| steve p |
| Hey,I`ve noticed some things about Mp3`s lately. Has anyone ever listened to an Mp3 with your headphone plug pulled out a little bit (to disconnect the ground between the channels and get that out-of-phase sound with no vocals?) You can REALLY hear the distortion,man! More artifacts than a Mexican museum during Aztec history week! (That was Mexico,wasn`t it?) :) What I`m hearing with some Mp3`s,I call a "swirly" type sound,like a metallic rustling or ringing noise. Other people have said they hear a "jangling" of the treble,and that must be what I`m hearing. VERY noticeable when you listen out of phase! Makes me wonder how much of that distortion is perceptible sub-consciously,without really "hearing" it,even when the music is playing normally (in-phase). I think 128-160 kb/s Mp3 wrecks havoc on cymbals. Listen to some songs with high-end or really metallic-sounding cymbals,like "Lack of Communication" by Ratt, "Interstate Love Song" by STP,or most older Van Halen stuff. The cymbals sound like they`re under water. They really improve at 192k,though. At least to me they seem to. |
|
|
| Richard C |
| If you diconnect the ground you will hear the difference signal L-R. |
|
|
| Cradle22 |
Hi!
That must have something to do with most people encoding mp3's with "Joint Stereo" encoding, which combines the signal of both channels whenever that can be done without problems, therefore saving bitrate for more complex passges.
Joint stereo is actually considered superior to "Stereo", at least in blind listening tests done at HydrogenAudio, which is why it has become the default encoding scheme for the Lame MP3 encoder.
But of course, if you listen only to the differential signal, it will sound very different from the original differential signal of the audiol source.
Bye,
Arndt |
|
|
| SpaBlauw |
Funny, i've noticed the same thing.
Is it due to joint stereo ? Coz, then you had to hear gaps when the signal of both channel is equal. |
|
|
| tschrama |
I agree that that is a large auduible difference between 128/s and 192/s. I just can't enjoy the 128/s ... it's horrible.. . the jangeling, the treble ..all you just said.. I hear it too ... maybe there's something wrong with my MP3 /decoder/enconder.. but I can enjoy the 192/s....
Greetings,
Thijs |
|
|
| weissi |
Hi!
do you know monkeys audio? it compresses lossles, not bad when you ask me....
But for normal listening Iīll go for >192kbit... thatīs enough... |
|
|
| steve p |
| Thanks for the replies, guys. I`ve heard that Lame is the best,so I`ll try that. I`ve been using MM Jukebox,and I scanned in about 800 songs from CDs the other day,encoded at 192 k. One thing that has me concerned about MMJB, possibly, is the fact that some of the songs are not correct. When I ripped the Cds, I let CDDB look up all the song titles,and I unchecked the tunes that I did not want recorded. But when I looked through my library afterward, I saw songs listed that I had not selected on one certain CD. So I played those songs, and they were not even by the right band! They were actually songs that I remember ripping,but could not find in the list. However, the songs on that CD that I DID select, they were OK! Anyone else ever have that? Missing songs showing up under titles that you didn`t even want? Another thing is occasional skips,maybe one song out of 60-100. Is Musicmatch not very reliable? Not a good encoder? Or do I need to slow down the ripping speed? (It`s only 7-8X on my laptop) Thanks. |
|
|
| Benjlv |
i personally use a program called CDEX which uses the lame encoder. I personally recommend that you use a varable bit rate encoding to get the most quality for the size of the file. I personally use a 112-224 variable bit rate with a average of 160kps. I have been pretty satisified with the overall sound, but i dont listen to these files very intensly...
