 16bit and then 320kbps mp3 or possibly the other way round. The last loop is 192kbs.
But I'm definitly not sure about that.
|
|
Then you should listen some times more:-D
Cause this is also not right...
Quote:
|
I find the test a bit bad, because my experience is (I also read it somewhere) that almost noone can hear the difference between wav and 320kbps mp3. It would make more sense to have 128kbps vs. 192vs. wav. Because these are the commonly used bitrates.
|
|
You can´t hear it without any help...that´s right...
but i think everyone in this forum is able to hear it, with some tools, at least the 16bit loop!! |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Aug 31, 2008 17:00
|
Damm.. I was a little bit sure about the 192kbps since I found it sounded more harsh then the others... For me thats the only one which I believe to stick out a bit.. the last loop from the 16bit..
Hearing it by using tools is no point imho. 
Common guys stop the discussion, start guessing.
From the wrong answers already given you should be able to find the right answer for the 16 bit loop by using boolean algebra 
As for the 16bit - 24bit comparison. Since the bitdepth affects the dynamic which is possible... there should be a piece of music with VERY big differences between volumes.. otherwise there is no point in trying to hear it. IMHO
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Aug 31, 2008 20:59
|
Quite frankly, 320 mp3s sound the nearly the same as .WAV unless you have very responsive and/or very loud amplification (decent active studio monitors should be enough to make the difference blaringly clear), 192 you can easily hear the lowpass/filtering. 24Bit is usually very close to indistinguishable from 16Bit unless you use big dynamic ranges, like in film music and the such... with proper monitoring equipment.
Of course, party speakers/amps are both very responsive and very loud, so the difference should be rather clear there. BUT, in a DJ set, after 2-3 minutes, none of the crowd will notice it UNTIL YOU SWITCH. If you play ONLY 192 the entire set, the crowd will notice nothing until you make a change(just like B&W usage in films like Memento). If you switch from playing a 24bit .WAV to a 16bit, 192 .mp3 - then the lo-fi of the .mp3 format becomes very clear.
BTW: Most studies give the human hearing a (very generous) rating of about 18Bit accuracy from full volume to silence, in case hearing is perfect. The difference between 24bit and 16bit qualities should become clearer if you lower the digital playback volume to 1/64th (lowering bit resolution by 6 bits), and raise it on your amplifier - 24bit will sound more detailed.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Aug 31, 2008 21:34
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-31 20:59, Kaz wrote:
Quite frankly, 320 mp3s sound the nearly the same as .WAV unless you have very responsive and/or very loud amplification (decent active studio monitors should be enough to make the difference blaringly clear), 192 you can easily hear the lowpass/filtering. 24Bit is usually very close to indistinguishable from 16Bit unless you use big dynamic ranges, like in film music and the such... with proper monitoring equipment.
|
|
I have been trying to tell Spindrift for a long time now... and got nothing but shit 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/ |
|
|
|
mk47
Inactive User
Started Topics :
118
Posts :
4444
Posted : Aug 31, 2008 23:06
|
nobody can tell , and even fewer care 
mp3s rule ! |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 03:07
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-31 20:59, Kaz wrote:
Quite frankly, 320 mp3s sound the nearly the same as .WAV unless you have very responsive and/or very loud amplification (decent active studio monitors should be enough to make the difference blaringly clear), 192 you can easily hear the lowpass/filtering.
|
|
Since you state this as it would be a fact it would be interesting what you have to back up that statement.
Do you base it on any tests carried out by yourself or others?
In that case it would be helpful if you can provide details.
I know I'm being a nag about this, but there is a lot of testing done to determine the quality of encoders. With perceptive encoding blind listening tests is an important part of the process when refining the codecs and it is, with the exception of a few isolated problem samples, an established fact that 320kbps is transparent.
So any claims to the contrary is extraordinary and if you are certain that the difference between a 320kbps and PCM is "blaringly(?) clear" it would be interesting to know if you have any substance whatsoever behind those claims. Maybe the bulk of evidence is wrong, but before I discount it I want something more than you "quite frank" statement.
So far I provided links to a couple of tests while the posters claiming that there is a obvious difference have produced no substantiation whatsoever.
