Audio Files - best quality

Re: Audio Files - best quality

This is a really interesting discussion.

I've been down this road many times. And while I'm pretty sure, on high end gear, I can always pick the lossless encoding, I have never met anyone who could pick a high bitrate MP3 from a wav in a real world scenario. (by real world, i mean typical average consumer kit).

All MP3 encoders are not created equal. If you are a protools user, you should be able to hear the difference between the 'fast' and 'high quality' 320kbps MP3 encode options.

Not to mention, in every situation I have actually had someone try to tell me that something should be a wav instead of an mp3, there have been literally dozens of other things that would have improved audio exponentially more than changing the playback encoding...
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Chris Johnson said:
This is a really interesting discussion.

I've been down this road many times. And while I'm pretty sure, on high end gear, I can always pick the lossless encoding, I have never met anyone who could pick a high bitrate MP3 from a wav in a real world scenario. (by real world, i mean typical average consumer kit).

All MP3 encoders are not created equal. If you are a protools user, you should be able to hear the difference between the 'fast' and 'high quality' 320kbps MP3 encode options.

Not to mention, in every situation I have actually had someone try to tell me that something should be a wav instead of an mp3, there have been literally dozens of other things that would have improved audio exponentially more than changing the playback encoding...
Click to expand...

Chris,

That is exactly my experience as well. A well recorded, well created 320kbs MP3 sounds very good out front. More than good enough IMHO.

I can tell the difference between lossless and 320kbs MP3, but usually not without using my headphones or IEM's.

Most importantly, I don't think anyone in the audience can tell the difference.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Samuel Rees said:
Apple lossless for me. Lossless, small enough, encodable in iTunes. Done. I was not yet a teenager when XM came out and I thought it sounded 'awesome' in my dads car, really just because it was static free. This blows my mind now... I feel like I can hear the bits churning!
Click to expand...

I have yet to hear the terrestrial HD radio. How does that compare? FM is band limited and heavily compressed. What about HD?
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

harrybrilljr said:
I played this stuff through the Roland Octa-capture set to 192K mode, on a set of sony cans. Did it sound good? Yes it sounded fantastic. Down sampling to 48K seems to make no difference.
Click to expand...


Do you think there is a difference between amplifying the base signal a couple times to get to your headphones and amplifying it a whole lot of times to go through a PA system? Essentially, you are amplifying the compression/artifacts/"non-original part of the track" more, so you can hear it more?
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

harrybrilljr said:
You mean the real time streaming from the drive to the DA convertor? Explain....
Click to expand...

Hey Harry,

I meant that getting the files off of your desktop computer and onto a device like an iPad, or moving them onto a USB stick.

It is possible that in the future, when USB3.0 is common in computers as well as devices, this will no longer be the case.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Scott Bolt said:
Chris,

That is exactly my experience as well. A well recorded, well created 320kbs MP3 sounds very good out front. More than good enough IMHO.

I can tell the difference between lossless and 320kbs MP3, but usually not without using my headphones or IEM's.

Most importantly, I don't think anyone in the audience can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

This is it.

Of course information is lost when converting from a bitstream to a compressed format. We know that.

The more interesting question is: Does it matter?

The music industry, my personal experience, and millions of people with $10 earphones have answered that question for us:

No... It doesn't... (99.99% of the time, at least...)
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Scott Bolt said:
Hey Harry,

I meant that getting the files off of your desktop computer and onto a device like an iPad, or moving them onto a USB stick.

It is possible that in the future, when USB3.0 is common in computers as well as devices, this will no longer be the case.
Click to expand...

10/4 I am USB3.0 for iTunes but the connection to the phone and ipod are still 2.0 of course. My itunes library lives on a very very fast enterprise grade external. I have it backed up on a fast external laptop drive and it's 60% the speed of the other drive.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Chris Johnson said:
This is it.

Of course information is lost when converting from a bitstream to a compressed format. We know that.

The more interesting question is: Does it matter?