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
thats the link to CDEX. it will rip and encode and also name the files automatically. |
|
|
| Nielsio |
| Just go 320 kbit/s -> no worries. |
|
|
| Tensop |
| quote: | Originally posted by steve p
Thanks for the replies, guys. I`ve heard that Lame is the best,so I`ll try that. I`ve been using MM Jukebox,and I scanned in about 800 songs from CDs the other day,encoded at 192 k. One thing that has me concerned about MMJB, possibly, is the fact that some of the songs are not correct. When I ripped the Cds, I let CDDB look up all the song titles,and I unchecked the tunes that I did not want recorded. But when I looked through my library afterward, I saw songs listed that I had not selected on one certain CD. So I played those songs, and they were not even by the right band! They were actually songs that I remember ripping,but could not find in the list. However, the songs on that CD that I DID select, they were OK! Anyone else ever have that? Missing songs showing up under titles that you didn`t even want? Another thing is occasional skips,maybe one song out of 60-100. Is Musicmatch not very reliable? Not a good encoder? Or do I need to slow down the ripping speed? (It`s only 7-8X on my laptop) Thanks. |
From memory music match jukebox uses a horrible encoder, in lines with Xing for mp3 encoding. Use lame encoder + cdex :) |
|
|
| Nielsio |
| And also: ripping is important too. I've had very good experiences with Exact Audio Copy (EAC). |
|
|
| moses |
| If you're going to be ripping at 320Kbit/s you could pretty much go lossless compression without that much more space use. And keep in mind a much lower bitrate VBR could still be "better" then a 320kbit/s CBR file. I use CD-ex with the libvorbis plugin with q=7 on a Plextor UltraPlex. |
|
|
| Wombat |
When talking about Lame mp3s, no vbr encoding can be better than 320kBit/s constant bitrate! Assuming you use it correctly.
libvorbis ogg with q=7 is pretty well indeed. |
|
|
| moses |
| Better in the sense that it can provide the same quality with less space. |
|
|
| steve p |
| Thanks again,guys. I looked around at different programs yesterday that I had already downloaded,and never got around to using,and found dB Power Amp music converter. I discovered that it uses Lame,so I spent about four hours with it the other night,just trying different settings,comparing between them with the same song. (It allows conversion to MP3 or WMA-9). I was amazed to see just how many different ways you can encode an audio file. Multiple bitrates in CBR and VBR, 44 khz,48 khz, stereo, dual-channel, joint stereo, etc,etc., and WMA settings are just as bad! I listened very carefully, and found that the first thing you lose as you descend in bitrate is treble consistency, then the apparent dynamic range,then the stereo field collapses last. At least that`s my take on it. What surprised me the most was how close WMA and MP3 sound at low bitrates. Both had similar effects on strings and cymbals. Papery,watery,whatever you want to call the sound,I just could not get near CD-quality sound at any setting below 128k with either format. But there again, there are SO MANY combinations of settings! I did get *good* sound with lower settings. For example,a WMA-9 encoded at VBR 50 (stereo,and 44khz) sounded to me a lot like a pop FM station. Not unlistenable. Treble kinda glossy, with heavy compression. But a WMA-9 at 80k (CBR) sounded like it was underwater through a cell phone,very close to an MP3 at 96k CBR. I`m curious as to whether anyone knows how to get very good sound around 80-96k with ANYTHING. I`ve yet to try OGG. Don`t know much about it,but from what some people are saying,it`s the berries,man. |
|
|
| kiwi |
As moses said, if you're goign 320kbps just go lossless.
As for ripping, I use either Media Center 9.1 or Exact Audio Copy.
I just helped a friend put together a system for the "source" in his stereo. Basically, it was a PC connected to a 4 bay firewire hard drive enclosure (so that it can be in the next room for noise) and he's using an RME HDSP-9632 sound card. I haven't heard it yet, because I'm out of the country at the moment, but will get to hear it in a couple weeks. He said that it's amazing and ditched his old CD player. Granted, the CD player wasn't a wonderful model... a slightly older Yamaha player. He's storing all of his music losslessly, so that he can pack all of his CDs up and put them in storage. He's at about 400 CDs ripped so far.
kiwi |
|
|
| planet10 |
You mean you guys can actually stand to listen to MP3s?? Maybe OK for elevator music....
dave
BTW: That is a legitimate interview question... "can you listen to MP3s?" If the answer is yes (and the job has anything to do with hifi) then it's time to end the interview.
dave |
|
|
| name773 |
if you're going lossless, flac has a winamp/xmms plugin.
i use ogg with xmms. (q=4.2) |
|
|
| moses |
| Maybe we all listen to elevator music in this thread then? |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tensop
From memory music match jukebox uses a horrible encoder, in lines with Xing for mp3 encoding. Use lame encoder + cdex :) |
MMJ uses Fraunhoffer's codec. (they made the original MP3 codec).
