Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What Were They Smoking?!?!?!)
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:26:52 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote:
and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So, the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a remix done today by the same people, probably. But none of these variations are remixes (apart from the 5:1 toys). We are talking about different *masters* of the same mix. Some EQed, some maybe 'restored', some (such as MFSL ?) left pure but treated scrupulously, as with kid-gloves. Yes, I'm fully aware of that. To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereTheySmoking?!?!?!)
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: Yes, I do remember that, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, I never got to hear it. What were the final results? Did anyone ever report in as having destroyed their Polks with one of those things? I never found out about it one way or the other. But, man, were those the days! Almost twenty years ago I blew out one of the tweeters on my Warfdale's with Flim And The BB's "Tricycle" CD, one of the earliest. I had no idea what dynamic range meant until then. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
You clearly don't understand what's happening here. Pumping up the level on CD will have *no* effect on masking, You clearly don't understand that I've never even *hinted* that it would. My focus in this regard is in relation to preventing problems associated with the Absolute Threshold of Hearing (which, incidentally, sounds to me as if it could be the title of a Pink Floyd bootleg). and excess levels will clip, whether on CD or MD. But there are no excess levels which clip in my normalized "remaster". This is clearly evident in the screenshot which you didn't see. Data compression is used on MD because it *has* to be, not because it's a good idea. Given the actual purpose for the existence of MD in relation to those who use MD, it is a good idea. Your perception of the purpose and usefulness of that format is obviously restricted within the confines of a very small box. MiniDisc isn't just for music. And audiophiles have for years been known to get snooty with regard to certain *cassette tapes* which are far worse than MiniDiscs in *all* respects. Why are you using MDs as a source in the first place? CDs are fundamentally superior. You're thinking strictly in academic terms here; certainly not practical ones. ATRAC is widely regarded as superior, That's nice to know because my extended experience with MiniDisc recording and my "gut instinct" both seem to confirm this. Unfortunately, it is also my experience with encoding my own MP3s from my own CDs that have me believing that "louder is better". but they both work in the same basic way. Are you sure of this? In terms of psychoacoustic filtration of sounds which are deemed "too weak to be heard" are they the same? Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereThey Smoking?!?!?!)
Martin Tillman wrote:
However, ignoring what kit the end product is to be used on when mixing and mastering is silly,so recordings made when 33rpm vinyl was king took into account the limitations of the medium, in the same way as mixing for the cinema, mixing for TV (which is what I do), mixing for CD and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. Just as I am attempting to take into account my own "end conditions" by normalizing an original MFSL wav ... which, btw, I will agree is probably just fine for being heard straight from the CD with the volume cranked up. I do believe that so many years ago when I first listened to the 1994 Capitol remaster which more closely resembles my own "normalized MFSL" WAV, I pulled a Joe Sixpack and compared both discs at the same volume setting in an effort to eliminate that variable while attempting to compare the fidelity of each disc in relation to the others. Naturally, the Capitol disc "won" and the MFSL CD was relegated to the dungeon. So, the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a remix done today by the same people, probably. That's OK by me, but bunging it through some 'normaliser' (which, as evidenced by the screenshots, also buggers the dynamic range (so it isn't actually a 'normaliser anyway, by definition) ), is absolutely not on. Yes, I do believe it's quite clear now that the li'l Linux app named "normalize" can be made to do more than just normalize in a pure sense - which, btw, is not to imply that it *always* does more either. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereThey Smoking?!?!?!)
