Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
kent williams a écrit : Actually the MP3 sample is first. OK I got it wrong, using world class 700$ headphones. Not even a surprise as my hearing is not that great after all those years. And if I did get it right, it would have meant zilch. I also don't think a quality sound system would make any difference, at least for this material. That means you can probably find music for which there would be very subtle differences (maybe complex classical music), but there is reason why MP3 320K is considered transparent by most experts. It's very to have a quality DAC though, and I got quite a leap in sound quality (punchiness, clarity) when I upgraded my PCMCIA sound card (Audigy 2 ZS) to an external USB one (EMU 0404 USB).
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
kent williams a écrit : Actually the MP3 sample is first. OK I got it wrong, using world class 700$ headphones. Not even a surprise as my hearing is not that great after all those years. And if I did get it right, it would have meant zilch. I also don't think a quality sound system would make any difference, at least for this material. That means you can probably find music for which there would be very subtle differences (maybe complex classical music), but there is reason why MP3 320K is considered transparent by most experts. It's very to have a quality DAC though, and I got quite a leap in sound quality (punchiness, clarity) when I upgraded my PCMCIA sound card (Audigy 2 ZS) to an external USB one (EMU 0404 USB).
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
I really would like to hear a few tracks, both WAV and MP3 played let's say in Fabric or some other club with a good, finely tuned sound system and then try to hear the difference. i'm arguing that since club music is made for the club, that setting should be considered a benchmarking place for music production/sound quality, that's all. i would on the other hand have a problem with a Bach or Vivaldi recording sounding shyte on my home speakers or headphones, but with dance music i want to have the benifits of the environment for which the music was produced for in the first place. not to diss the all-prevailing, disc-space-saving MP3, just my thoughts on this On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By all means play uncompressed WAV files. > > No matter what you play, if you care at all you'll get more out of a > system if you spend a little more for proper Digital to Analog > conversion. I've been using an RME Hammerfall DSP for several years > now. I found some TRS 1/4" to Male XLR cables, so I'm running > balanced all the way to the house mixer. That seems to make a the > difference in sound -- I think I can even hear the difference DI boxes > make. And the RME Multiface in general sounds so much clearer in the > high end than built-in laptop sound or M-Audio outboard sound > interfaces. > > I only got two responses from people with the courage to try and > distinguish between 16 bit uncompressed audio and 320KBS MP3. Now it > might be that it was an unfair test, but both people who took the > challenge guessed wrong -- the MP3 sample was first. The one other > response I got was 'I can't hear any difference whatsoever.' I wasn't > an objective listener, and was biased toward the 'no difference' > position, but I listened to that sample on my studio monitors and > headphones for a long time, and I couldn't hear any difference -- even > after I actually extracted the difference between the files and > amplified it so I could hear it. > > I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think properly encoded MP3 > files sound noticeably different than uncompressed audio. I also think > that big systems -- no matter how expensive or carefully configured-- > aren't going to make it easier to hear those differences. I don't > think that any objective test of those hypotheses would prove > otherwise. > > On the other hand, there's an art and craft to making music sound > really good, and everyone has their own formula that's part voodoo. I > get all excited about running balanced to the PA, but if you did a > blind test with decent DI boxes and properly matched levels, I might > not be able to tell the difference either. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Davor Ostojic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kent, i was more aiming to the richer, broader and deeper sound i feel >> the wav provides on a club soundsystem. >
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
By all means play uncompressed WAV files. No matter what you play, if you care at all you'll get more out of a system if you spend a little more for proper Digital to Analog conversion. I've been using an RME Hammerfall DSP for several years now. I found some TRS 1/4" to Male XLR cables, so I'm running balanced all the way to the house mixer. That seems to make a the difference in sound -- I think I can even hear the difference DI boxes make. And the RME Multiface in general sounds so much clearer in the high end than built-in laptop sound or M-Audio outboard sound interfaces. I only got two responses from people with the courage to try and distinguish between 16 bit uncompressed audio and 320KBS MP3. Now it might be that it was an unfair test, but both people who took the challenge guessed wrong -- the MP3 sample was first. The one other response I got was 'I can't hear any difference whatsoever.' I wasn't an objective listener, and was biased toward the 'no difference' position, but I listened to that sample on my studio monitors and headphones for a long time, and I couldn't hear any difference -- even after I actually extracted the difference between the files and amplified it so I could hear it. I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think properly encoded MP3 files sound noticeably different than uncompressed audio. I also think that big systems -- no matter how expensive or carefully configured-- aren't going to make it easier to hear those differences. I don't think that any objective test of those hypotheses would prove otherwise. On the other hand, there's an art and craft to making music sound really good, and everyone has their own formula that's part voodoo. I get all excited about running balanced to the PA, but if you did a blind test with decent DI boxes and properly matched levels, I might not be able to tell the difference either. On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Davor Ostojic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kent, i was more aiming to the richer, broader and deeper sound i feel > the wav provides on a club soundsystem.
