Haha, if this doesn't start a flaming war I don't know what will.
Don't get me wrong, I generally advocate lossless and/or analog music recordings. But here is something I have been pondering.
I have a song on CD and 256kps AAC. It's called "Cut" by the band "Plumb". It's a simple song with simple vocals and piano. Not too taxing on the equipment.
Guess what? I prefer the compressed version. Not because it sounds compressed, but because it is so quiet. To pull out a term, it sounds "black". There is absolutely no noise. It just has this amazing silence in the background that is breathtaking. I did the best A/B test I could do with two friends and we picked up on it most of the time.
So here's a theory. Given that audio compression usually removes the frequencies we are supposedly unable to hear, is it possible that as a neat side effect they also remove HF noise which either sounds bad, or has negative effects on the amplifier's operation?
Let the flames begin.
P.S. Why does Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the machine" always make my dog go crazy?
haha. Listening to it now.
Don't get me wrong, I generally advocate lossless and/or analog music recordings. But here is something I have been pondering.
I have a song on CD and 256kps AAC. It's called "Cut" by the band "Plumb". It's a simple song with simple vocals and piano. Not too taxing on the equipment.
Guess what? I prefer the compressed version. Not because it sounds compressed, but because it is so quiet. To pull out a term, it sounds "black". There is absolutely no noise. It just has this amazing silence in the background that is breathtaking. I did the best A/B test I could do with two friends and we picked up on it most of the time.
So here's a theory. Given that audio compression usually removes the frequencies we are supposedly unable to hear, is it possible that as a neat side effect they also remove HF noise which either sounds bad, or has negative effects on the amplifier's operation?
Let the flames begin.
P.S. Why does Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the machine" always make my dog go crazy?
haha. Listening to it now.
There is a big difference between COMPRESSED and UNCOMPRESSED music.
However, nearly all recordings are compressed in some shape or form.
MP3 to my ears is HORRIBLE, I use it to see if I like the album then I buy the Cd, which is also compressed, but to a lesser extent.
I've never heard of compression affecting the frequency bandwidth. Under sampling will affect the frequency bandwidth.
Maybe your dog likes Pink Floyd !!!!
Mine likes horses on the TV.
However, nearly all recordings are compressed in some shape or form.
MP3 to my ears is HORRIBLE, I use it to see if I like the album then I buy the Cd, which is also compressed, but to a lesser extent.
I've never heard of compression affecting the frequency bandwidth. Under sampling will affect the frequency bandwidth.
Maybe your dog likes Pink Floyd !!!!
Mine likes horses on the TV.
This thread seems to be mixing up two different meanings of 'compression' when applied to audio. One is compression of digital data, either by clever recoding (lossless) or throwing away data (lossy e.g. MP3). The other is signal compression, which means making the quiet bits louder. In the first sense of the word a CD is not compressed at all, although most modern CDs suffer badly from the second sense of the word.
So which of the two types of compression are we talking about? They are very different.
So which of the two types of compression are we talking about? They are very different.
Sorry, I can see how my last post was misleading - it does not read the way I intended.
I am referring to the type of compression that actually throws away part of the information to reduce file size. Not the the one that makes everything equally loud and kills dynamic range - as per most modern songs on most modern CDs.
There was a golden age of digital recordings in the early 80s where the equipment was top notch AND the compression (the dynamic range killing kind) was low. Love CDs from that era.
I am referring to the type of compression that actually throws away part of the information to reduce file size. Not the the one that makes everything equally loud and kills dynamic range - as per most modern songs on most modern CDs.
There was a golden age of digital recordings in the early 80s where the equipment was top notch AND the compression (the dynamic range killing kind) was low. Love CDs from that era.
MP3 is a compression algorithm with massive proprietary ultimately expensive cost for the end user and everyone in between. its a case of now we got them ... what a trap.
OGG is a better sounding compression algorithm with total freedom of its use as a file type.
see: PlayOgg! — Free Software Foundation — working together for free software
Compression can be good if it is matched precisely in playback to expand that known rate of compression. Hence DBX Type 1 represents a very viable means of compression and then expansion resulting in a better listening experience. DBX can be made to work real time and the 150x model can achieve that. But about 30% improvement again can be had by recording compressed to a dedicated hard disk recorder and played back expanded with Type 1 DBX. The yamaha CDR HD1500 and CDR HD1300 are such hard disk recorder devices.
