Jump to content
The Fuzz damn you!

Will the crappy sound of MP3 replace the crappy sound of vinyl?

Recommended Posts

when someone waxes lyrical about the increase in quality offered by pointless super-expensive cables, i dont like hearing people speading misinformation about lossy compression. ive done a fair bit of listening on Tannoys et al in proper studio spaces, so when you say suggest you easily hear a difference, youre either saying your ears are super exceptional or my ears are deficient. whereas i simply favour the hypothesis that your objectivity is deficient.

 

why wouldnt you welcome the chance to prove me wrong, with your music and your system, if i can make it a transparent process that cant be rigged against you? if our positions were reversed i would see it as a bit of fun.

 

but i guess i understand where youre coming from. when i tell people about the pink elephants i see prancing in the clouds, most people dont believe they exist! but thats okay -- i just tell them the optical centre of their brain musnt be sensitive enough to discern the subtle contrast differences between bright white and bright pink. that, or its all just a matter of taste anyway, and come on everybody lets all choose to live in a bubble of our own self-delusion! ;P

Now this is just silly, for one, I don't use expensive cables..so I have no idea where this comes into it! I make up my own.

 

Ooo...Tannoy speakers in a Studio, wow :P

 

Maybe you just can't hear as well as some people?

 

Also, I am pretty sure I have never stated that I can easily tell the difference with CD and high bit rate compressed files, sometimes it is subtle, often it is not (to my ears), in some cases I may not be sure.

Misinformation is not apparent, I have been stating what I have experienced........nothing more. Anyway! the same could be said in regards to what you say about the subject.

 

Finally!

You are the one demanding proof, I don't give a flying fuck what you listen to, and I don't have a need for anybody to prove anything to me.

 

Why do you need proof so much, is it because you have a need for support for the position you take.

 

Anyway, carry on wanking on this "show me proof!" thing if you wish, though you will have to do so with someone else :)

 

Edit:In the end, the findings you have from listening is not the same as what I have found in my experience, big deal!

 

Who cares? not me, but maybe you do.

 

Edit:Typo.

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for surround audio, unless it's designed around the technology - that is, written to be engineered in a surround format, it is gimmicky. period. That's not to say older recordings wont sound neat, but that's all it is, neat tricks.

 

As for proof of this and that, HAH! Your all just going to agree to disagree. The question isn't whether proof exists one way or the other over a format type, but how many pages will it take.

 

I wrote more, but what's the point ;)

 

*edit

 

Oh yeah, LogicProbe, Broskie's octal boards are a thing of beauty! And handy if your Abram's tank is in need of extra armor plating :o It's kick arse line stage too!

 

I don't think he goes there much himself anymore.

Edited by lazyfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is just silly, for one, I don't use expensive cables..so I have no idea where this comes into it! I make up my own.

 

Also, I am pretty sure I have never stated that I can easily tell the difference with CD and high bit rate, sometimes it is subtle.

i suggested that your comments suggest you take this position, but that is a fair point. i am however still interested in how subtle that difference is. remember, i also prefer lossless, because although i havent done extensive ABX testing, i am reasonably confident that if people can hear the difference, i will eventually. so why would i prefer 99.9% quality when i can just as easily have 100%, storage permitting?

 

AND, i am even willing to entertain the possibility that the missing 0.1% (for arguments sake) contains information that works so subliminally that the very nature of ABX testing would render its presence or absence virtually impossible to detect.

 

Why do you need proof so much, is it because you have a need for support for the position you take.

no its because i am interested in facts. and i detest misinformation in general, as per the audio cable reference you misunderstood.

 

above, i likened 320kps mp3 to 99.9% quality, whereas people carry on like its more like 90% or even worse.

 

if you did my test and the results were no better than you just guessing, you still wouldnt be proven "wrong" per se. it would just mean that the likelihood of you telling the difference is perhaps a lot lower than you realise. as someone who cares about high fidelity, i dont understand why you dont want to know for sure, or if you believe you do, why you wouldnt help a brother out by verifying some things. i am just a person trying to learn more and take the opportunity to hone my understanding of the topic. but i work with facts, so unfortunately, unsubstantiated opinion is of little value to me.