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
I'm all for fighting the good fight for sound quality, though. I kind of wonder about the idea that you can hear differences in a big club that you can't on headphones or home speakers. Honestly, I can't hear anything particularly well at 130 decibels, and by the time your sound reaches the loudspeakers it's been through digital->analog->digital conversion, EQ, compression, crossovers and limiters. Several issues to consider. Most PAs are either rubbish, overdriven or poorly setup. Most turntables in clubs are poorly setup with old needles. Most DJs have no handle on levels and overdrive the mixer. For digital DJs the levels thing also applies to some extent but also the equipment used for sound production varies wildly from nice things like MOTUs right down to on-board laptop sound (and worse). Another shades of grey issue, it's certainly not black and white. robin...
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
Kent, i was more aiming to the richer, broader and deeper sound i feel the wav provides on a club soundsystem. i cannot comment on this from a sound engineer perspective, but rather subjective experience. i think a good sound system can reproduce low end frequencies i cannot hear at home, maybe sitting too close to the speakers, or speakers are incapable to reproducing these frequencies., but that's the juice that shakes my cells in the club. generally club music strongly focuses on effects of loud sound and following that is the neccecary "breathing space" or headroom that i feel get's tighter with compression. what about the stuff you hear out in clubs ? do you feel there's an extra perspective you gain when you hear a song that you know, played on a loud soundsystem ? is it more feeling than math ? i wonder if we're underestimating the frequencies that we cannot hear but rather feel have an effect on our ears and body On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:47 PM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually the MP3 sample is first. > > I'm all for fighting the good fight for sound quality, though. > > I kind of wonder about the idea that you can hear differences in a big > club that you can't on headphones or home speakers. Honestly, I can't > hear anything particularly well at 130 decibels, and by the time your > sound reaches the loudspeakers it's been through > digital->analog->digital conversion, EQ, compression, crossovers and > limiters. The bass and high end are coming from point sources several > feet apart. A club system can sound very good, but can it help you > distinguish subtle differences? > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Davor Ostojic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> i agree with you. tho it sounds indistinguishable i can hear the >> bottom end in the second part get 'rounded' and looses a bit of >> breading space, sounds a bit tighter to me. i'm using yamaha HD50M >> monitors but to really feel the difference i think this should be >> listened to on a club sound system. but really the difference here is >> so hard to tell i think regular music consumers would take this test >> as a waste of time regarding the the sound quality is good enough for >> listening, with no need for better quality. Specially on car/home >> stereo, with those 'SUPERBASS' and "EXTRALOUD" functions on HI-FI's >> that colour sounds, it would be impossible to tell the difference. >> >> however, i stick to DJing with wave files and I've heard the >> difference in the club. generally it depends on the quality and depth >> of the sound production, of course the more dynamic, spacey stuff gets >> affected more than,let's say, plink-plonky-3-element song when you >> compress to mp3. >> >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Michael Pujos >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> kent williams a écrit : OK that was just a test. Try this link: http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav >>> >>> I think the WAV is first and the MP3 second >>> >> >
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
Actually the MP3 sample is first. I'm all for fighting the good fight for sound quality, though. I kind of wonder about the idea that you can hear differences in a big club that you can't on headphones or home speakers. Honestly, I can't hear anything particularly well at 130 decibels, and by the time your sound reaches the loudspeakers it's been through digital->analog->digital conversion, EQ, compression, crossovers and limiters. The bass and high end are coming from point sources several feet apart. A club system can sound very good, but can it help you distinguish subtle differences? On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Davor Ostojic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i agree with you. tho it sounds indistinguishable i can hear the > bottom end in the second part get 'rounded' and looses a bit of > breading space, sounds a bit tighter to me. i'm using yamaha HD50M > monitors but to really feel the difference i think this should be > listened to on a club sound system. but really the difference here is > so hard to tell i think regular music consumers would take this test > as a waste of time regarding the the sound quality is good enough for > listening, with no need for better quality. Specially on car/home > stereo, with those 'SUPERBASS' and "EXTRALOUD" functions on HI-FI's > that colour sounds, it would be impossible to tell the difference. > > however, i stick to DJing with wave files and I've heard the > difference in the club. generally it depends on the quality and depth > of the sound production, of course the more dynamic, spacey stuff gets > affected more than,let's say, plink-plonky-3-element song when you > compress to mp3. > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Michael Pujos > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> kent williams a écrit : >>> >>> OK that was just a test. Try this link: >>> http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav >>> >> >> I think the WAV is first and the MP3 second >> >