It's as good as lame.
xing sux, for sure! |
|
|
| Benjlv |
| Mp3's have their place...and that place is not limited to elevators. They are great sources for cars, low to mid level audio systems, and other uses where the listening is not intense. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Benjlv
and other uses where the listening is not intense. |
just another definition of elevator music... but for cars & background music, FM -- at least around here -- is better than MP3.
dave |
|
|
| Nielsio |
Ben + Dave:
Have you done the following?:
Rip a cd with Exact Audio Copy, encode it with lame at 320 kbps, burn it on a decent burner and have someone else switch between original and copy (on your own system) and you having to name which is which.
..or was it more like this?:
Visit a friend who downloads mp3's from the internet which are ripped with a non-lame encoder at 128 kbps and hear it play throught the analog output of a soundcard on their computer-speakers in a noisy room, caused by a noisy computer? |
|
|
| indoubt |
Nielsio,
do you mean that an MP3 burnt this way is difficult to distingtuish from the original on a decent system?
Until now I've not listened to MP3 that much as most of them seem to be seriously flawed, at least what I've heard so far.
Does it also work if you use the ripped file from the harddisk through an external decent soundcard (M-audio or equivalent) ? |
|
|
| Nielsio |
| quote: | | ..an MP3 burnt this way is difficult to distingtuish from the original on a decent system? |
I'd say it's more than difficult.
| quote: | | Until now I've not listened to MP3 that much as most of them seem to be seriously flawed, at least what I've heard so far. |
..an obvious case B situation
| quote: | | Does it also work if you use the ripped file from the harddisk through an external decent soundcard (M-audio or equivalent)? |
Yes, it 'works'. Using an external DAC in combination with a soundcard that outputs 44.1 khz 'works' fine, and a soundcard outside the computer using USB might work even finer (or equally fine). |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nielsio
Have you done the following?:
Rip a cd with Exact Audio Copy, encode it with lame at 320 kbps, burn it on a decent burner and have someone else switch between original and copy (on your own system) and you having to name which is which. |
I've heard it done... and could tell them apart. The loss inherent on CD can be barely tolerable at times... i don't use them for much more than background music. Serious listening takes vinyl (or a much better CD player than i've been able to afford).
dave
planet10/5000+ LPs, 50 CDs |
|
|
| Nielsio |
| quote: | | I've heard it done... and could tell them apart. The loss inherent on CD can be barely tolerable at times... |
That's quite a big statement. Are you sure it was a good copy (eac, lame, 320)?
| quote: | | i don't use them for much more than background music. Seroius listening takes vinyl (or a much better CD player than i've been able to afford). |
It seems your dislike of CD's is extended onto mp3. Why bother going in the Digital forum if you never seriously use it?
I must admit: my experiences with vinyl are all pleasant. The big issue is it's ease of use / wearing out / distribute-ability (all intertwined); this is why I'm trying to get the most out of digital music (so far, so good). |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nielsio
That's quite a big statement. Are you sure it was a good copy (eac, lame, 320)? |
It was 320, the other probably not since it was done on a Mac.
dave |
|
|
| cm961 |
Also remember that audio quality is not all the same to all people. For instance, my old roommate swore (and he was very religious) that there was no audible difference between 192 and 128 kbps mp3s... Now I know most of you will agree that there is a large difference between 192 and 320 so you're probably in agreement with me. However, I did an A/B test with this guy and he really couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 192 kbps. I'd say he's lucky if anything, because unlike most of us, he can listen to a 'boom box' and think its high quality.
I have a lot of trouble listening to < 192kbps mp3s, and even a lot of 192 aren't that great.
Pete |
|
|
| Cobra2 |
| quote: | | Serious listening takes vinyl (or a much better CD player than i've been able to afford). |
Or a much cheaper player than just the cost of retipping that pick-up...(modified of-course).
IMHO MP3 quality can vary with type of cd-drive or program used to rip, even if ripped to WAV file...
-not mentioning MP3 conversion-programs...