 

but whatever dude, if you find that threatening or just a waste of time, so be it.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so let me get this right?

 

I rip a track to Wave format, and upload it somewhere.

 

You convert it to 320kb bit rate and I compare that to the original on my system.

 

Is that correct?

 

(This is silly, because it doesn't consider different hearing abilities from one person to another, and it may be more evident in one system and not another, so many variables)

 

I agree with Lazyfly, It's a wasted debate :)

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for proof of this and that, HAH! Your all just going to agree to disagree. The question isn't whether proof exists one way or the other over a format type, but how many pages will it take.

 

I wrote more, but what's the point ;)

try to pay more attention.

 

lets say one day its established that nobody can identify the difference between the very best mp3 and CD. that, my friend, would be a fact. nothing to do with opinion.

 

 

 

As for surround audio, unless it's designed around the technology - that is, written to be engineered in a surround format, it is gimmicky. period. That's not to say older recordings wont sound neat, but that's all it is, neat tricks.

thats a little absolute. unfortunately there is a damned lot of gimmicky stuff out there because the genre just isnt appropriate or as you say, its production was never planned for surround.

 

but "neat" is neat, whether it is a 'trick' or not. and the music doesnt specifically have to be written for surround. this is why i mentioned reverb. anything, recorded in a good room -- that is to say, where the room sound is an integral part of the resultant stereo production, and there hasnt been an exclusive reliance on close miking -- has the *potential* to be enhanced by the additional spatial information conveyable through extra channels. this is particularly the case where a stereo mike technique has been used and/or some kind of surround technique. there are ways to process timing and phase information to best reconstruct those acoustics in the listening space.

 

a good room is a good room. if your drums sound amazing inside it, and your overheads/room-mike recordings are good candidates, you bet your arse that sound can be more faithfully reproduced over 4+ speakers than 2. but we are possibly talking about surround levels so low they are in danger of being drowned out by the main two speakers.

 

edit:

 

...which i should add, may not necessarily matter. i mean, i am not sure, but you may not need to actually be able to 'hear' the surround stuff consciously for your brain to benefit from certain cues.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so let me get this right?

 

I rip a track to Wave format, and upload it somewhere.

 

You convert it to 320kb bit rate and I compare that to the original on my system.

 

Is that correct?

 

(This is silly, because it doesn't consider different hearing abilities from one person to another, and it may be more evident in one system and not another, so many variables)

i am interested in your ears and your system, and how they inform your opinion. if you dont ace the test, youre absolutely right, it doesnt tell me that someone else wouldnt ace it easily. but if you do ace the test, i would at least have first hand evidence that it can be done and have to readjust my prejudices. and all 'grey area' interpretations in between.

 

you have the general gist of the process.

 

i would need 8:20 (min:sec) worth of any material in wave format. then, i could create 25 sound files of 20 seconds length. they would then be provided in the form of randomly 'shuffled' pairs of the same content, with one in each pair having been infected by mp3's corrupting influence.

 

Red_01.wav, Blue_01.wav

Red_02.wav, Blue_02.wav

...

...

Red_25.wav, Blue_25.wav

 

yes, 25 is alot. but its a good compromise between fairness and practicality. obviously providing just a single pair would be extremely unfair.

 

i would then rapidshit a password protected rar file containing the "answers", and also whatever is necessary for you to exactly reproduce the mp3 to wave conversions yourself.

 

i would also detail something tricky that i would have done to prevent you cheating which you would be totally fine with, but its best not describe beforehand in case you arent the upstanding man of integrity you appear to be and it gives you ideas :D

 

you would then post your results, and get the rar password.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you prefer sit on the stage, or in the audience?

thats primarily an artistic question. there has been much talk over the years about the differences between aiming for a 'they are here' or 'you are there' experience, both of which can be tackled with multiple channels. but sure, if you want to sit at one end of a long hall holding your lit lighter aloft with your speakers at the other end, then this will place severe limitations on the applicability of any conventional surround technique.