The music industry, my personal experience, and millions of people with $10 earphones have answered that question for us:

No... It doesn't... (99.99% of the time, at least...)
Click to expand...

True if you're willing to settle for the lowest common denominator just because the uninformed public do.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Dave Barnett said:
True if you're willing to settle for the lowest common denominator just because the uninformed public do.
Click to expand...

I think that phrasing overstates the compromise.

In fact, I think its not a compromise at all in most situations.

The quality difference really only exists on paper - unless you are dealing with a pristine signal path, high end equipment, and a high end listening space. Which, is almost never. Unless you are a mastering/mix engineer working in some of the best rooms in the world.

This isn't a comparison between a ford and a ferrari. Its the comparison between a ferrari fresh from the factory, and one thats got 10000 miles on the clock. If its well maintained, I bet you can't tell the difference, unless you drive ferraris for a living...
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

As much as I like car analogies can't buy that one.

Difference is more like high definition to TV vs normal, or large format film camera to 35mm.

Good vs even better.

JR
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Most music files are ruined long before there's any conversion to data compressed format. I'm convinced that these days the mixdown and the mastering session are both exercises in information-removal.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Dave Barnett said:
Most music files are ruined long before there's any conversion to data compressed format. I'm convinced that these days the mixdown and the mastering session are both exercises in information-removal.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Further, with all the background noise going on in a live venue, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and an uncompressed .wav even if your FOH was exceptional.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Dave Barnett said:
That is a policy decision by the stations, not so much a limitation of the format. FM CAN be very good, if it usually isn't then that is down to the suits at Clear Channel.
Click to expand...

Just like adding sugar to candy is policy, but done to appeal to the taste of the customers in an attempt to sound better than other stations.

JR
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Dave Barnett said:
"Better"?

Compressed FM sounds like steam escaping. Are you suggesting that this is a response to customer preference?
Click to expand...

Exactly... Radio stations have long been in a competition to "sound" louder than each other so they pop when listeners scan the dial to pick a station. If anything I would hope this trend is subsiding as product is already highly compressed, making it harder to hear a difference. :-)

They are not trying to appeal to audio connoisseurs but the general public who are not very discerning about dynamic range. Wide dynamic range is not very useful when listening to radio inside a car at highway speed (my car at least). The CD player in my car even has a "compress" button so I can listen to CDs with some chance of hearing the quiet parts (pianissimo). The radio doesn't have a compress button for obvious reasons.

IIRC decades ago DBX made a consumer expander to undo some of the broadcast processing but the fact that this is not a current product category suggests the market demand for that was weak. The consumers ultimately get what most of them want, not what a few of them want. Even if we are more right than the customers who are ALWAYS right. :-)

JR

PS: FWIW back in the day when cassettes were popular, lots of consumers would playback NR encoded dolby B tapes, without decoding because they liked the extra compression.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

John Roberts said:
IIRC decades ago DBX made a consumer expander to undo some of the broadcast processing but the fact that this is not a current product category suggests the market demand for that was weak. The consumers ultimately get what most of them want, not what a few of them want. Even if we are more right than the customers who are ALWAYS right. :-)
Click to expand...

Is that kind of like the device that makes hamburger back into steak?

I think most of these things come from Suit Preference, not Customer Preference.
 
Re: Audio Files - best quality

Chris Johnson said:
This is a really interesting discussion.

I've been down this road many times. And while I'm pretty sure, on high end gear, I can always pick the lossless encoding, I have never met anyone who could pick a high bitrate MP3 from a wav in a real world scenario. (by real world, i mean typical average consumer kit).
Click to expand...
My limit to easily (depends on the program material) detect mp3 difference/artifacts is below 224kbs. At 320kbs I struggle to detect any artifacts.

However, many cd's are normalized/compressed around 0dBFS and you need to peak-limit at approx -6dBFS to avoid truepeak overloading the compression/de-compression process.

Btw, I really hate this, why is dBFS always expressed as a negative number? Id rather say 24dBFS and have it always imply a reduction. Even r128 uses negative numbers :-((
 
Top Bottom