Arne K |
|
|
| SimontY |
Are you all listening to the digital out on your card? I find no sound played through my analogue out is very high quality, and I've not had the chance to hear it another way yet. This makes talk of one encoder vs another less worthwhile (for ppl using analogue out). What do ppl think of the quality attainable using a seperate hi-fi DAC?
BTW I do much prefer the higher bitrate encoding. Two geeky friends made me listen to a top bitrate OG (or whatever it is) vs. 320kb MP3, and I could pick the OG as the more pleasant one. I surprised myself, because at these high bitrates I guessed there'd be little to choose between one type and another. This makes it less surprising 128k MP3 sounds so dire... Even in the background the dullness of the sound can bore me. But it's so much worse on some music, and at the frequency 'extremes'.
I don't see Planet10s point really, if there is one. Who uses MP3 for anything but convenience, and in situations where sound quality is unimportant? I wouldn't be able to listen to it, without doing something else, for very long - the sound is just too muffled and distorted. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. The one thing I'll give it is that it doesn't seem to give CD-harshness as much as typical CD players do.
All MP3 is great for is piracy, which I don't really condone ;)
(except maybe for trying things out, before buying if they're good)
Oh, and for in cars, and streaming radio stations... Anyone else heard smoothjazz.com? (How bloated does the bass sound, and why???)
On the move? No way, those players sound ****, much worse than a soundcard! Can't beat a personal CD machine and some big 'phones - my Sony discman and beyerdynamic cans sounds more neutral and gets more detail than most/any hi-fi setups I've heard! MP3 can't achieve this incredible illusion.
My 2p worth, which is probably not even worth that, it's all been said before I'm sure....
-Simon |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SimontY
I don't see Planet10s point really, if there is one. Who uses MP3 for anything but convenience, and in situations where sound quality is unimportant? I wouldn't be able to listen to it, without doing something else, for very long - the sound is just too muffled and distorted. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. |
That is essentially my point.
dave |
|
|
| Nielsio |
| quote: | | my Sony discman and beyerdynamic cans sounds more neutral and gets more detail than most/any hi-fi setups I've heard! MP3 can't achieve this incredible illusion. |
Use that headphone on a computer with 44.1 khz digital out to a good dac (for instance a Dackit, Nonoz or dAck!) and then to a good headphone-amplifier, and you will hear the true potential of a good mp3 (eac, lame, 320). |
|
|
| maczrool |
| quote: | | Anyone else heard smoothjazz.com? (How bloated does the bass sound, and why???) |
Haven't heard it, but I would guess it's due to a multiband compressor like is used in FM radio. The bass frequencies are compressed quite a bit more than the others and can lead to the bloated sound you describe.
Stu |
|
|
| sangram |
MP3 on most 'modern' music sounds better than the original CDs, IMO. At least it softens some of the highs that are put in by those smartypants engineers.
On a good recording however, it just destroys most of the music. I guess it also depends on the capabilities of the speaker system computer, in 90% of the cases that is the real limiting factor for audio quality anyway, as on a $20 Speaker system a Cd and a 96 kbps MP3 will sound the same. Well, not really the same, but close enough.
MP3 was devised for two reasons: Computer jingles and collaborative music. It also has its place in cars as the levels of ambient noise are high. Also when just playing in the background unattended, such as a party at your home - can't keep changing CDs every ten minutes, just put on the PC and let it run through the hard disk.
Oh, yeah, and Napster and ***** and that kind of stuff. 99% of the music on there is so badly ripped that you delete it from your hard disk anyway. not worth the bandwidth. |
|
|
| Cradle22 |
Hi!
Normally I don't participate in this kind of "mp3 is not HiFi"-discussions any more (as both sides won't be convinced of the other), but I just had to post some thoughts...
| quote: | Originally posted by sangram
MP3 on most 'modern' music sounds better than the original CDs, IMO. At least it softens some of the highs that are put in by those smartypants engineers. |
If with 'modern' you mean mass-compatible chart music, I guess you are right (Techno and its likes, RnB, HipHop, Pop, :mad: NuMetal :mad: ...)
