[rakmanenuff]

This isn't a serious enquiry, but is it possible to simulate
mp3 sound while monitoring?
...in the same way you would have small reference
monitors alongside your main ones.

Some mixes are going to CD, some to vinyl and some
to internet streaming. After converting to mp3 there are
occasionally surprises there, and you find yourself
having to tweak the mix to fit the mp3 format.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:26:11 -0800 (PST), rakmanenuff
wrote:

This isn't a serious enquiry, but is it possible to simulate
mp3 sound while monitoring?
..in the same way you would have small reference
monitors alongside your main ones.

Some mixes are going to CD, some to vinyl and some
to internet streaming. After converting to mp3 there are
occasionally surprises there, and you find yourself
having to tweak the mix to fit the mp3 format.

In what way? MP3 conversion doesn't change things like tonal or
instrumental balance - things that you may want to tweak a mix to put
right. It just drops in occasional artifacts that may mar the sound.
What kind of things are you hearing?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[rakmanenuff]

On Feb 28, 2:36 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

In what way? MP3 conversion doesn't change things like tonal or
instrumental balance - things that you may want to tweak a mix to put
right. It just drops in occasional artifacts that may mar the sound.
What kind of things are you hearing?

Reverb tails, delays, that type of thing.

Of course it changes tonal balance? mp3s have less top end,
and probably do things to the bottom end too.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:04:54 -0800 (PST), rakmanenuff
wrote:

On Feb 28, 2:36 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

In what way? MP3 conversion doesn't change things like tonal or
instrumental balance - things that you may want to tweak a mix to put
right. It just drops in occasional artifacts that may mar the sound.
What kind of things are you hearing?

Reverb tails, delays, that type of thing.

Of course it changes tonal balance? mp3s have less top end,
and probably do things to the bottom end too.

Low rate MP3s have a curtailed top end, but that isn't the same thing
as changing the tonal balance, which involves making changes further
down. And the low end doesn't get changed But I wasn't really
thinking you may be talking about low rate MP3.

As for reverb tails - I can't remember the last piece of music I
heard that let me hear them. And of course as long as the tail doesn't
have any sudden loud noises in it, there is no reason why MP3 should
make a worse job of them than the rest of the music.

Could you perhaps post a couple of short clips (wav and mp3) which
illustrate the effect you are talking about. A few seconds of each
will do.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

"rakmanenuff" wrote ...
(Don Pearce) wrote:
In what way? MP3 conversion doesn't change things like tonal or
instrumental balance - things that you may want to tweak a mix to put
right. It just drops in occasional artifacts that may mar the sound.
What kind of things are you hearing?

Reverb tails, delays, that type of thing.

Buy any "real-time" encode-decode monitoring
process will introduce even more delay.

Furthermore the exact effect of encoding and
then decoding MP3 is also dependent on the
decoder. They are not necessarily created equal.

Of course it changes tonal balance? mp3s have
less top end, and probably do things to the bottom
end too.

Maybe a result of the MP3 decoding, but just as
likely to be a result of other design and/or execution
issues.

[Arny Krueger]

"rakmanenuff" wrote in message

On Feb 28, 2:36 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

In what way? MP3 conversion doesn't change things like
tonal or instrumental balance - things that you may want
to tweak a mix to put right. It just drops in occasional
artifacts that may mar the sound. What kind of things
are you hearing?

Reverb tails, delays, that type of thing.

You can't hang audible reverb tail problems on MP3 processing with adequite
bit rates.

Of course it changes tonal balance? mp3s have less top end,

The better coders when set for adequate bitrates preserve bandwidth up to 16
KHz, which is enough to avoid audible dulling.

and probably do things to the bottom end too.

Not really - not much information down there so there's no gain in throwing
it away.

What suffers the most is complex fast changes.

[Mark]

Furthermore the exact effect of encoding and
then decoding MP3 is also dependent on the
decoder. They are not necessarily created equal.


MP3 decoders are pretty much created equal...