Martin Tillman wrote:
Eh? You blind too? Yeah, I'm blind. Not only have you reduced the dynamic range (which normalisation doesn't do, so you are not normalising), in some places you have actually INVERTED the dynamic range!!! To give you a clue(!), look at the peaks around 11 minutes and 24.5 minutes. In the original the peaks are higher at 24.5 than at 11. You've made the peaks at 11 higher than at 24.5! *This* is actually more along the lines of the form of analysis I was hoping to garner by way of posting the screenshots. Thanks. I believe I see what you're seeing, however, given the obviously compact visual nature of that screenshot, every peak you see in the image is not necessarily being rendered *exactly* as it in reality may be. Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more accurate analysis. My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.) You can see my full-width screenshot of Capitol's remastered waveform here if you still think it might be worth a look as far as comparing their botch-job to mine: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...4_Remaster.png Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are present in the soundsource. And moreso with MP3, Are you just saying that? Or do you actually *know* that MP3 compression and ATRAC compression are both the same with regard to their penchant for discarding underpumped freqs? I admit that while I am fairly familiar with the processes MiniDisc recorders employ to reduce the amount of data being stored, I am less familiary with MP3's method. which you delight in listening to extensively. I delight in listening to my MP3s when they are the most practical means available to me for enjoying the music in my CD collection, yes. You seem to have a problem with that. Remember, I own 2,100+ CDs. Hauling them with me everywhere I go for the sake of being a sonic snot would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would be physically impossible. Now if you're gonna be a troll, take it somewhere else, please. 128 is defintie insufficient. Insufficient to what end? 192 is seldom-used, Pop E. Cock. I encode *all* of my full-album length MP3s at 192KBps. 160 more common Who gives a rip about what's "more common"? I have a monumental task at hand to be accomplished for *me*, not for the plebes! The last thing I intend to do is "munge" (as you say) my entire project by employing some inadequate yet "more common" bitrate. Geez. and much better than 128 When I transfer the cassette tapes of the radio I recorded throughout the 1980s to CD-RW and them rip-n-encode them to MP3, I use 128KBps and all the clarity and sonic beauty of the hiss from the master tape is still in there to be fully enjoyed right along with the music. though still audibly inferior to uncompressed (datawise). Agreed, but we're not really discussing that now are we? Nor have we really ever been. And the only time - as far as I can see - that I've ever been rightfully put in my place throughout this entire thread is when I actually got sidetracked and misled into forgetting my original purpose. My primary goal here is not to discuss what I can do to produce the best compact discs because that's not what I do. I've already purchased the commercial CDs and I always respectfully return to them as my initial sources for material as needed. Nevertheless, a majority of the compact discs I own were not mastered with subsequent MP3 encoding practices in mind, hence the gross inadequacy of the nature of my MFSL Pink Floyd CD in relation to the mission at hand. Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have not been normalized. 'Better' to you being 'louder'. Although barely perceptably. 'Better' to me being 'louder' because I believe - though I'm not absolutely certain of it - that fewer of the frequencies were discarded during the encoding process as a result of their amplitudes having previously been increased via "normalize". What new and old methods of measuring peaks ? There has always been one consistent method. The original practice of measuring appropriately optimum peak levels in "up from 0dB" fashion vs. "down from 0dBFS" fashion as is apparently done today. You're obviously not reading every single post in this thead - and given the gargantuan size of it now, I can't say that I blame you. Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the frequencies that are recorded on that disc! I have little confidence in your abiity to hear any subtleties at all, let alone identify or describe them. Describing your playback chain might help. That, Geoff, was a *real joke*. Remember how you said "some people have a sense of humour" after I balked at your move to label me a "Liniot" in "humourously" derogatory fashion? Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereThey Smoking?!?!?!)
"George W." wrote: Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list and see what they think? I like watching a good train wreck..... YES! ROTFLOL! On second thought, my tolerance for gore may not be up to the spectacle. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message I delight in listening to my MP3s when they are the most practical means available to me for enjoying the music in my CD collection, yes. You seem to have a problem with that. Remember, I own 2,100+ CDs. Hauling them with me everywhere I go for the sake of being a sonic snot would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would be physically impossible. Now if you're gonna be a troll, take it somewhere else, please. Would not a reasonable approach be selecting a wallet of , say, 12 CDs to take with you for the day. Or do require instant access to 2100 x (average)12 songs ? geoff |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereThey Smoking?!?!?!)
Martin Tillman wrote:
To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation. I understand your thinking for the past and the present but it is totally impractical for the future. Is George Martin's attempt at adding orchestration to John Lennon's original cassette demo of "Grow Old With Me" a *******isation or a labour of love? Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereTheySmoking?!?!?!)
Bob Cain wrote:
Almost twenty years ago I blew out one of the tweeters on my Warfdale's with Flim And The BB's "Tricycle" CD, one of the earliest. I had no idea what dynamic range meant until then. :-) Wow! Almost fifteen years ago I melted a crossover with an amp more powerful than the one I should have been using at the time. I had no idea what exponential wattage meant until them. :-) -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereThey Smoking?!?!?!)
George W. wrote:
Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list and see what they think? I like watching a good train wreck..... Hey, that sounds like a great place to go for some really *serious* talk about how best to prep a WAV for MD / MP3! I bet there's a *lot* of "professional MP3 encoders" over there! Thanks for the tip! Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
Geoff Wood wrote:
Would not a reasonable approach be selecting a wallet of , say, 12 CDs to take with you for the day. What are you, my mother? Or do require instant access to 2100 x (average)12 songs ? More is better than nothing. Nothing is better than more. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What Were They Smoking?!?!?!)
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:41:32 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
To give you a clue(!), look at the peaks around 11 minutes and 24.5 minutes. In the original the peaks are higher at 24.5 than at 11. You've made the peaks at 11 higher than at 24.5! *This* is actually more along the lines of the form of analysis I was hoping to garner by way of posting the screenshots. Thanks. I believe I see what you're seeing, however, given the obviously compact visual nature of that screenshot, every peak you see in the image is not necessarily being rendered *exactly* as it in reality may be. The resolution of the screenshot is entirely adequate to clearly demonstrate what I wrote. You've destroyed the dynamic range. Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more accurate analysis. No, they won't. My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.) Well, you've most certainly shot yourself in the foot - big time! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What WereThey Smoking?!?!?!)