But some other stuff is way ahead of old recording techniques used, if you have able technicians and producers behind the mikes...
| quote: | | On a good recording however, it just destroys most of the music. I guess it also depends on the capabilities of the speaker system computer, in 90% of the cases that is the real limiting factor for audio quality anyway, as on a $20 Speaker system a Cd and a 96 kbps MP3 will sound the same. Well, not really the same, but close enough. |
You won't believe how many high end hifi enthusiasts have their computers hooked up to a 2.1 or 5.1 speaker kit, from between 30 - 300 $... Let alone "normal", non hifi guys...
At least connect it to all your GCs, Alephs, P3As, with your open baffles, Duettas as speakers... And then tell about sound quality...
| quote: | | MP3 was devised for two reasons: Computer jingles and collaborative music. It also has its place in cars as the levels of ambient noise are high. Also when just playing in the background unattended, such as a party at your home - can't keep changing CDs every ten minutes, just put on the PC and let it run through the hard disk. |
Yeah, that's quite so. But using MP3 as primary audio source day in day out can also change your listening behaviour in that way that you simply can't stand to listen to "normal" CDs (or LPs) any more... It is the effect Robby Williams described in an interview done in Germany as that he was "rediscovering music" through MP3 (he aquired an Apple iPod). Before using MP3s he said that he wasn't listening to music any longer...
I myself simply can't stand to listen to more than two or three tracks of one band after another. Using MP3s brought me to the point where all the stuff I listen to has to be "compilated", up to the point of leaving the room while doing a group holiday when somebody puts on a favourite record of his by one artist...:o
So for me it is just that I have to use MP3s, since I don't want to spend all my days just by burning compilations of my CDs (400+)...
| quote: | | Oh, yeah, and Napster and ***** and that kind of stuff. 99% of the music on there is so badly ripped that you delete it from your hard disk anyway. not worth the bandwidth. |
Yes, absolutely right. I only used doenloaded stuff for evaluation or for hard-to-get music.
Otherwise I have to say (being a computer geek - its what I do for a living) that using EAC (CDParanoia is just as good), Lame with 320 kbps is too uneconomical for me, I use 196 kbps ABR, which uses parts which are "easy" to encode to save bitrate for more complex parts... And mass blind listening tests done by Hydrogenaudio have proven that for example "-alt-preset-insane" is the best encoding for LAME, which also uses VBR...
Bye,
Arndt |
|
|
| SimontY |
Hi,
planet10| quote: | | That is essentially my point. |
Yes, lol. Sorry, but it wasn't clear to me :)
Nielsio,| quote: | | Use that headphone on a computer with 44.1 khz digital out...true potential of MP3 |
I'm sure that would help hear the potential, but I can easily hear its limitations through my better hi-if speakers. ...I thought you had no time for my comments, hehe. ;) btw, I think the most important part in this little system is the headphones, which sound pleasant whatever the source. Sadly I just don't like listening through 'phones :(
maczrool,| quote: | | I would guess it's due to a multiband compressor like is used in FM r.. |
Yeh, I suspected some kind of compression. Recently I've been trying to identify the sonic characteristics of compression (of dynamics). I think one tell-tale sign is bass guitars being easy to follow, and being able to hear every note, and then all notes sound too similar to one another. Obviously, there is then the small-scale of the music. Great for little radios tho.
sangram,| quote: | | MP3 on most 'modern' music sounds better than the original CDs, IMO |
Thats a bold statement, which I totally agree with. I think some of this music is also much nicer on the ear on low-budget separates systems - that is a good compromise. The ability of a revealing system to hear the varying amounts of distortion and distortions between various recordings is staggering. I only realise after upgrading things so much! Some music is unlistenable :( (some is niiice!)
Cradle22,| quote: | | At least connect it to all your GCs, Alephs, P3As, with your open ba... |
It is through my good system the distortions are most easily heard (dullness, lack of clarity, detail and resolution, muddy bass etc.)| quote: | | I don't want to spend all my days just by burning compilations of my CDs |
Quite, and burnt CDs (not that I have many) always seem to sound thin and harsh anyway.
Yikes, I'm quoting everyone now!
-Simon |
|
|
| Benjlv |
| quote: | Originally posted by SimontY
Quite, and burnt CDs (not that I have many) always seem to sound thin and harsh anyway.