Of course a published test would be great, but at least some private ABX comparator logs would really help to establish a bit of credibility to your claims.
And since you obviously discredit the tests I linked to, do you have any comments on why neither mastering engineers or producers succeeded in spotting mp3's when conducting blind tests on top quality PA's and mastering speakers?
Is it something that makes you unique in that you can spot the difference or do you think the test methodology was flawed?
Now in your statement above there are a few things that is a bit confusing.
What do you mean in technical terms with "have a very responsive and/or very loud amplification"?
Are we talking about response in the frequency- or time-domain?
Why would the difference be more obvious using an active speaker?
On what do you base the conclusion that higher volume would result in a bigger chance of spotting the difference in an mp3?
Regarding the low-pass filter I guess you are very lucky that you can hear above 19k in your age after a lot of partying...the average audible frequency range for a middle-aged human extends to about 14k and I think it's very few in this forum who hear anything at all above 18k.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 07:34
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 14:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 07:34, Upavas wrote:
I would guess by more amplification he means spl.
|
|
Err...did anyone question what amplification means?
I wondered what "responsive amplification" actually refers to.
Instead of answering questions you invent youself, maybe you could answer this:
Quote:
|
And since you obviously discredit the tests I linked to, do you have any comments on why neither mastering engineers or producers succeeded in spotting mp3's when conducting blind tests on top quality PA's and mastering speakers?
Is it something that makes you unique in that you can spot the difference or do you think the test methodology was flawed? |
|
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 17:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 03:07, Spindrift wrote:
Do you base it on any tests carried out by yourself or others?
|
|
Blind test I did for 3 friends at my place (Apogee Mini-DAC and Adam s2as - both very good at high frequencies).
Quote:
|
Are we talking about response in the frequency- or time-domain?
|
|
Time-domain... Think of it like this, at 20KHz (20000 sine waves a second), in order for your speakers to accurately represent the transients and the such, the tweeter response has to be FAST.
Quote:
|
Why would the difference be more obvious using an active speaker?
|
|
Easier to engineer with low SNR ratios. Of course a high quality amp and passive speakers will do the job just fine, but some people have excellent amps and speakers less so (or vice versa). Self-amplified speakers tend to be engineered for matching performance of amplifier and speakers.
Quote:
|
On what do you base the conclusion that higher volume would result in a bigger chance of spotting the difference in an mp3?
|
|
Hearing has a more accurate frequency response at higher volumes. Example: whispering at low volumes, it's easy to pick out trebles, but the midrange is barely audible. I forget the exact volume you should listen at for as close to a flat frequency response as possible, but it's rather high.
I assume that you don't work at low volumes when mixing your tracks for this exact same reason (most people don't know why they do it, just notice it's much easier to work that way).
Quote:
|
Regarding the low-pass filter I guess you are very lucky that you can hear above 19k in your age after a lot of partying...the average audible frequency range for a middle-aged human extends to about 14k and I think it's very few in this forum who hear anything at all above 18k.
|
|
If you'd ever hear that horrible high-frequency sound that some British guys invented to get kids away from storefronts you'd understand that this is not always a good thing. I can hear approx 18.2K with decent detail, and can hear imperfectly up to 19.2-3 (11 years ago, was tested for 20K+, they didn't have measuring equipment for above 20K - but parties have degraded my hearing since).
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
bandarlog
Bandarlog
Started Topics :
44
Posts :
809
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 20:25
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 22:33
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 17:22, Kaz wrote:
Blind test I did for 3 friends at my place (Apogee Mini-DAC and Adam s2as - both very good at high frequencies).
|
|
It would be great if you can share the actual results, methodology used as well as details on the encoder and material used.
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 17:22, Kaz wrote:
Hearing has a more accurate frequency response at higher volumes. Example: whispering at low volumes, it's easy to pick out trebles, but the midrange is barely audible. I forget the exact volume you should listen at for as close to a flat frequency response as possible, but it's rather high.
I assume that you don't work at low volumes when mixing your tracks for this exact same reason (most people don't know why they do it, just notice it's much easier to work that way).
|
|
The difference in frequency response when comparing normal listening levels and on a PA is not that great and the changes are a gentle curvature of the whole spectrum , so I doubt that would make the auditory masking principle break down.