Martin Tillman wrote:
The resolution of the screenshot is entirely adequate to clearly demonstrate what I wrote. You've destroyed the dynamic range. Compare the dynamic range of my WAV to that of Capitol's 1994 digitally remastered edition and then tell me I've "destroyed the dynamic range". If I have then they have too. Better write 'em a nasty letter right now and 'em about it. Better alert the entire Pink Floyd fanbase too while you're at it. Capitol's destroyed the dynamic range!!! Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more accurate analysis. No, they won't. Oh, OK, fine. I was going to provide you with one but since you're so certain it'll do no good, I won't bother. My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.) Well, you've most certainly shot yourself in the foot - big time! Is that right? Well, I challenge you then to demonstrate where the clipping, limiting, compression and/or reduced dynamic range I've contributed to it is located. Otherwise, cierre la boca, kapisce? Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: Bob Cain wrote: "George W." wrote: Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list and see what they think? I like watching a good train wreck..... YES! ROTFLOL! On second thought, my tolerance for gore may not be up to the spectacle. :-) Laugh it up. Sorry, Myke, I just know what they do to people who come armed only with confidant, self congratulatory speculation (not that the best of them don't do a fair bit of that themselves :-) I spent time today browsing around and reading FAQs, etc. to find out more information about the psychoacoustic model employed by MP3 and it is indeed similar to MiniDisc's ATRAC compression scheme in that it removes *not only* masked frequencies but also those frequencies which are predetermined to be "too quiet to be heard" by common human ears. I suggest you run your hypothesis on the effect of absolute level on the encoding process by the developers of the Lame MP3 codec. Who knows, they may validate you. I've never seen that issue addressed and can think of a lot of reasons why and means by which that would be factored out of the process, but that is speculation on my part. There is a mailing list they monitor that you can find out more about at: http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder See you there, I hope. I've got to admit I sense a desire in you to learn and understand but I find your technique of leading with the chin to be a bit mystifying. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message While the MFSL CD of Pink Floyd's, "Dark Side Of The Moon" may be just fine for playback directly from the CD it is entirely inappropriate for being encoded as an MP3 because it amplitudes are too low to drive a majority of its frequencies above their Absolute Thresholds of Hearing. Read the FAQs harder. A gain of 4dB is going to make diddley-squat difference to the 'Absolute Threasholds of Hearing". Or to your encoding. The difference (if any) would be totally insignificant compared to the audio damage inflicted by the mere act of encoding in the first place. geoff |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Bob Cain wrote:
Sorry, Myke, I just know what they do to people who come armed only with confidant, self congratulatory speculation (not that the best of them don't do a fair bit of that themselves :-) I hear ya. I suggest you run your hypothesis on the effect of absolute level on the encoding process by the developers of the Lame MP3 codec. Who knows, they may validate you. I will take a stab at it at my earliest convenience, believe me. I've never seen that issue addressed Neither have I. Everyone else I know simply rips and encodes to create their MP3s ... like swiping a brush down the middle of a canvas and calling it a "mashterpiece". This is how I used to do it too. Then about 8 months ago, I discovered this "normalize" application for Linux and thought it'd be worth investigating. Then I noticed an immediate and stunning improvement in the sounds of my MP3s after using it. Unfortunately, most everyone here appears to spend most of their time pondering the delicacies of their high-definition masters and scoffing at MP3, carte-blanche, instead of perhaps contemplating ways to incorporate the best of both formats into their lives. This in turn leads to no healthy communication about such matters which in turn causes nobody to learn this technique until perhaps somebody like me comes bumbling along and inadvertently hijacks a thread by mentioning it! http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder See you there, I hope. Thanks. I need some sleep first, though! I've got to admit I sense a desire in you to learn and understand but I find your technique of leading with the chin to be a bit mystifying. :-) There's a word for it but I don't remember right now what it is. Oh, yeah I do! It's called "personality". :-D Myke P.S. I'm a Taurus. -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message While the MFSL CD of Pink Floyd's, "Dark Side Of The Moon" may be just fine for playback directly from the CD it is entirely inappropriate for being encoded as an MP3 because it amplitudes are too low to drive a majority of its frequencies above their Absolute Thresholds of Hearing. Read the FAQs harder. A gain of 4dB is going to make diddley-squat difference to the 'Absolute Threasholds of Hearing". Or to your encoding. Well, tell ya what. I'll just leave that kind of risky behaviour up to you. You don't give a damn about either MP3 or MiniDisc recording quality anyway, so I don't even know why you bothered to respond to me again. You know what I'm trying to do with my CDs and my MP3s and you obviously have no more experience with any of my projects than I do with any of yours, so... Go shave your beard, Trolliot. What about the Christopher Cross, "Another Page" CD I mentioned early on in the other thread? That "older, quieter" disc required a good 13.33dBs of pumpitude before I was able to do anything reasonable with it. But I guess that's just fine for you in your "just turn it up a little" CD-only world, isn't it? Here are the images: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png And here are two MP3 samples in a zip archive: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/audio/All_Right.zip Eat that! Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message What about the Christopher Cross, "Another Page" CD I mentioned early on in the other thread? That "older, quieter" disc required a good 13.33dBs of pumpitude before I was able to do anything reasonable with it. But I guess that's just fine for you in your "just turn it up a little" CD-only world, isn't it? Here are the images: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png That is not the CD - it is one track. That is the level that the producer has decided it appropriate for that track, sitting well with the other tracks to make up the whole album. It is not clear from the graphic whether (presumably for the purpose of a compilation) you have (conventionally) normalised it to 0dB and avoided clipping, or have done your '-10 thang', which could well have driven the peaks into clipping if additional compression was not applied. geoff |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Geoff Wood wrote:
Here are the images: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png That is not the CD - it is one track. Yes, but entire CD is just as "bad" as that track. I was working only with that individual track for a separate purpose than my usual "whole album" purpose at the time that screenshot was made. That is the level that the producer has decided it appropriate for that track, sitting well with the other tracks to make up the whole album. Yeah, any particular idea *why* the producer might have decided to go with such a low level? I've ripped a lot of WAVs from a lot of discs in the past 2 years and that one CD stands alone as having the lowest average level of them all. And it's not an MFSL disc either so you can rest assured even when you pump up the volume, it sounds *baaaaaaad*. Check out the before/after MP3s in the zip file I provided too. Hear the difference. It is not clear from the graphic whether (presumably for the purpose of a compilation) you have (conventionally) normalised it to 0dB and avoided clipping, or have done your '-10 thang', which could well have driven the peaks into clipping if additional compression was not applied. Those are older screenshots which predate our conversation. They were taken at least a couple if not several months ago. There was no reason to add all the pretty pictures and words to those images at the time I placed them online. And to answer your question, my '-10 thang' was exactly what I did to create the difference you see between those two images. Meanwhile, I just ripped-and-encoded the tracks from the digitally remastered CD version of an album I can't stand; KISS, "Animalize". Average level for it was -9.45dBFS. The math says that's +0.55dB *louder* than what *I* would have given it had I done the '-10 thang' to it so, it's pretty clear to me that what I'm doing on my own is still fairly consistent with what passes for an industry standard today ... at least as far average pop/rock pumpitude is concerned. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What Were They Smoking?!?!?!)
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:27:51 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
Martin Tillman wrote: The resolution of the screenshot is entirely adequate to clearly demonstrate what I wrote. You've destroyed the dynamic range. Compare the dynamic range of my WAV to that of Capitol's 1994 digitally remastered edition and then tell me I've "destroyed the dynamic range". You both have, judging by the screenshots, though I can't tell what they sound like... If I have then they have too. Better write 'em a nasty letter right now and 'em about it. Better alert the entire Pink Floyd fanbase too while you're at it. Capitol's destroyed the dynamic range!!! They certainly have. I know which one I want to listen too. Ironic, innit, that we had a crap system called vinyl with little dynamic range, that was, thankfully, replaced by another system, digital, with enormous dynamic range - more than you really need under most circumstances - and what do most of the record producers then foist on an unsuspecting public? Music so squashed it dies. My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.) Well, you've most certainly shot yourself in the foot - big time! Is that right? Well, I challenge you then to demonstrate where the clipping, limiting, compression and/or reduced dynamic range I've contributed to it is located. Otherwise, cierre la boca, kapisce? I can't show you any clipping or limiting, but, to repeat for the third time, 11 minutes and 24.5 minutes. Just skirting over the largest thread I've ever seen on usenet in nearly 10 years, tape vs. MD, it is patently obvious that your 'normalize' is perfectly capable of doing more than normalising, it'll limit and clip too if you tell it to. Obviously, you are entering values into it that will cause it to do this, because you certainly aren't just normalising. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:00:30 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote: MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values - exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'. For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well beyond adequate. I think we have discovered the fatal flaw right there. If you really think that 128kB/sec MP3 is 'well beyond adequate', then we can safely dismiss any further opinions you might have on sound quality....... Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have not been normalized. That doesn't make them better, dude, it just means that *you* prefer that sound. Heck, there's people out there who actually prefer tube amps and vinyl! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:28:08 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: You clearly don't understand what's happening here. Pumping up the level on CD will have *no* effect on masking, You clearly don't understand that I've never even *hinted* that it would. My focus in this regard is in relation to preventing problems associated with the Absolute Threshold of Hearing (which, incidentally, sounds to me as if it could be the title of a Pink Floyd bootleg). Which part of 'no effect on masking' did you fail to understand? The threshold of hearing is dependent on sound levels, not on closeness to 0dB FS on the CD, IOW just crank up the amplifier a little. and excess levels will clip, whether on CD or MD. But there are no excess levels which clip in my normalized "remaster". This is clearly evident in the screenshot which you didn't see. Sure I did, and just how do you think you can 'normalise' to a higher average level *without* modifying the transfer curve, i.e. applying compansion and/or limiting? Data compression is used on MD because it *has* to be, not because it's a good idea. Given the actual purpose for the existence of MD in relation to those who use MD, it is a good idea. Your perception of the purpose and usefulness of that format is obviously restricted within the confines of a very small box. MiniDisc isn't just for music. And audiophiles have for years been known to get snooty with regard to certain *cassette tapes* which are far worse than MiniDiscs in *all* respects. You clearly don't understand the basic principles I'm talking about here. Lossy compression is *never* a good idea, it's just *necessary* if you want to get a certain amount of information into a storage medium which is too small to hold it. Why are you using MDs as a source in the first place? CDs are fundamentally superior. You're thinking strictly in academic terms here; certainly not practical ones. There's nothing 'practically' superior about MDs, they're simply *convenient* . ATRAC is widely regarded as superior, That's nice to know because my extended experience with MiniDisc recording and my "gut instinct" both seem to confirm this. Unfortunately, it is also my experience with encoding my own MP3s from my own CDs that have me believing that "louder is better". Believe that if you like, it's not applicable to anyone else. but they both work in the same basic way. Are you sure of this? In terms of psychoacoustic filtration of sounds which are deemed "too weak to be heard" are they the same? Essentiallythey are - I'd have to do some digging to determine the details. Indeed, *all* modern codecs are based on the same psychoacoustic principles. Basically, they have to be! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Lord Hasenpfeffer vs. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (aka What Were They Smoking?!?!?!)
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:12:34 GMT, Martin Tillman
wrote: On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:26:52 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote: and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So, the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a remix done today by the same people, probably. But none of these variations are remixes (apart from the 5:1 toys). We are talking about different *masters* of the same mix. Some EQed, some maybe 'restored', some (such as MFSL ?) left pure but treated scrupulously, as with kid-gloves. Yes, I'm fully aware of that. To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation. How about the 5.1 SACD? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
In article ,
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: cyrus the virus wrote: the tools have always been around to squash music into oblivion.. Probably so. But please do not confuse my beloved "normalization" with "squashing music into oblivion". I am still reeling from the shock of having successfully whooped the ass of Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. My routine practice of normalization does not involve forcing peaks to clip. It does not involve destroying dynamic range. It does not involve the inadvertent addition of digital distortion to what was originally a pristine, professionally-sanctioned waveform. All of what you have read from others about my ill-advised use of normalize when producing MP3s from WAVs from my CDs has been revealed to be an overflowing crock of ****. And I can and will easily prove this in the immediately near future. i wasn't commenting on you, but the green day album and just about any other rock album after that. the normalization thing depends on the process. from the few times and few apps i've used that use normalization, it scans the entire track for the loudest point and raises the volume level so that loudest point is at zero. there is no sort of clipping/compressing/limiting going on. but somewhere around the '93-'94 era, like you stated, it became "in" to do it. Alright. That's it! I'm blamin' Bill Gates! ;-D he is of course to blame for anything gone bad the sonic impact is there from older cd's still, turn up the volume knob. This from you is ill-conceived too. how so? if all you're doing is raising the loudest point in a song to digital zero, thats basically turning up a volume knob (all else being equal). but if there is some type of compressing/limiting going on, that is a different animal. Stay tuned and I will *prove* to you soon that your assumption is 100% totally incorrect. hopefully, this thread is getting a bit tiring. We still have a lot to learn, Myke -- cyrus |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
In article ,
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: flint wrote: The average level of the signal on a CD will not affect the "sound" of that signal. You and I might understand this but Joe Sixpack doesn't - and in my little MP3-makin' world - Joe Sixpack, unfortunately, is *everywhere*, whether he's welcome there or not... If Joe were ever to care enough to actually sit down and compare 2 different versions of the same music on CD, he's more than likely going to want to compare them at the same level of volume in order to eliminate that variable. If the two discs are not mastered at the same level of volume and all Joe does is simply listen to each of them, side-by-side, one right after the other, I guarantee you he's going to pick the louder one and consider the quieter one to be "inferior" if not outright "defective". And if you try to tell him that they're really the same thing and all he has to do to make them sound equally well is crank up the volume just a little bit more, I guarantee you he'll look you straight in the eye and say, "But I shouldn't *have* to crank up the volume if it really is the same as that other one over there." Perception is key. And if he really wants to buy it right then, Joe will take the "superior" CD and may even also perceive you to be a liar. Myke and this perception is exactly why the loudness wars even started. volume and quality is really trivial when the music actually affects you. -- cyrus |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