-Simon |
I have heard this before...and my understanding from a technical standpoint is that a burnt copy is bit for bit. Otherwise when a copy is made of a software cd the program wouldnt work. Granted the sound quality will change if the tracks are ripped...played with by the computer and so on. Any thoughts out there on how to make complimations of cds without degrading sound quality...does it degrade sound quality? hmmmm wish i had the time and the euipment to test this with.
Another thought that i had concerns the quality of the CD drive doing the ripping. Obviously a cheaper drive is going to have more errors...but the sound quality sound be the same as a $15,000 setup since its digital and just either 1 or 0... |
|
|
| Cradle22 |
Hi!
Off course, you're right. I meant "-alt-preset-extreme"...
Bye,
Arndt |
|
|
| weissi |
Oh man... then kill me... I listen only to mp3, cause most of my favorite music is recorded so bad.... thereīs really no difference...
Only... Mrs. Amos CDīs... I like their "sharp" sound... no way to get this quality with mp3īs... tried it so often, really - the wonderful TDA1541 shows you the real difference, ha! But it depends so much on the settings you use.... |
|
|
| SimontY |
| quote: | | the sound quality sound be the same as a $15,000 setup since its digital and just either 1 or 0... |
But isn't the deficiency based purely on the timing of those bits going onto the CD? ie. the problem is jitter. I've done zero A/B listening, really because I have no use for copied CDs, but the ones I have that are copies all sound unpleasant to my ears. Another poor aspect of SQ is the bass, which seems indistinct, and not well extended. These qualities (or lack thereof) seem to correlate inversely with the sort of improvements I gained in re-clocking my CD player, then (particularly) improving the clock PSU. You think I'm talking BS? I hope I'm not :)
-Simon |
|
|
| sangram |
Well, the CD-R really isn't a CD anyway, it doesn't adhere to the CD audio spec, I guess, because it doesn't *really* have pits and lands, so I am sure that causes some issue. Without measuring jitter objectively I am hesitant to say it is jitter. Maybe someone with better equipment can measure and confirm. I also find this effect on very poor copies (like those made in India under license) released by the labels themselves to keep costs down.
I don't know why, but I at least find that burnt copies always gain a slight 'grainy' edge and sound a little tense. I do NOT have a high end system (NAD c521i/HK PM665 and Jamo budget towers), but I can hear it sure enough.
When I said 'modern' music I meant the bright mass-market stuff with lots of compression (anybody heard the Rush album? sounds bad even on MP3!) and limiting. The so called 'chart-busters', but that's not all they bust. But yes, some of it is niiice, my personal favourites from recent times has to be 'Come away with me'. A song that MP3 cannot handle properly without falling all over itself.
Say, that's a thought, what if someone told the recording industry to actually start making good recordings so that people would buy more CDs instead of listening to MP3s because MP3s lose so much of the music, specially if the recordings are good. |
|
|
| Wombat |
Well, some of you are talking about these sharp attacks and newer
compressed recordings sounding horrible.
That´s the nature of mp3 when not encoded properly.
When a recording reaches the 0dB mark mp3 often interprets this
loud sound even louder and stores higher values for this part.
mp3 can store up to 144dB dynamics!
When you decode it for listening to a wav file these parts are cut of
to fit into the 44.1kHz wav format.
This can cause very bad clipping you immediately can hear.
You can prevent this with applying Replaygain. This alters a volume value
in the mp3 file and is regarding the mp3 lossless.
All it does is setting the volume lower so when decoded the maximum peaks
will not clip.
So for a good encoding it goes:
Good ripping software -> good encoder settings -> applying replaygain |
|
|
| tschrama |
Hi Wombat,
I must say I've encounterd just the opposite:
CD digitaly copied to harddrive and analyzed DOES have clipped moments (goldwave analyzing program). There is a thread about this here somewhere.
MP3, also goldwave analyzing program using the LAME.dll never showed any clipping! Everything is correctly scaled to 16 bit full scale.
Regards,
Thijs |
|
|
| Wombat |
I don´t know about this Goldwave bug. A CD can´t store higher values than
the 44.1kHz spec defines !?