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
i agree with you. tho it sounds indistinguishable i can hear the bottom end in the second part get 'rounded' and looses a bit of breading space, sounds a bit tighter to me. i'm using yamaha HD50M monitors but to really feel the difference i think this should be listened to on a club sound system. but really the difference here is so hard to tell i think regular music consumers would take this test as a waste of time regarding the the sound quality is good enough for listening, with no need for better quality. Specially on car/home stereo, with those 'SUPERBASS' and "EXTRALOUD" functions on HI-FI's that colour sounds, it would be impossible to tell the difference. however, i stick to DJing with wave files and I've heard the difference in the club. generally it depends on the quality and depth of the sound production, of course the more dynamic, spacey stuff gets affected more than,let's say, plink-plonky-3-element song when you compress to mp3. On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Michael Pujos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > kent williams a écrit : >> >> OK that was just a test. Try this link: >> http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav >> > > I think the WAV is first and the MP3 second >
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
OK I changed the file name: http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold-test.wav In Firefox, you can navigate to any URL like this, and choose 'save as' and save the file. I believe that's the same in a lot of browsers. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Frank Glazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this would be more useful if you could download it rather than playing > it in browser. because the link doesn't work because of the space > it's impossible to right click and save as > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OK that was just a test. Try this link: >> http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav >> >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:54 AM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500 >>> 'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form from Boomkat. >>> After the discussion yesterday about how MP3s are noticeable on a good >>> sound system, this seemed like a golden opportunity to challenge the >>> golden ears amongst you to a blindfold test of MP3 sonic quality. >>> >>> http://www.cornwarning.com/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav >>> >>> How this was made: >>> >>> 1. I ripped the uncompressed digital audio from the CD. >>> 2. I cut a short representative sample out of the track. >>> 3. I saved it to an uncompressed WAV file, with no processing whatsoever >>> 4. I saved it as an 320KBS fixed-bit-rate MP3 file. I don't know >>> which MP3 encoder Sony uses this days, but I'd guess they've licensed >>> the current Frauenhofer CODEC. >>> 5. I loaded both the WAV and the MP3 samples back into Sound Forge, >>> and put them together in one file. >>> >>> Here's the challenge -- can you tell which sample comes first? >>> There's a very tiny 'click' that will tell you where one sample ends >>> and the other begins. >>> >>> Listen to it however you want, but if you load it in Ableton Live, set >>> all level faders to 0dB and make sure that warping is turned off for >>> this loop. According to the appendix of the Live Manual, with those >>> settings, the sample passes through without change. >>> >>> If you listen in Winamp or ITunes, make sure that you turn off EQ and >>> effects, and set the volume fader to 100%. >>> >>> If you don't think this is a fair track to try this on, feel free to >>> send me a sample from another record that you think would more clearly >>> show the difference in sonic quality between MP3 and Wav. >>> >> > > > > -- > peace, > > frank > > dj mix archive: http://www.deejaycountzero.com >
Re: (313) Vive La Difference! (Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.)
So hypothetically if your calculations are correct that should be exactly what 320kbps artifacts sound like. On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK I did a second thing that might be of some interest. I took the two > samples, edited the starting point very carefully to get them exactly > in phase, and then subtracted one from the other. In other words, I > made a new sample that was just what was different between the two > versions. This produced a very low level signal, which I then > normalized so it would be audible: > > http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-diff.wav > > This is actually a pretty cool sample and I plan on chopping it up to > use in tracks. >
(313) Vive La Difference! (Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.)
OK I did a second thing that might be of some interest. I took the two samples, edited the starting point very carefully to get them exactly in phase, and then subtracted one from the other. In other words, I made a new sample that was just what was different between the two versions. This produced a very low level signal, which I then normalized so it would be audible: http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-diff.wav This is actually a pretty cool sample and I plan on chopping it up to use in tracks.