StArSeEd wrote:
Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD are raising its volume and raising its effective S/N ratio ('effective' referring to the noise from the analog components of the stereo system itself, not from the CD; lower volume on the knob = lower system noise, generally speaking). The dynamic range (and, therefore, "punch") will remain the same. However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to encoding it to MP3 - or transferring it to MD - because the frequencies in a less-than-normalized WAV stand much greater chance of being discarded entirely from the sound by the lossy compression algorithm employed during the encoding process. If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression schemes. However, if normalizing the WAV causes the amplitude of that frequency to be boosted enough that it then becomes audible, it will be retained. This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine. There is no advantage to that. However, if you're attempting to boost the loudness of the WAV so that more of frequencies in the recording are likely to survive the compression filters, then your resulting louder MD/MP3 will sound better. I don't understand why this is being so hotly debated here. It's all pretty obvious to me. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:23:44 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
StArSeEd wrote: Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD are raising its volume [snip] However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to encoding it to MP3 - or transferring it to MD - because the frequencies in a less-than-normalized WAV stand much greater chance of being discarded entirely from the sound by the lossy compression algorithm employed during the encoding process. Give me strength... If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression schemes. What? You are a troll. However, if normalizing the WAV causes the amplitude of that frequency to be boosted enough that it then becomes audible, it will be retained. Troll, troll, troll. I've spotted you, hehehehe! This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine. There is no advantage to that Hey, you've finally seen the light? However, if you're attempting to boost the loudness of the WAV so that more of frequencies in the recording are likely to survive the compression filters, then your resulting louder MD/MP3 will sound better. I don't understand why this is being so hotly debated here. It wasn't. It's all pretty obvious to me. Yeah right. Can someone please put this troll straight, I haven't got the energy myself. Good grief... |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
Lord Hasenpfeffer:
StArSeEd wrote: Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD are raising its volume and raising its effective S/N ratio ('effective' referring to the noise from the analog components of the stereo system itself, not from the CD; lower volume on the knob = lower system noise, generally speaking). The dynamic range (and, therefore, "punch") will remain the same. However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to encoding it ... If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression schemes. ... However, if you're attempting to boost the loudness of the WAV so that more of frequencies in the recording are likely to survive the compression filters, then your resulting louder MD/MP3 will sound better. I don't understand why this is being so hotly debated here. ... It's being hotly debated because you keep saying the same thing, over and over, to every single post, regardless of whether or not the other posters are talking about premastering waves for MP3/ATRAC encoding or not. In the case of my response above, I wasn't. Neither was the poster to whom I replied. You're either skim-reading, thereby missing the important words (in my reply above, "playback"), or you have a very short memory. Here's some food for thought: bit allocation. If the 'inaudible' frequencies are masked/dropped by the encoder, would there not be more bits allocated to those which ARE audible, leading to a higher overall quality? This is, after all, the principal which led to the use of psychoacoustic filters and masking and frequency cutoffs in the first place. As a test of bit allocation vs. frequency response, try feeding LAME the -k (keep all frequencies; disable filtering) parameter (using a bitrate which will make the differences more obvious, such as 128k). If the encoder cannot allocate enough bits to the barely-audible frequencies to make them sound good, the encoder should filter them out and allocate more bits to the REST of the audio to make IT sound better. This is exactly why BladeEnc MP3s sound like utter **** - inadequate filtering of the frequencies to which BladeEnc cannot allocate enough bits required to retain some semblance of their original form. The results? High-frequency ringing/twinkling/sparkling/whatever you want to call it. Early versions of ATRAC suffered from a similar phenomenon. -StArSeEd -- dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979 IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins Email: am ICQ UIN: 1711589 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
Martin Tillman:
