Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod World thread): http://www.slate.com/id/2179093/ Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles are few and far between. Meanwhile, Terry Teachout's tired old ears don't care no mo http://online.wsj.com/public/article...153888326.html Reducing MP3s to "they take out the highs I can't hear anymore" misses the mark. But he also makes this point, which should be of concern: "In September the Journal's Lee Gomes reported in his "Portals" column that "those who work behind-the-mic in the music industry -- producers, engineers, mixers and the like -- say they increasingly assume their recordings will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music player." Accordingly, these audio professionals are now custom- tailoring their product to sound best on iPods, the same way that pop record producers of the early '60s are said to have tailored their product to sound best on car radios." bob |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
bob wrote:
Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod World thread): http://www.slate.com/id/2179093/ Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles are few and far between. Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD. As I wrote in the comments, he is seriously misinformed on these topics. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
On Dec 5, 6:33 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote: Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod World thread): http://www.slate.com/id/2179093/ Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles are few and far between. Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD. Like I said: Kool-Aid. (IIRC, one of his little sidebars ranks vinyl above SACD and DVD-A in sound quality.) Ironically, Kaplan uses compressed audio clips to illustrate his jazz columns. He had a great tribute the week Max Roach died, comparing the Gillespie-Parker quintet before and after the arrival of Roach. Despite the lo-rez, the difference was obvious. Which gets back to Tommasini's point: Compression can obscure sonic details, but that's not the same as obscuring musical details. It can if it's bad enough, but much of the time it isn't. Which is why most music lovers feel no need to obsess over fidelity. bob |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
"bob" wrote in message
Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod World thread): http://www.slate.com/id/2179093/ Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity recording and playback provides. Tommasini does more than a little exagerration of his own: "Tommasini says this doesn't matter. A "cymbal crash in a symphonic orchestra, for example, will temporarily obscure the sound of other instruments," he writes. "So why not remove some of the covered sounds, which could not be heard anyway, to compress the file into a transferable format?" The old saying goes - a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, but that is not the same as a cymbal crash obscuring the sound of all other instruments. The sounds of various musical instruments inhabit different, sometimes intertwined segments of the audible spectrum, and sounds that inhabit different parts of the spectrum do not compete with each other to the point of extinction. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles are few and far between. Here we see that common failure of logic known as the excluded middle. Audiophiles are not few and far between if you allow that audiophilia is a condition that exists in various degrees. If one rephases the basic idea more accurately, one says something like: Extreme audiophiles are extremely few and far between. Meanwhile, Terry Teachout's tired old ears don't care no mo http://online.wsj.com/public/article...153888326.html This one wastes no time in its rush to wallow in the pit of the excluded middle: "The trouble with this approach, Mr. Gomes explained, is that MP3 files are highly compressed in order to make them easier to store and transmit." In fact there are not just two classes of perceptually compressed files - compressed and uncompressed. File compression works over a nearly continuous scale ranging from compressed until it hurts, to hardly compressed at all. Reducing MP3s to "they take out the highs I can't hear anymore" misses the mark. .....and does not have to be done. Instead of bopping until you drop, you just dance as long and hard as it feels (and sounds) good. But he also makes this point, which should be of concern: "In September the Journal's Lee Gomes reported in his "Portals" column that "those who work behind-the-mic in the music industry -- producers, engineers, mixers and the like -- say they increasingly assume their recordings will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music player." Accordingly, these audio professionals are now custom- tailoring their product to sound best on iPods, This is actually not new news. Seminars about how to produce music and drama that survives compression and still sounds good have been around since near the beginning of the millenium. the same way that pop record producers of the early '60s are said to have tailored their product to sound best on car radios." This definately did happen. An important part of the Motown sound in the 60s was the fact that the inputs on Motown's recording consoles were high-pass filtered very steeply at about 80 Hz. This was done early in the signal path so that everybody produced music that sounded as good as possible, all things considered. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
Arny Krueger wrote:
It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. Doug MCDonald |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right? |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
Doug McDonald wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no I meant = 160kbps "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. Doug MCDonald |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". It's been a while since I did any stress testing on MP3 coders, so I created a torture test composed of about 36 tones spread from 100 Hz to 10 KHz. In the old days a test signal like this could trick a coder into actually dropping one or more of the tones. The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. That's pretty what my test encoder did at 160 kbps. However the noise wasn't really colored, it was something like pink noise. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
"MC" wrote in message
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like pink noise. In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right? In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss of details. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "MC" wrote in message "Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like pink noise. And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change, doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound? In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right? In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss of details. As long as that same sensory apparatus doesn't notice or mind the artifacts which accompany "being fooled", I'm sure that's true. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "MC" wrote in message "Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like pink noise. And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change, doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound? Not at all. Not even 0.1 dB changes. I did some tone burst tests, and there was no trace of dynamics compression. All tone burst levels in the reconstructed wave were within 0.1 dB of the originals. In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right? In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss of details. As long as that same sensory apparatus doesn't notice or mind the artifacts which accompany "being fooled", I'm sure that's true. When the artifacts are below the thresholds of sensation, there is no choice about being fooled. You are simply fooled, and blind tests make that very clear when it is true. With sighted evaluations, people can be fooled by their expectations, and think they are hearing what they can't hear at all. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Two More Takes
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "MC" wrote in message "Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway, This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency content. For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at = 160K) no "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise. At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much high frequiency rolled off white noise. I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like pink noise. And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change, doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound? Perhaps in a badly made mp3. But then again, you still don't believe there are any 'good' ones, do you? Dynamic range is not typically affected audibly in a good mp3. __ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Anyone Know what tubes a Cembalet takes? | Pro Audio | |||
Sony Takes DRM Too Far | Pro Audio | |||
They say the picture only takes 480 lines | Pro Audio | |||
Howard Takes His Break | Audio Opinions | |||
Music takes vision | Pro Audio |