 

personally, i listen more on headphones and cant afford a good surround set up AND wouldnt want to sit in one spot to listen to my music anyway, so i dont care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thehung, like I wrote, we can agree to disagree.

 

This comment though, "you bet your arse that sound can be more faithfully reproduced over 4+ speakers than 2. but we are possibly talking about surround levels so low they are in danger of being drowned out by the main two speakers."

 

We still will not agree, you've made up your mind from reading too many websites or something. But still. Drum sets are a multiple point source instrument in an area that cannot surround you. Period. Unless the drummer is a rather large octopus with arms that reach over your shoulders.

 

Your argument doesn't rely upon the instruments but the recording studio.

 

Oh, and you might want to pay attention. No one has established any facts. I didn';t write any opinion regards to formats. I simply stated that as no one has provided any factual evidence you will not come to any conclusion but agree to disagree. This argument is like tic-tac-toe and I'll have no further part of it.

 

What I like to do is actually turn on my system and listen to music. In the end it doesn't matter if it's a $100,000 system or an iPod running though a PC. As for missing information, your brain has the uncanny knack to fill in obvious gaps much like error correction in CD players. For your next Google search I recommend psychoacoustics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lazyfly, ive recorded several bands, miked many drumkits, and experimented with many more miking techniques. and whilst the practical side of things is not my forte and i could hardly call myself 'experienced' by any stretch in the grand scheme of things, i know quite a lot about audio production theory as a whole and specifically acoustics -- the learning of which, i assure you, has come to me from multiple sources, including but emphatically not limited to "reading too many websites or something" ;)

 

my apologies if i took your "agree to disagree" stance out of context earlier. i thought you were relating it too the mp3 vs CD strain of this thread.

 

as for your quote about the capacitor guy. i agree that not everything is quantifiable, and even when it is, we may still be left with nothing but subjective opinion. which musical note is "better", A or C? who the fuck knows, right? we know the Hertz values, but that doesnt mean anything, right? however, i dont believe for a second that the effect of the different capacitor isnt measurable in the signal. i dont give a flying shit if the man is Jesus himself, IF he is not imagining things (and possibly even if he is LOL) swapping out the caps WILL show up differences in a Fourier analysis of an impulse response through that circuit. but of course, as above, the calculated results might not explain the perceived difference in quality -- which i think is the actual thrust of your point, and i agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

further to the surround discussion:

 

keep in mind, if the drums sound great in a Steely Dan song, and a major ingredient of this greatness involves the acoustics of their recording space (entirely plausible), an integral part of this is your stereo speakers doing an okay-ish job of producing the impulse responses of the hits in the room and relaying information about the decay and timing differences of each set of early and late left and right reflections to your ears. so youre probably already being placed in that room in a virtual sense, or maybe a very similar one through digital reverb and delay. this is because a completely dry sound in a dead space, with nothing but panning and level differences to mediate a sense of space, would sound SHIT. surround can compliment this goodness.

 

and it can be used so you dont feel as if sounds are weirdly creeping up from behind you. but i accept how unwelcome that can be, and how it wont work for many kinds of music, and that some people will always prefer none at all.

 

it does make you wonder though, about the conventions we stick to. if you were going to play me some solo guitar stuff, why should that stream of grooviness emanate from just one or two forward facing cabinets specifically tied to where you are standing? what if you are playing in a cave, like the way many acoustic instruments were experienced by the ancients? if that sound was enveloping me, and that was your awesome intention, perhaps the best way to replicate it later would be to record it and play it back in surround. i wonder sometimes whether traditionalism is holding us back.

 

 

alright. i think ive used up my thread quota for today :)

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so let me get this right?

 

I rip a track to Wave format, and upload it somewhere.

 

You convert it to 320kb bit rate and I compare that to the original on my system.

 

Is that correct?