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
I can't personally tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 44.1khz wav, but I do believe I can tell the difference between analogue/vinyl and 44.1khz CD music generally speaking. That probably isn't terribly pertinent to the discussion though. ;) On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Michael Pujos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OK that was just a test. Try this link: >> http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
kent williams a écrit : OK that was just a test. Try this link: http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav I think the WAV is first and the MP3 second
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
OK that was just a test. Try this link: http://www.cornwarning.com/xfer/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:54 AM, kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500 > 'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form from Boomkat. > After the discussion yesterday about how MP3s are noticeable on a good > sound system, this seemed like a golden opportunity to challenge the > golden ears amongst you to a blindfold test of MP3 sonic quality. > > http://www.cornwarning.com/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav > > How this was made: > > 1. I ripped the uncompressed digital audio from the CD. > 2. I cut a short representative sample out of the track. > 3. I saved it to an uncompressed WAV file, with no processing whatsoever > 4. I saved it as an 320KBS fixed-bit-rate MP3 file. I don't know > which MP3 encoder Sony uses this days, but I'd guess they've licensed > the current Frauenhofer CODEC. > 5. I loaded both the WAV and the MP3 samples back into Sound Forge, > and put them together in one file. > > Here's the challenge -- can you tell which sample comes first? > There's a very tiny 'click' that will tell you where one sample ends > and the other begins. > > Listen to it however you want, but if you load it in Ableton Live, set > all level faders to 0dB and make sure that warping is turned off for > this loop. According to the appendix of the Live Manual, with those > settings, the sample passes through without change. > > If you listen in Winamp or ITunes, make sure that you turn off EQ and > effects, and set the volume fader to 100%. > > If you don't think this is a fair track to try this on, feel free to > send me a sample from another record that you think would more clearly > show the difference in sonic quality between MP3 and Wav. >
Re: (313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
kent williams a écrit : Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500 'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form from Boomkat. After the discussion yesterday about how MP3s are noticeable on a good sound system, this seemed like a golden opportunity to challenge the golden ears amongst you to a blindfold test of MP3 sonic quality. http://www.cornwarning.com/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav How this was made: 1. I ripped the uncompressed digital audio from the CD. 2. I cut a short representative sample out of the track. 3. I saved it to an uncompressed WAV file, with no processing whatsoever 4. I saved it as an 320KBS fixed-bit-rate MP3 file. I don't know which MP3 encoder Sony uses this days, but I'd guess they've licensed the current Frauenhofer CODEC. 5. I loaded both the WAV and the MP3 samples back into Sound Forge, and put them together in one file. Here's the challenge -- can you tell which sample comes first? There's a very tiny 'click' that will tell you where one sample ends and the other begins. Listen to it however you want, but if you load it in Ableton Live, set all level faders to 0dB and make sure that warping is turned off for this loop. According to the appendix of the Live Manual, with those settings, the sample passes through without change. If you listen in Winamp or ITunes, make sure that you turn off EQ and effects, and set the volume fader to 100%. If you don't think this is a fair track to try this on, feel free to send me a sample from another record that you think would more clearly show the difference in sonic quality between MP3 and Wav. Link is not working. I'll be trying this using high end headphones, however in my experience WAV and 320K are indistinguishable (but I always buy WAVs). And a test it is a bit meaningless, as if any guess it right there's 1/2 chance it's due to luck. To do that kind of test proper you need to provide both separate WAVs (without us knowing which is which), use an ABX program (such as WinABX) and do at least 10 runs and post the results. I did such a test once and failed it miserably. There's a few golden ears who can pass it successfully: for mos of the population 30K is considered transparent.
(313) The MP3 VS Uncompressed Audio test.
Sean Deason was kind enough to send me a CD of the Model 500 'Starlight' mixes, which I'd already bought in MP3 form from Boomkat. After the discussion yesterday about how MP3s are noticeable on a good sound system, this seemed like a golden opportunity to challenge the golden ears amongst you to a blindfold test of MP3 sonic quality. http://www.cornwarning.com/m500-starlight-blindfold test.wav How this was made: 1. I ripped the uncompressed digital audio from the CD. 2. I cut a short representative sample out of the track. 3. I saved it to an uncompressed WAV file, with no processing whatsoever 4. I saved it as an 320KBS fixed-bit-rate MP3 file. I don't know which MP3 encoder Sony uses this days, but I'd guess they've licensed the current Frauenhofer CODEC. 5. I loaded both the WAV and the MP3 samples back into Sound Forge, and put them together in one file. Here's the challenge -- can you tell which sample comes first? There's a very tiny 'click' that will tell you where one sample ends and the other begins. Listen to it however you want, but if you load it in Ableton Live, set all level faders to 0dB and make sure that warping is turned off for this loop. According to the appendix of the Live Manual, with those settings, the sample passes through without change. If you listen in Winamp or ITunes, make sure that you turn off EQ and effects, and set the volume fader to 100%. If you don't think this is a fair track to try this on, feel free to send me a sample from another record that you think would more clearly show the difference in sonic quality between MP3 and Wav.