MP3 ENCODERS vary in quality

Mark

[rakmanenuff]

On Feb 28, 3:12 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Low rate MP3s have a curtailed top end, but that isn't the same thing
as changing the tonal balance, which involves making changes further
down. And the low end doesn't get changed But I wasn't really
thinking you may be talking about low rate MP3.

It isn't that practical to use large mp3s for fast start/continuous
internet streaming, is it? I use 128 for backing tracks and 192 for
full mixes with vocals.

As for reverb tails - I can't remember the last piece of music I
heard that let me hear them. And of course as long as the tail doesn't
have any sudden loud noises in it, there is no reason why MP3 should
make a worse job of them than the rest of the music.

Well, exactly. On most mixes the vocal fx or drum reverbs aren't
noticable, but that don't mean the mix is dry. A bright reverb will
sound
different on an mp3 than during 24 bit playback.

Could you perhaps post a couple of short clips (wav and mp3) which
illustrate the effect you are talking about. A few seconds of each
will do.

Just the balance between lead vocals and their brightness/ midrange
relative to the brightness/ midrange of the reverbs and delays.

Depends how much subtlety you aim for in the lead vocal sound,
I compress them as much as the next guy but I want lead vocals
to sound like a human being, too.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:04:03 -0800 (PST), rakmanenuff
wrote:

On Feb 28, 3:12 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Low rate MP3s have a curtailed top end, but that isn't the same thing
as changing the tonal balance, which involves making changes further
down. And the low end doesn't get changed But I wasn't really
thinking you may be talking about low rate MP3.

It isn't that practical to use large mp3s for fast start/continuous
internet streaming, is it? I use 128 for backing tracks and 192 for
full mixes with vocals.

As for reverb tails - I can't remember the last piece of music I
heard that let me hear them. And of course as long as the tail doesn't
have any sudden loud noises in it, there is no reason why MP3 should
make a worse job of them than the rest of the music.

Well, exactly. On most mixes the vocal fx or drum reverbs aren't
noticable, but that don't mean the mix is dry. A bright reverb will
sound
different on an mp3 than during 24 bit playback.

Could you perhaps post a couple of short clips (wav and mp3) which
illustrate the effect you are talking about. A few seconds of each
will do.

Just the balance between lead vocals and their brightness/ midrange
relative to the brightness/ midrange of the reverbs and delays.

Depends how much subtlety you aim for in the lead vocal sound,
I compress them as much as the next guy but I want lead vocals
to sound like a human being, too.

I have to say that you are hearing stuff I have never experienced.
Although I wouldn't ever use a 128k MP3 for any purpose.

There are much better low bit rate coders out there, though - what
about AAC+ which at 128k is easily as good as 256k MP3?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[rakmanenuff]

On Feb 28, 4:12 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

I have to say that you are hearing stuff I have never experienced.
Although I wouldn't ever use a 128k MP3 for any purpose.

There are much better low bit rate coders out there, though - what
about AAC+ which at 128k is easily as good as 256k MP3?


Thanks man. Yeah I love AAC. The mp3s sound fine, I bounce
one down, listen to it, then go back into Logic to adjust the
reverb levels, then bounce it down again.

At the moment it's going straight to mp3 from Logic, but
I suppose I could do an aiff and do an AAC conversion
of that, just to compare the two.

The entire mixdown is done internally, set to "best possible"
encoding. Logic don't really explain their exact methods but
I'm confident that they know what they're doing. There's
no point in even doing an aiff or wav for the
MySpacers, except for backup or future use.

But I was wondering if it was possible to monitor with an
mp3 "sound", whilst working on the mix. A bit like having
3 sets of monitors in the studio. Maybe Bitcrusher across
the master channel can give some indication....

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

In what way? MP3 conversion doesn't change things like tonal or
instrumental balance - things that you may want to tweak a mix to put
right. It just drops in occasional artifacts that may mar the sound.
What kind of things are you hearing?

Oh no, it can change balances considerably!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."