I didn't measure the noises. They are almost as loud as the program material on some mp3 files. Granted they were most likely because someone didn't burn the file properly. I have heard the same thing on many mp3 recordings.
The noises are like whistles, echos, and pops. On some of the "better ones" it is faint but painfully obvious to me.
I have heard some mp3 files that did not exhibit these characteristics. They sounded quite acceptable to me.
I've never owned an mp3 player and most likely never will. Even some CDs sound awful to me, but it's the same reason that LPs sound bad- it's in the mix.
The noises are like whistles, echos, and pops. On some of the "better ones" it is faint but painfully obvious to me.
I have heard some mp3 files that did not exhibit these characteristics. They sounded quite acceptable to me.
I've never owned an mp3 player and most likely never will. Even some CDs sound awful to me, but it's the same reason that LPs sound bad- it's in the mix.
well, looks like that's what I described in a post above: you can never know what encoder was used, some used to be crappy and I'm talking from direct experience. but I really doubt the same would happen with LAME or another good encoder.
everyone seems to forget that one minute of uncompressed HD video would need ~6G of space (700G for a 2-hour movie) and as of 2013 we don't have infinite storage space/bandwidth for free.
I don't view it like that at all. perceptual coding is a good thing, be it for video or audio use, if we're viewing it in the context of broadcast. not using perceptual coding for serious music listening is another, unrelated thing.
everyone seems to forget that one minute of uncompressed HD video would need ~6G of space (700G for a 2-hour movie) and as of 2013 we don't have infinite storage space/bandwidth for free.
Last edited:
You confuse data compression with dynamic range compression.
Complexity of actual data limits how far it can be packed. Yes, many mp3's are ghastly, others are indistinguishable by ear.
It is very similar to image compression. jpeg when pushed, looks like crap.
That's the point. Storage per dollar is exploding. Every old timer has stories of paying $1500/gigabyte. Fibre is already the transport of choice for national broadcasters and is appearing in the home, the most recent tests we did on a wireless Internet modem exceeded 30 meg bidirectional speeds. Transport protocols limited to compressed speeds - satellite for example - will remain but become increasingly niche.
With 4K coming on line the pressure to up the game will really start. 2013 is irrelevant.
actually, with MP3 there's the psychoacoustic model that comes into play. AFAIK, JPEG simply applies a similar algorithm (Huffman coding of the DCT-transformed data) but w/o any perceptual processing/analysis (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).
with MP3 I believe it's the psychoacoustic model and the implementation that counts the most.
I appreciate the argument that uncompressed recordings are still available for those who want them, so the ubiquity of MP3's doesn't do us any harm. However, it would be nice if I could enjoy the convenience that listeners of MP3's enjoy. HD tracks is great, but they really only offer a small fraction of what is available on MP3. As several posters have pointed out, memory of portable devices has increased enough that we could all easily move to a less compressed format. If this happened, I wouldn't have to get all of my music on CD. Sadly, as other posters have pointed out, there seems to not be enough demand for better sound to cause this to happen.
You know I have a lot to learn about this stuff. I'm an analog guy. If I could control digital data as precisely as I do my analog stuff, I'd happily roll my own. But I have a long way to go in this arena.
I do certainly understand your JPEG analogy.
Interesting. I need to know more about this.
I do certainly understand psychoacoustics in an old school way.
Here's some good lessons in controlling digital data: The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing
Errrr.... I think you are wrong in your concept. Digital data is far more controllable and predictable, invariable, don't affected by interferences, than analog stuff. That's the main point of it. You have almost no control on what happens to any analog signal.
You can struggle to shield it from external factors, but in the end, that's something digital signals are by nature inmune to.
I understand everything you are saying.
My wording is misleading I guess. I'm really sharp with analog circuits. I understand their caveats vs digital circuits. I know how to juggle the shortcomings of analog circuits, and how to mitigate issues with them, to get the result I desire. I have no such ability with digital circuits. I understand the basics, but I need to come up to speed.
My wording is misleading I guess. I'm really sharp with analog circuits. I understand their caveats vs digital circuits. I know how to juggle the shortcomings of analog circuits, and how to mitigate issues with them, to get the result I desire. I have no such ability with digital circuits. I understand the basics, but I need to come up to speed.
True, but I often record in Adobe ProRes format that needs about 1GB per minute at 720P 60fps. It's compressed, but you can't tell by looking at it. It's visually superb. So much better than broadcast.
Compression can work well, especially as a final delivery format.
Compression can look well (look at Bluray as an example) if not bad implementing. Problem with DVB-T is that in order to fit 4 channels per band they apply a hell of a compression.
BTW, from what sources do you get 60fps video?
I get it from my Sony Pro cameras, uncompressed. As it's not practical to store uncompressed video, we use the ProRes format. It is compressed, but not badly. It's very difficult to see any artifacts.
If the compression down to Blu-Ray, WMV9 or H.264 is done right, it does look pretty darn good and allows a much easier transport and storage. The trade-offs are well worth it.
If the compression down to Blu-Ray, WMV9 or H.264 is done right, it does look pretty darn good and allows a much easier transport and storage. The trade-offs are well worth it.
Developments on that front are moving apace as well. Perhaps in 10 years a method of reculturing the neurons of the ear and basically resetting your hearing to what it was as a new born.
while not being familiar with the digital TV transmission protocol, one thing I do know is that it depends on the TV.
if you're watching non-HD channels, the TV is doing the resampling. and, even with models which are more than decent at HD, this resampling is very poor. it's a rather common issue and I would guess the first thing where cost-saving is done.
but if it happens with HD...
if you're watching non-HD channels, the TV is doing the resampling. and, even with models which are more than decent at HD, this resampling is very poor. it's a rather common issue and I would guess the first thing where cost-saving is done.
but if it happens with HD...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.