You mean clipping at the mastering point? Sadly more and more recordings
introduce this due to bad mastering to make the music feel louder :(
A good explanation:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articl...6256C2E005DAF1C
Here is what i mean with en/decoding: |
|
|
| Wombat |
You can find a tool doing replaygain here:
http://www.geocities.com/mp3gain/
When i encode an entire album i analyze all files and apply a constant gain to all songs to the point none of it clips anymore. |
|
|
| SimontY |
Hi,
Very interesting findings Wombat! I must say I'm surprised how far you and some others go to make MP3 sound more acceptable.
sangram,
I too love Come Away With Me, by Norah Jones. On the digital clipping thread someone told me this mostly pleasant sounding album is taken into clipping on multiple occasions! I was not too surpised though, the sound can get slightly edgy now and then, which I'd previously put down to my speakers midrange performance...
Makes me wonder how much nasty stuff I hear is really just on the recording, but smudged into obscurity by low-res systems. e.g. a friend has B&W DM603 speakers driven by a cheap amp and CDP, with out-of-the box interconnect! Everything sounds smooth and (bass)rich, with way too much sloppy, wobbly mid-bass. Never ever harsh though! I wish mine could have that quality, with the other good qualities it already has ;)
-Simon |
|
|
| tschrama |
Hi Wombat,
Nope.. goldwave isn't buggy... it real in the data.. instantly wave-cut-off because Full-Scale is reached.. it is recorded like that!!!
Every, (yes every !) MP3 I open, I open not with a media-player of any kind, but with a sound analyzing program (Goldwave (standard) or Audacity or Matlab) , and I have never, (yes never !) seen a clipped MP3.
What software are you using for visualisation/encoding/decoding etc, Wombat ?
Kind regards,
Thijs |
|
|
| Cradle22 |
Hi!
| quote: | Originally posted by Wombat
You can find a tool doing replaygain here:
http://www.geocities.com/mp3gain/
When i encode an entire album i analyze all files and apply a constant gain to all songs to the point none of it clips anymore. |
I believe that the MAD-plugin for Winamp can also do that on-the-fly (called "auto clipping attenuation"), and since you should always use MAD to playback MP3... :)
Bye,
Arndt |
|
|
| Wombat |
@tschrama
No clipping in my experience is very uncommon. At least with newer recordings.
Most likely it is encoded with an encoder taking away lots
of highs. So the overall energy goes down!?
You would see this with a spectral analysis like Cooledit
provides.
@Craddle22
Now there we go further. The decoder :)
There is a page comparing many different decoder for accuracy. Many do have faults.
I don´t have the link atm
The Fraunhofer decoders work nearly perfect and it is integrated in Nero for example.
The decoding engine build into lame also is accurate.
The mad decoder is different and offers best performance in theory. It has 24bit precission and can dither if remember right.
There are for sure informative threads at hydrogenaudio.org |
|
|
| tschrama |
Hi Wombat,
I s does not depend on the recording offcoarse, but on de encoder/decoder. I have many mp3 recordings downloaded from the internet (properbly with encoded diffrently), but no clippping! So it must be an error in a your decoder? What decoder are you using... ?
can you give us an example of
WAV->encoded->decoded->clipping?
I really really have no examples in my music library...
Regards,
Thijs |
|
|
| Wombat |
Where do you know from it doesn´t clip?
When you opened it in an editor it gets decoded in the way i described above. The higher peaks are not there anymore when you look at your waveform.
Did you try Mp3gain i linked to and tested the original mp3s for clipping?
A nice one was Rammsteins Mutter, it was released at the time we encountered these problems.
One Thread here with some:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index....wtopic=7140&hl=
Wombat |
|
|
| tschrama |
Hi,
| quote: | | Where do you know from it doesnīt clip? |
You can see it when you look at the transientwave form. I do this on default.
| quote: | | When you opened it in an editor it gets decoded in the way i described above. The higher peaks are not there anymore when you look at your waveform. |
I do this allways (default program to open MP3 is goldwave) and I see no waveforms being cut-off. So no clipping.
| quote: | | Did you try Mp3gain i linked to and tested the original mp3s for clipping? |
I looked at it but decided that not every musical piece is intended to be equal loud. I trust the program does achieve it's goal fine, but I don't agree with the goal.
| quote: | | A nice one was Rammsteins Mutter, it was released at the time we encountered these problems. |
The original recording (on CD) you mean. I trust it clips here and there. But if you encode it (what encoder did you use), and then decode it (what decoder did you use), did it clip? Did it clip more? Did it not clip at all? Did it sometimes hit Full Scale but without cutting off the waveform?