Do you have an opinion as to why there are so many tests that show that high bitrate mp's generally is to be considered transparent?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
vegetal
Vegetal/Peacespect
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
1055
Posted : Sep 1, 2008 23:46
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 17:22, Kaz wrote:
Time-domain... Think of it like this, at 20KHz (20000 sine waves a second), in order for your speakers to accurately represent the transients and the such, the tweeter response has to be FAST.
|
|
And a modern Cpu runs at 2-3 GHz, i mean 20 KHz isn´t that much today if you look at it, considering how fast technologies have advanced and how far we have reached.
Quote:
|
Hearing has a more accurate frequency response at higher volumes. Example: whispering at low volumes, it's easy to pick out trebles, but the midrange is barely audible. I forget the exact volume you should listen at for as close to a flat frequency response as possible, but it's rather high.
|
|
well its easy to pick out treble from a whisper since your straining your vocalcords very hard, and what happens when you do that, you loose the lower frequencies and adds high frequency components.
Quote:
|
I assume that you don't work at low volumes when mixing your tracks for this exact same reason (most people don't know why they do it, just notice it's much easier to work that way).
|
|
Depends on what you consider low, but i remember there was a thread here on isra where 80-85 dBA was something that was optimum if considering the fletcher-Mun curve. And i have to agree, mixing at a "low" level ( whatever the definition) feels better, i can work longer without wearing out my ears and i do feel that i can do a better mix if its not loud. I remember i noticed this when i was younger, listening to music in my walkman loud as hell because i enjoyed it that way, then i lowered the volume for whatever reason and i noticed that you could actually pick out individual instruments from the mix compared to before where it was just distorted guitars and drums slamming on your eardrums like a jackhammer.
Demand recognition for the Armenian genocide 1915
http://www.devilsmindrecords.org/
http://www.myspace.com/vegetalmusic
http://www.checkpoint-music.com/ |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Sep 2, 2008 00:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 23:46, vegetal wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-09-01 17:22, Kaz wrote:
Time-domain... Think of it like this, at 20KHz (20000 sine waves a second), in order for your speakers to accurately represent the transients and the such, the tweeter response has to be FAST.
|
|
And a modern Cpu runs at 2-3 GHz, i mean 20 KHz isn´t that much today if you look at it, considering how fast technologies have advanced and how far we have reached.
|
|
What a shame that a tweeter is basically something that vibrates air and not a CPU. You have to move a membrane back, forth, and back again within .05ms and then not continue vibrating unless you want it to. While this is not impressive on the digital level, making something move both that quickly and that accurately within analog means is a VERY hard (and unfortunately, usually expensive) feat. Most monitors start losing accuracy at high frequencies because of that. Even analog amps have problems with this, and they don't even have moving parts that reproduce sound (digital amps have problems, but this usually isn't one of them, hence the bm6a mkII's superior trebles to the mkI).
Spindrift: I used to be a long-time believer in the 320kbps is close enough theorem, and for the most part - it's true. I happened to hear a 320kbps mp3 of some track from FSOL - Dead Cities (the title track). And in the opening of it (after the vocal), it has a lot of relatively muffled sounds hitting you all at once, with only a dab of reverbs really enlivening the high frequencies.
In order to make sure I wasn't tripping, I took the album, ripped the track to .WAV, encoded it using LAME (320kbps, high quality encoding), and then decoded it to .WAV again, renamed both tracks obscurely enough in order to not hint at anything (agbe7i.wav and some other one like that). I put both in a playlist, randomized the play order, and left the room before my friend entered, just to make sure he won't even get a hint from me as to which is which.
I will note: this is one of the extremely rare cases where I could point my finger on it without specifically looking for it. And as such, it may very well be just certain types of problems which are noticeable at all... but they exist, and they can be heard, and that is reason enough for obsessive-compulsive people like forum frequenters to switch to .FLAC (I did ). And one out of 3 friends did not recognize the difference at all, and the other two agreed that the difference was very subtle. http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
|