Cheers / Chris
OGG is a better sounding compression algorithm with total freedom of its use as a file type.
see: PlayOgg! — Free Software Foundation — working together for free software
Compression can be good if it is matched precisely in playback to expand that known rate of compression. Hence DBX Type 1 represents a very viable means of compression and then expansion resulting in a better listening experience. DBX can be made to work real time and the 150x model can achieve that. But about 30% improvement again can be had by recording compressed to a dedicated hard disk recorder and played back expanded with Type 1 DBX. The yamaha CDR HD1500 and CDR HD1300 are such hard disk recorder devices.
Cheers / Chris
Massive cost? Really? Software to play MP3 is cheap-to-free, likewise software to convert about any file format to MP3. For most people for most purposes, it's an excellent technology; many in the niche group of audiophiles are unhappy with the small compromises in fidelity and that's OK, it's opinion, but I am surprised that "cost" is used as an argument against it.
Why would it? If people want it, companies will provide it since there's almost no marginal cost in providing a low-volume higher-profit-margin file in addition to the mainstream choice. The old model of music distribution that involved physical media and brick & mortar is over and done with. The body is still twitching, but that happens for a few seconds after the beheading.
The real problem is the other sort of compression, which is intentional on the part of the loudness warriors. That's where we've lost choice.
Interesting, one thing I wonder though is if you've compressed the file yourself or if it was compressed by others?
If someone else did it it's possible that there might be other hidden mods on the file and it is those mods that you like and not the compression itself. If so it would be interesting if you tested to compress the lossless file yourself and then compare again.
// Olle
I agree with Olle - the file may have been tampered with if you didn't do it yourself. Let us know if that's the case.
To my ears, high bitrate MP3s sound warmer and more forward than uncompressed. That can be flattering to a singer and some other music. Like Greg, I hear an erasure of the background, either noise or ambiance. That has an immediate appeal, but in the long run "more is better" to me.
I've seen quite a few audiophiles talk about how great something sounds, then found out the source was MP3. Once they know, it's "Awful" "Horrible", "I refuse to listen to MP3". Funny, as it was so wonderful just a few seconds before.
Low bitrate files? Yes, they do sound pretty bad. But not all compressed files are low birate horrors.
What bitrate? I'd put money on it that you can't tell the difference with high bitrate MP3s. You might even prefer the MP3s if - you can tell them apart and I lose my bet.
To my ears, high bitrate MP3s sound warmer and more forward than uncompressed. That can be flattering to a singer and some other music. Like Greg, I hear an erasure of the background, either noise or ambiance. That has an immediate appeal, but in the long run "more is better" to me.
I've seen quite a few audiophiles talk about how great something sounds, then found out the source was MP3. Once they know, it's "Awful" "Horrible", "I refuse to listen to MP3". Funny, as it was so wonderful just a few seconds before.
Low bitrate files? Yes, they do sound pretty bad. But not all compressed files are low birate horrors.
Yes Royalty rates for MP3 are here: mp3licensing.com - Royalty Rates
Vs $0.00 for Ogg. Vorbis.com
If you run a radio station, or stream music .. Not so excellent now !!
Cheers / Chris
Those are quite cheap (remember who pays them and the amortization) and irrelevant to a radio station or anyone streaming, so you're just mystifying me more.
Everything dies or gets destroyed eventually. Physical media still has many years left, it's a generational thing.
Even downloads (quality?? who cares!) will soon enough go the way of the Dodo for the general public, obsessed with ultimate convenience, happy with Napster style streaming.
Regarding the twitching corpse analogy, this is a bit like saying someone over fifty is effectively already dead. Plenty of life left but nature will take its course.
Data compressed music is only better in the regard that is that it takes up less storage space and streams faster.
IF a mix engineer wanted to make the recording completely silent and dead in the background as you say, then he/she could certainly achieve that result without data compression.
Data compression masks detail and removes sounds plain and simple. Subjectively that might sound better to an individual, but if the recording was properly mixed and mastered then those details were meant to be there.
Are you listening through reference monitors or headphones? Are you using professional quality DAC's?
IF a mix engineer wanted to make the recording completely silent and dead in the background as you say, then he/she could certainly achieve that result without data compression.
Data compression masks detail and removes sounds plain and simple. Subjectively that might sound better to an individual, but if the recording was properly mixed and mastered then those details were meant to be there.
Are you listening through reference monitors or headphones? Are you using professional quality DAC's?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.