To make my point: I can send you several MP3 without clipping (at least on using decoder), but I really can't send you any example of clipping after encoding/decoding. If I encounter such an example I will be convinced.
Regards,
Thijs |
|
|
| Wombat |
btw. There were often people bringing samples to the mp3 community that obviously sounded wrong. Afterwards it was only a problem due to clipping.
This is for all lossy compressors, even musepack (mpc, best lossy compressor) isn´t immun of this. These people often have "lousy" equipment against people on this board here but were able to hear it.
When your music files don´t clip, lucky you.
All others may try the mp3gainanalysis on samples they hear distorted sound.
Me is tired of all this, i talked about such issues for years now and had some experiences with so called audiophiles that weren´t able to pick everything right when comparing compressed music to their originals. |
|
|
| tschrama |
Dear Wombat,
Now comes the fun part....
I read the link you provided and , allthough I find the explanation a bit quirky, understand quiet well what's going on... and got me really interested....
So I did my onw test.....
1] made a wav file containing quare wave (2Hz) ('metronome') using the Full Dynamic Range (mono, 5 sec, fs=44100Hz).
2] using LAME to encode to MP3 (setting = 'hifi' / 160kbps)
3] open the mp3-file with cold wave....
And.............:cool:
Behold ... (due to restricted bandwidth ?) the quare wave rings, and the ringing is clipped.... even if it is still a digital respresentation (NOT analog) .. it is clipped... I am confinced: it can happen.
I think this is not all ... there more to consider.. but I'll leave that for a nother time...
Cya,
Thijs;) |
|
|
| Wombat |
Yippie! :)
This also can happen in music.
btw. i use -alt-preset standard lame. This is the preset i use together with 3.90.3 for my daily use, i don´t archive in mp3.
This preset is very immun to real artifacting and size ends up ~200kBits |
|
|
| thoriated |
| Considering that I have been very unhappy with the sound quality of the CD standard, in which sonic mediocrity becomes the highest possible virtue, I would ditch MP3 at the first practical opportunity. It sacrifices SQ for storage, end of story. |
|
|
| mikee12345 |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoriated
Considering that I have been very unhappy with the sound quality of the CD standard, in which sonic mediocrity becomes the highest possible virtue, I would ditch MP3 at the first practical opportunity. It sacrifices SQ for storage, end of story. |
What audio storage format attains your impeccable standards?
i hate that mp3 grainy tinny noise... 192kpbs+ for my lofi speakers.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| thoriated |
Hi, Mikee12345 -
As a consumer storage format, in general I think 24 bit DVD audio with at least 88ks/s is at least competitive with most analog media on its stronger points, and ideally 32 bit dynamic range for professional applications, so that a few bits of lost resolution due to processing or non-optimized recording level won't automatically destroy SQ. A very robust 'perceptually encoded' format using the CD data rate should also be able to easily meet that consumer standard. Of course, there's a 20 year accumulation of ****** 16 bit 44.1 & 48 ks/s professional equipment that needs to be disposed of somehow and the average quality of audio a/d's & d/a's needs to improve several notches to fully take advantage of a 24 bit or better storage resolution. |
|
|
| Wombat |
As i wrote some posts before the decoding is from some interest also.
I always used the lame integrated or the Nero fhg decoder because i never
was convinsed by the better performance of the Mad decoder.
These days i tried some and found "foobar2000" with dithered diskwriter-plugin
really a step in front!
I was surprised myself. With the headphones on the PC it is hard to tell which sounds
better but for sure different. foobar sounds brighter here in a way.
When listening on my system the difference is much more existing in a moment.
The dithered, decoded mp3 really is much clearer and more detailed.
Any other findings regarding this are welcome. |
|
|
| MWP |
Foobar2000 is the best quality player around for most compressed formats at the moment.
Anyone not using it already should give it a go. |
|
|
|