 

(This is silly, because it doesn't consider different hearing abilities from one person to another, and it may be more evident in one system and not another, so many variables)

i am interested in your ears and your system, and how they inform your opinion. if you dont ace the test, youre absolutely right, it doesnt tell me that someone else wouldnt ace it easily. but if you do ace the test, i would at least have first hand evidence that it can be done and have to readjust my prejudices. and all 'grey area' interpretations in between.

 

you have the general gist of the process.

 

i would need 8:20 (min:sec) worth of any material in wave format. then, i could create 25 sound files of 20 seconds length. they would then be provided in the form of randomly 'shuffled' pairs of the same content, with one in each pair having been infected by mp3's corrupting influence.

 

Red_01.wav, Blue_01.wav

Red_02.wav, Blue_02.wav

...

...

Red_25.wav, Blue_25.wav

 

yes, 25 is alot. but its a good compromise between fairness and practicality. obviously providing just a single pair would be extremely unfair.

 

i would then rapidshit a password protected rar file containing the "answers", and also whatever is necessary for you to exactly reproduce the mp3 to wave conversions yourself.

 

i would also detail something tricky that i would have done to prevent you cheating which you would be totally fine with, but its best not describe beforehand in case you arent the upstanding man of integrity you appear to be and it gives you ideas :D

 

you would then post your results, and get the rar password.

 

This is supposed to be representative of how most people copy to Mp3 for play back?

 

You will put in place something that will prevent me from cheating, yet I have to trust you on whether or not I have picked right or wrong?

 

Sorry, but this is a fucking joke!

 

Just be happy with what you now believe ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so let me get this right?

 

I rip a track to Wave format, and upload it somewhere.

 

You convert it to 320kb bit rate and I compare that to the original on my system.

 

Is that correct?

 

(This is silly, because it doesn't consider different hearing abilities from one person to another, and it may be more evident in one system and not another, so many variables)

i am interested in your ears and your system, and how they inform your opinion. if you dont ace the test, youre absolutely right, it doesnt tell me that someone else wouldnt ace it easily. but if you do ace the test, i would at least have first hand evidence that it can be done and have to readjust my prejudices. and all 'grey area' interpretations in between.

 

you have the general gist of the process.

 

i would need 8:20 (min:sec) worth of any material in wave format. then, i could create 25 sound files of 20 seconds length. they would then be provided in the form of randomly 'shuffled' pairs of the same content, with one in each pair having been infected by mp3's corrupting influence.

 

Red_01.wav, Blue_01.wav

Red_02.wav, Blue_02.wav

...

...

Red_25.wav, Blue_25.wav

 

yes, 25 is alot. but its a good compromise between fairness and practicality. obviously providing just a single pair would be extremely unfair.

 

i would then rapidshit a password protected rar file containing the "answers", and also whatever is necessary for you to exactly reproduce the mp3 to wave conversions yourself.

 

i would also detail something tricky that i would have done to prevent you cheating which you would be totally fine with, but its best not describe beforehand in case you arent the upstanding man of integrity you appear to be and it gives you ideas :D

 

you would then post your results, and get the rar password.

 

This is supposed to be representative of how most people copy to Mp3 for play back?

 

You will put in place something that will prevent me from cheating, yet I have to trust you on whether or not I have picked right or wrong?

 

Sorry, but this is a fucking joke!

 

Just be happy with what you now believe ;)

 

As I mentioned earlier, you can always set up your own ABX with Foobar. Get a sample of a song (or an entire song). Pick one that you *know* has a discernible difference between MP3 and WAV. Convert one to WAV, the other the MP3. Follow the instructions and do the test. If you're interested, that is.

 

Really though, I don't know why you're being so hostile here. Hung has asked you quite politely to perform a test that he, with his auditory sensitivity, cannot perform (or at least, cannot pass). As I understand it, he's interested in what features of a song tend to become obscured under lossy compression, and he's also giving you a chance to test, for yourself, whether your hearing is as good as you think it is. It's an interesting notion, albeit a potentially frightening one for someone who places a great deal of stock in something that, really, could just be a "placebo effect". Still, though, the hostility is uncalled for; it's a simple enough test, presented without any duplicity, in the spirit of scientific experimentation.

