Better mastered music could be on the way!

[the record spot]

'Sound engineers' being used in the generic sense for anyone involved in production and replay.

If you are to first generalise that mastering engineers would hear differences between formats and then enter a caveat that only some might be able to, then you may as well bring in the odd milkman or receptionist into the mix (pun intended) that could also possibly detect these subtle nuances. It doesn't really add weight to your argument, whatever that may be.

The fact is that hearing ability varies wildy, with age being the biggest single general factor. For sure, it's a fact that lossy formats have artifacts not present in the lossless or uncompressed formats. The point is not whether or not these artifacts exist, but that whether or not they are audible, for some very few and in certain circumstances, they might be.

A good piece is HERE

The main point being made in the latter part of this thread though, is that the lossy files provided for download alongside the high res counterparts, do not appear to be the same files, so differences may have been engineered by design.

The bottom line, as ever, is down to the individual. If you want high res, then buy high res. I feel that I don't need it.

I think it's quite possible, so I don't discount. I just allow for the possibility. I don't preach that black is white and never the twain shall meet. Any scientist can prove that black can be white and will have a formula to show you why.

And thank you for backing up my POV - "The point is not whether or not these artifacts exist, but that whether or not they are audible, for some very few and in certain circumstances, they might be".

Thanks also for the ongoing reminder, that human hearing varies, Sound on Sound, psychoacoustics, etc, etc, seemingly ad inifinitum... we didn't know that at all in any way.

 

[Dave_]

I suspect not many people on this forum that claim to hear all manner of audio nuances have had such a test though and this probably goes beyond forum members to many people working the the hifi industry as a whole.

The same is probably true of those who hear no differences...

 

[steve_1979]

As Linn have not yet replied to oldric_naubhoffs Email I have contacted them via their forum.

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&pid=230536#pid230536

 

[Overdose]

Unless I am mistaken we have some people here saying they can't hear the difference between mp3 and wav, and other people saying they can hear the difference between the same file encoded by two different wav encoders.

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about this conversation?

it's pointless and no one will win, because we all hear differently, and perceive things differently.

No you are not mistaken, but you have missed the point. The main concern of this thread was about the raising of recording standards to improve mastering quality, laterly it was mainly about the difference between high res and other formats, with high res being sold as superior to standard res files, however, it was found that the standard res recording were apparently not the same source as the high res ones.

Differences between compressed and uncompressed files? Obviously they exist, but are they audible and how much so?

I'm happy with 256KBPS for general use and lossless for archiving.

 

[steve_1979]

The main concern of this thread was about the raising of recording standards to improve mastering quality, laterly it was mainly about the difference between high res and other formats, with high res being sold as superior to standard res files, however, it was found that the standard res recording were apparently not the same source as the high res ones.

 

[gregvet]

Unless I am mistaken we have some people here saying they can't hear the difference between mp3 and wav, and other people saying they can hear the difference between the same file encoded by two different wav encoders.

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about this conversation?

it's pointless and no one will win, because we all hear differently, and perceive things differently.

No you are not mistaken, but you have missed the point. The main concern of this thread was about the raising of recording standards to improve mastering quality, laterly it was mainly about the difference between high res and other formats, with high res being sold as superior to standard res files, however, it was found that the standard res recording were apparently not the same source as the high res ones.

Differences between compressed and uncompressed files? Obviously they exist, but are they audible and how much so?

I'm happy with 256KBPS for general use and lossless for archiving.

Thanks for the patrony, but I had understood both the original intent of the thread, and the direction it had moved into.

Just commenting on some of the opposing views being expressed and the inevitable lack of any meaningful resolution. Maybe you misunderstood my post, or hadn't read all the others?

 

[Overdose]

Thanks for the patrony, but I had understood both the original intent of the thread, and the direction it had moved into.

A bit of a pointless post then? Much like this one, in fact.

 

[gregvet]

Thanks for the patrony, but I had understood both the original intent of the thread, and the direction it had moved into.

A bit of a pointless post then? Much like this one, in fact.

well if I knew I had to have a point every time I posted I wouldn't have bothered registering at all

 

[Overdose]

Meanwhile, back on track.

This was posted in Cno's DS thread, and contains what I think is some very interesting information.

To quote Hugh Robjohns, the technical editor of Sound on Sound magazine, the way music is mastered could be going to change and the 'loudness wars' could be nearing their end!

"And the thing we need them to do is to adopt the ITU-R BS1770 loudness metering standards that are now being implemented across the TV industry worldwide, and will be introduced to the radio industry in the next few years. That should have the desired effect on the music industry as they will quickly discover that hyper-compressed mixing sounds as weak and feeble on the radio and TV as it really is!

By 'normalising' audio material to the 'loudness' rather than the 'peak' level, everything gets better! Hyper-compressed material sounds weak, feeble and boring, while dynamic material sounds lively, natural, powerful (when appropriate) and interesting... and that's exactly what you want."

The full thread is worth reading, and some may find it informative (the replies are from recording industry professionals) but the above is what I find really exciting. Bring it on! :cheer: And thanks to Neuphonix for highlighting it.

 

[SteveR750]

[quote="char_lotte]

Strewth. This is why girls are not interested in hifi.... In fact is anyone left interested in hifi ?

Not many boys either. What you doing later?

Oi, I'm the creepy flirt around here...