Lord Hasenpfeffer: If the amplitude of a given frequency in an unmodified WAV is "too quiet to be heard" it will be removed by the ATRAC and MP3 lossy compression schemes. What? You are a troll. Actually, he is correct. However, if normalizing the WAV causes the amplitude of that frequency to be boosted enough that it then becomes audible, it will be retained. Troll, troll, troll. I've spotted you, hehehehe! Correct again, two for two. This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine. There is no advantage to that Hey, you've finally seen the light? The minor S/N ratio boost is an advantage for noisier systems. Two for three. However, if you're attempting to boost the loudness of the WAV so that more of frequencies in the recording are likely to survive the compression filters, then your resulting louder MD/MP3 will sound better. BZZZT! Incorrect. Two for four. I don't understand why this is being so hotly debated here. It wasn't. Sure it is, it wouldn't have gone on this long if it wasn't. It's all pretty obvious to me. Yeah right. What may seem obvious to him is in reality an imagined manifestation of his failure to grasp the "bigger picture". Just because more of the source audio is audible in a resulting MP3 does not mean it will sound "better" - unless the encoder can allocate enough bits to those previously-missing signals (usually high-freq signals, which, I can assure you, require many more bits to sound decent than do lower-frequency signals), it will actually sound worse, and, more often than not, as in the case of BladeEnc, *much* worse. Can someone please put this troll straight, I haven't got the energy myself. How was that? Good grief... R.I.P. Charles Schulz. -StArSeEd -- dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979 IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins Email: am ICQ UIN: 1711589 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
Martin Tillman wrote:
This is why I normalize before I encode. If you're just talking about boosting amplitude for subsequent playback of the WAV from CD, fine. There is no advantage to that Hey, you've finally seen the light? It's about ****ing time that you've finally realized that I understand this and that CD-audio quality after normalization has nothing at all to do with my hypothesis. So now that YOU have finally seen the light, quit calling me names, crawl back under your bridge and stop bothering the goats. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
StArSeEd wrote:
Here's some food for thought: bit allocation. If the 'inaudible' frequencies are masked/dropped by the encoder, would there not be more bits allocated to those which ARE audible, leading to a higher overall quality? This is, after all, the principal which led to the use of psychoacoustic filters and masking and frequency cutoffs in the first place. As a test of bit allocation vs. frequency response, try feeding LAME the -k (keep all frequencies; disable filtering) parameter (using a bitrate which will make the differences more obvious, such as 128k). If the encoder cannot allocate enough bits to the barely-audible frequencies to make them sound good, the encoder should filter them out and allocate more bits to the REST of the audio to make IT sound better. This is exactly why BladeEnc MP3s sound like utter **** - inadequate filtering of the frequencies to which BladeEnc cannot allocate enough bits required to retain some semblance of their original form. The results? High-frequency ringing/twinkling/sparkling/whatever you want to call it. Early versions of ATRAC suffered from a similar phenomenon. Thank you for moving this conversation forward instead of wallowing around in the same old mud of "just turn the volume knob". First off, a lot of people here are making the mistake of assuming that I use "normalize" to push RMS levels to Full Scale. I am not doing anything even *close* to that nor would I ever. Secondly, others seem to be stuck with believing that I am using "normalize" because I want to create "louder = better" sounding CDs. That too is absolutely false. I *never* create/burn normalized audio CDs unless I'm making a "mix" disc - a topic that's only marginally related to this thread at best. You are obviously on a "right track" as far as I and this thread are concerned and I appreciate your "food for thought". As for everyone else who's still operating under stupid false assumptions about my hypothesis and, therefore, at their wits end about what they think I'm saying and doing, just go away because you've obviously got nothing positive to contribute here! Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote in message ...
... Unfortunately, most everyone here appears to spend most of their time pondering the delicacies of their high-definition masters and scoffing at MP3, carte-blanche, instead of perhaps contemplating ways to incorporate the best of both formats into their lives. Personally I think MP3 is really becoming obselete. It was great back when hard drives were tiny & expensive, but now they are huge & cheap. Using a lossy compression on audio would make sense only if you valued your hard drive space more than quality. But since the hard drive space issue is virtually non-existant do we really need to compress audio to the tiniest possible space? The only reason mp3 is so popular now is not because of the quality it offers but because the size makes it ideal for bootlegging (this is considering that bootlegging via mp3 takes place at 192k CBR, while a 320k CBR and even some VBRs are significantly higher quality). If you do not own a cd-burner or have very limited hard drive space then mp3 might still be viable for you. Everyone else should check out loss-less compression or just archive everything as WAV files. I hate to kill my favorite music by carving it up via mp3 (or insert any other lossy audio compression scheme here). This rant courtesy of the repressed child inside whom always kicks me when I play an mp3m. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Yosah Akbah Muhammed wrote:
Personally I think MP3 is really becoming obselete. I do not choose MP3 simply for Playin' Kewl Toonz Dood. I have professional reasons for using it. Besides, the principles addressed by my hypothesis are not limited to MP3 encoding. If my assertions are correct, they are true for all forms of psychoacoustically-based lossy compression algorithms. I personally prefer MiniDisc's ATRAC to MP3 but use both for various reasons. But since the hard drive space issue is virtually non-existant do we really need to compress audio to the tiniest possible space? I will continue compress until hard drive space is large enough to accommodate 2,100+ CDs' worth of uncompressed audio data! If you do not own a cd-burner I own a cd-burner. or have very limited hard drive space I do not have very limited hard drive space. I hate to kill my favorite music by carving it up via mp3 Compact discs cannot be uploaded to websites. Uncompressed WAVs are impractically large. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote: Yosah Akbah Muhammed wrote: Personally I think MP3 is really becoming obselete. I do not choose MP3 simply for Playin' Kewl Toonz Dood. I have professional reasons for using it. Besides, the principles addressed by my hypothesis are not limited to MP3 encoding. If my assertions are correct, they are true for all forms of psychoacoustically-based lossy compression algorithms. I personally prefer MiniDisc's ATRAC to MP3 but use both for various reasons. Are you planning on testing that hypothesis as has been suggested? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Here's a GIF animation of your All_Right_Before.mp3 and After files. I
think you'll see exactly what is going on with "Normalize". http://www.c3di.com/images/All_right.gif Eat that! The first image shows the original at the location of the max peak in the file. Then the second image is proper normalization in CoolEdit 2000 of the exact same time frame. Then the third is what the command line program "Normalize" does to the file. Definitely a bit of limiting going on there, but only at a couple of places in the whole file. The perceived volume level of the properly normalized file and the After "Normalize" file is significant in my opinion. If better is having all your files RMS at about the same level, then this file is definitely better. If anyone were to suggest that this "Normalize" file sounds "better" I would have to call them "foolish" :-) "Normalize" is not just a Unix command line program. It is available for most platforms including Windows. It is definitely doing some limiting where the peaks above 0 dB would clip. Even the documentation mentions it, but not exactly what it is doing. It would be intersting to see the exact code, but I'm too lazy to download it and look at what it is doing. Cheers, Pete "Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ... Read the FAQs harder. A gain of 4dB is going to make diddley-squat difference to the 'Absolute Threasholds of Hearing". Or to your encoding. Well, tell ya what. I'll just leave that kind of risky behaviour up to you. You don't give a damn about either MP3 or MiniDisc recording quality anyway, so I don't even know why you bothered to respond to me again. You know what I'm trying to do with my CDs and my MP3s and you obviously have no more experience with any of my projects than I do with any of yours, so... Go shave your beard, Trolliot. What about the Christopher Cross, "Another Page" CD I mentioned early on in the other thread? That "older, quieter" disc required a good 13.33dBs of pumpitude before I was able to do anything reasonable with it. But I guess that's just fine for you in your "just turn it up a little" CD-only world, isn't it? Here are the images: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_Before.png http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/All_Right_After.png And here are two MP3 samples in a zip archive: http://www.mykec.com/mykec/audio/All_Right.zip Eat that! Myke |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Pete Carney wrote: Here's a GIF animation of your All_Right_Before.mp3 and After files. I think you'll see exactly what is going on with "Normalize". http://www.c3di.com/images/All_right.gif Now, that's cool and certainly makes the point. How do you make a GIF animation? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of tape over MD?
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message ... StArSeEd wrote: Yep, the only effects peak-based normalization will have on the playback of a CD are raising its volume and raising its effective S/N ratio ('effective' referring to the noise from the analog components of the stereo system itself, not from the CD; lower volume on the knob = lower system noise, generally speaking). The dynamic range (and, therefore, "punch") will remain the same. However, I believe it is foolish to not "normalize" a WAV prior to encoding it to MP3 Foolish not to normalise maybe, but defintiely not to "normalise" - your version which includes applying the compression that you seem to acknowledge as a Bad Thing while similtaneiously explaining that you prefer it . geoff |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Bob Cain:
Pete Carney: Here's a GIF animation of your All_Right_Before.mp3 and After files. I think you'll see exactly what is going on with "Normalize". http://www.c3di.com/images/All_right.gif Now, that's cool and certainly makes the point. How do you make a GIF animation? Alchemy Mindworks' GIF Construction Set is probably the most popular oldschool GIF animator.. at least it used to be. Microsoft made one too at some point, though as I recall, it wasn't quite as full-featured as the former. http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gifcon.html *looks at the page* Jesus, that program's come a LONG way since.. a long time ago. -StArSeEd -- dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979 IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins Email: am ICQ UIN: 1711589 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Louder IS Better (With Lossy)
Bob Cain wrote:
Are you planning on testing that hypothesis as has been suggested? Planning on? Yes. Done it yet? No. It all I can do just to keep the discussion on-track and troll-free right now! Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Advantage of tape over MD? | Tech | |||
Advantage of tape over MD? | Tech | |||
Advantage of tape over MD? | Tech | |||
Advantage of tape over MD? | Tech | |||
Advantage of tape over MD? | Tech |