 

I do have to admit that I find it curious that so many audiophiles (in my limited experience) tend to refuse any attempts to measure or qualify their superior hearing or attention to detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No hostility from me, I just think the whole thing is silly!

 

The requests for proof are silly, the way It's done is also silly.

 

So silly, It's just plain laughable.........lol......see!

 

:)

Edited by datafast69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you use MP3 @ 320kbs when the file size is similar to a FLAC?

 

It's also interesting that FLAC now has a hi-res (24/96) solution as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No hostility from me, I just think the whole thing is silly!

 

The requests for proof are silly, the way It's done is also silly.

 

So silly, It's just plain laughable.........lol......see!

 

:)

Ah... I guess I misinterpreted your "this is a fucking joke" comment. Good to see.

 

I don't see why the requests for proof are silly though, I thought it was an interesting question. It's always to know how/why some people are able to do the things they do, and to have some quantitative analysis of the limits of human perception. I also can't say I see what's "silly" about the way it's being done (or would be done). It's a rigorous attempt to remove every possible variable except your ears, which I would think you'd be all for.

 

*shrug*

 

Why would you use MP3 @ 320kbs when the file size is similar to a FLAC?

Beats me. Compatibility maybe? Although any MP3 player worth paying for will also have a lossless option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your talking about two different playback systems. It's pretty well known that a plain paper coned driver may muffle very fine details. The kind that are likely to be missing in higher sample recordings - if at all. A metal cone driver however will be quite a bit brighter - or depending on who you ask, more detailed, revealing etc.

 

What datafast hears will be different to thehungs. They could even hear different details on each others systems - which is likely. I'd go as far as saying that if the Peerless mid/woofer in datafast's stand mount pic is the nomex driver I believe it to be (830875), it's a great music maker but not a great fine detail retriever/reproducer. Even if it's not the one I think it is, the Peerless drivers I've used have all been great, but lose out on details to a Scanspeak revelator (8531G00), Fostex FE127e and CSS FR125, as a couple of examples. I'm quite fond of Peerless so don't read into this as putting them down. I use their tweets (810921) :D

 

Also, interesting as it is, critical listening is boring as bat shit (which I believe is quite useful to particular cultures, but still rather boring as far as poop goes). It's also not listening to music but equipment.

 

Anyway, enjoy the squabbles :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/me enters part way through the discussion

 

About the perceived differences between formats (media) and equipment.

 

Experience says to me , that the difference is not noticed in the short term (assuming a high bit rate mp3 and reasonable mid-range audio kit).

I have formed my preferences is with more long term "critical" listening, that is sitting down and listening to the music as the sole activity. Not as back ground, not gaming and not dancing.

 

In that situation certain configurations of media and equipment can have a fatiguing effect on my ears.

Put another way, sometimes I flip through to another track because it is not doing it for me.

 

But I have found that using my preferred media format and equipment I can sit and listen to an entire album, even if not every song is one of my favourites, and enjoy the experience.

 

The difference is subtle and no doubt, a personal one.

 

Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hay, Yogs'

I pretty much only listen in a critical listening situation, focused entirely on the music.

 

It's very rare that I have music as a back ground in any way, I like to listen sitting in the sweet spot with no other distractions what so ever.

 

With the lights out at night is preference for me, helps the speakers disappear...

 

It's the way I enjoy listening to music :)

 

If I were to have music playing as back ground, then it wouldn't matter what format it was, as for me..........it would go pretty much unnoticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it sounds crap, I turn it off.

I find music on the radio annoying so I listen to talk or CDs.

+1

 

Unfortunately I can't turn the music off at work :(

I can't stand listening to people try to play their iPod through the cheapest pair of computer speakers we've got.

Or worse when someone tries their generic MP3 player with MP3s ripped at < 128 through something like the logitech z5500. And then tries to tell us that the speakers are crap because their music sounds shit through them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×