[/quote]

Move over tart.

 

[steve_1979]

No am not famous or worked on any famous peoples Album.. I have been asked this several times on this forum. I self promote my music. I started off with Jazz... my music use to be played on the then Jazz fm 102.2 my steve quack. I do play small venus & help with production of demos & rhythm sections for up & coming artist. Looking to get my own record label soon.

Thanks for your reply and good luck with the record label.

Is there any chance of a link to somewhere where I can listen to some of your music?

 

[Alec]

Ah yes, nothing like doing your homework when it comes to mastering. Amazing that in some quarters it's taken so long for the Loudness Wars to be front page news. Still, the more the public are aware of some of the issues here (they've been known for years in some quarters) the better. As anyone who bought the Genesis box sets in 2006 will testify to.

Some would say you're peeing onmy bonfire and going against your own principles in saying this. What if I just don't care? Make sure you remember all you have said before you reply.

You're being rather "well, no one has to care about that, but this..."

 

[Alec]

steve, it's widely accepted different rippers give different results. iTunes is just the worst for MP3 and WAVs - and to my knowledge it doesn't use LAME

But you don't like LAME anyway, it's lame, remember?

And if you don't need to hear anything to tell you what sounds better (a fair precis of what you said a few pages back), what do you use? Just teh bit rates?

 

[Alec]

Just two more things, mam.

Though it is technically illegal to get rid of your CDs when you have ripped them, you will hardly leave the industry impoverished if you do so (has the change that allows you to rip legally happened yet, by the way?)

And ogg is not new, unless there's another ogg vorbis.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I got reply form Linn. Copy/paste quote from my e-mail box:
Thank you for your e-mail.

Linn records generates MP3s of all its titles using a generic MP3
converter
similar to that in Dbpoweramp and other similar programs. We use the same
converter for all the titles available from Linn Records.

However one of the issues with MP3, (despite the fact that the person who
is
asserting we doctored our files is also claiming that that his MP3 is
identical to the CD version) is that whatever MP3 coder you use, they
all
react differently to different programme material. So depending on the
music
you are compressing ( since conversion to MP3 is a form of lossy
compression), some coding algorithms will give better results than others.

This is not generally regarded as contentious, in fact there are now a
number of products such as
http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugins/products/pro-codec.htm which
enables mixing engineers to listen to the effects of different flavours
of
MP3 etc while they are mastering.

Of course there is an easier solution, which is not to apply lossy
compression

Best Regards

Colin
Customer Support
Linn Products Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 141 307 7777
Fax: +44 (0) 141 644 4262
Email: helpline@linn.co.uk
Forums:　　http://forums.linn.co.uk

anyway, what Colin writes does not tally with Steve's experiment. he did create an mp3 conversion with soundwave identical to the 24 bit original :? . back to you guys.

 

[Phileas]

How bizarre :exmark: (Linn, I mean)

 

[steve_1979]

What Linn are saying there doesn't really make much sense. Why would converting a FLAC file into an MP3 make such a radical difference to the volume and dynamic range as is seen in the Linn MP3 version?

Unless Linn are trying to say that the MP3 encoder that they use is so ineffective at it's job it's not even capable of creating an MP3 that has the same volume and dynamic range as the original file. Considering that Linn promote themselves as offering high quality music files then you'd expect that they'd be using an MP3 encoder that's at least capable of doing its job properly.

To show you what I mean have a look a the pictures below which show three different versions of the track 'Oranges and Apples'.

The top one is the original Linn FLAC file . The middle one is an MP3 which I converted myself using LAME and as you can see it looks identical to the original FLAC version. The bottom one is the downloaded Linn MP3 which as you can see is very different to the FLAC version and there is absolutely no need for these differences to exist.

Linn downloaded 24 bit lossless FLAC

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnlossless.jpg

My MP3 converted from the original Linn FLAC file

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/MyMP3.jpg

Linn downloaded MP3

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/LinnMP3.jpg

 

[steve_1979]

whatever MP3 coder you use, they all react differently to different programme material. So depending on the music you are compressing ( since conversion to MP3 is a form of lossy compression), some coding algorithms will give better results than others.

I very much doubt that any MP3 encoder is so bad (or even close to being so bad) that it will change the volume and compress the dynamic range of music to the extent that is seen in the Linn MP3 version of the track 'Oranges and Apples'.

Maybe Linn or someone else here could point out to me an MP3 encoder that it will change the volume and compress the dynamic range of music when it converts a FLAC file into an MP3?

 

[Overdose]

Would an mp3 encoder chop off a quiet section at the beginning of a track?

 

[steve_1979]

Would an mp3 encoder chop off a quiet section at the beginning of a track?

No.

 

[John Duncan]

So have you ABXed those two mp3s?

 

[steve_1979]

So have you ABXed those two mp3s?

The downloaded Linn MP3 sounds very slightly louder than the MP3 that I converted myself.

The downloaded Linn MP3 sounds very slightly louder than the original FLAC version.

But the MP3 that I converted myself sounds identical the the original FLAC version.

 

[Native_bon]

Well thats the reason I always say use your ears.!!! I Never believe anything untill I hear with my ears. Hummm.. Linn.

 

[BenLaw]

So Linn are either ignorant or dishonest, yes?

 

[Overdose]

Perhaps there are other reasons for the highlighted discrepencies?