Better mastered music could be on the way!

[Andrew Everard]

Well I was listening at night, and perhaps didn't want to crank the volume up too much in fear of disturbing neighbours etc.

Ah, well that's more a case for the replay electronics having a dynamics-limiting 'night' mode, as you find on some AV receivers, rather than a need for the recordings themselves to be hobbled with compression.

 

[manicm]

No, just through my Arcam Solo Mini. And I concede my speakers not ideal - about to change them again.

 

[steve_1979]

There doesn't appear to be an awful lot of music being listened to in this thread...

As well as comparing the FLAC and MP3 waveforms in Audacity I've also listened to them all too. If you reread my posts you will see that in some of them I've mentioned how the FLAC and MP3 versions compare in listening tests.

 

[steve_1979]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the background instrument of the mp3 version is shelved down".

if you take a look at the graphs they are not the same. secondary peaks differ. but as you say they sound the same that may be the case. I'm only judgeing after the graphs.

Ahhh yes I understand what you mean now. What you were seeing there is just pixelation caused by the limited resolution of my computer screen.

The pictures below show a very short 0.1 second long snapshot of music from the track The Missing Plutonium. As you can see even at this very high resolution the 320kbps MP3 wave faithfully replicates the 24bit FLAC wave almost perfectly. If I had zoomed in any closer than this it would have been such a high level of magnification that you would have actually been able to see each of the individual points that make up the waves.

Linn 24 bit FLAC (The Missing Plutonium)

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/LinnDay4FLAColdric.jpg

Linn 320kbps MP3 (The Missing Plutonium)

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/LinnDay4MP3oldric.jpg

 

[steve_1979]

many of us are impressed with their quality (just plain listening OK?)

In all fairness to Linn, all of the different files that I've listened to have sounded very good in the listening tests. Even the MP3 versions that had the dynamic range compressed still sounded very good quality.

I suspect that somehow they don't use LAME or somesuch ripper, but master simultaneously to high-res, CD quality and MP3 directly.

It shouldn't make any difference which software they use to encode their MP3s. When simply converting a FLAC file into an MP3 file the volume and dynamic range of the music shouldn't change. To change the volume or compress the dynamic range of the music in the converted MP3 file it would require additional actions to taken.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

oldric_naubhoff - this IS NOT RUBBISH. Thanks for stating the blatantly obvious regarding the theoretical headroom of 24 bit music. While the apparent volume could be louder, it could also be softer. That is not the point, the point is it allows for a much wider passage between the softer and louder bits of a piece of music, thus increasing dynamic range, and so if you want to get rid of the 'loudness' wars then 24-bit is a much better platform to start off with.Even if apparent human hearing tails off at around 15khz, I'd rather have 48khz (effective rate of 96khz recordings), than a limit of effective 22khz (CD quality).

I don't like repeating myself but I see you don't like to read the whole thread. I was constantly saying that a proper mastering is the key to win the loudness war. not the advent of 24 bit recordings. CD already has enough of DR to capture any musical event without reverting to compression techniques. it's just the full DR is not used these days on CD.

as for 24 bit recordings; you can easily have compressed 24 bit recordings if they were mastered that way regardless of DR 24 bit format has to offer. for instance "50 words for snow" by Kate Bush in 24 bits has "only" about 15dB DR. this is about the lower limit for a recording to start sounding "natural". but this level is easily attainable by a mere 16 bit format and with a huge reserve too. so I don't really know what the fuss is all about with 24 bit format. other than marketing game.

I'm not a opponent of 24 bit. I just don't see the benefit of it. and I certainly don't see a reason for 24 bit recordings to be sold at a premium. should 24 bit be more widely available it shouldn't be more expensive than CDs. I would even say it should be less expensive since recording companies don't have to absorb the costs related to manufacturing of the physical medium. and recording process is just about the same in case of 16bit and 24 bit recording with a slight difference that you wouldn't have to downsample the master to 16 bits in the end.

 

[ReValveiT]

The reason modern music is mastered 'hot' is because these days most people listen to music in noisey enviroments.

case in point; try listening to Dark Side Of The Moon at moderate volume in your car doing 70 on the motorway. You'll only hear 1/3rd of the album, and probably forget it's even on until a loud section takes you completely by surprise.

It's not good of course. I DETEST the whole loudness thing! And always buy NON-'remasterd' albums as and when I can. Unfortunately it's just another symptom of our ever changing lives.

 

[DocG]

Shall we start a petition for 'night' switches on all audio equipment? Then everybody would be given the choice to compress/limit his music or not. :?

 

[relocated]

Shall we start a petition for 'night' switches on all audio equipment? Then everybody would be given the choice to compress/limit his music or not. :?

Off you go then.

 

[manicm]

many of us are impressed with their quality (just plain listening OK?)

In all fairness to Linn, all of the different files that I've listened to have sounded very good in the listening tests. Even the MP3 versions that had the dynamic range compressed still sounded very good quality.

I suspect that somehow they don't use LAME or somesuch ripper, but master simultaneously to high-res, CD quality and MP3 directly.

It shouldn't make any difference which software they use to encode their MP3s. When simply converting a FLAC file into an MP3 file the volume and dynamic range of the music shouldn't change. To change the volume or compress the dynamic range of the music in the converted MP3 file it would require additional actions to taken.

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 - to make such a sweeping statement is just disingenuous.

 

[manicm]

About this whole loudness thing, well I agree that it can detract from enjoying music on some recordings. But is Florence's Ceremonials compressed? Undeniably. Do I enjoy the music and recording? Absolutely, and I wouldn't change a thing of the production. So sometimes I just don't care.

 

[steve_1979]

steve, it's widely accepted different rippers give different results.

Yes different MP3 encoders can give very slightly different results to each other. But they certainly don't make radical changes like adjusting the volume, compressing the dynamic range or cropping the ends off tracks.

iTunes is just the worst for MP3 and WAVs

Where did you read that?

- and to my knowledge it doesn't use LAME - to make such a sweeping statement is just disingenuous.

I never said that iTunes uses LAME.

 

[char_lotte]

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

 

[the record spot]

Not when I read that iTUnes doesn't do a good rip to WAV. Particularly when it's no better or worse than EAC. So yes, I share your views. And as for the whole golden eared "I can spot a 320kbps track from the same via WAV"? Rack 'em up I say...!

 

[steve_1979]

Here is todays free Linn track 'House On The Hill'

As you can see the Linn MP3 version is much louder than the original FLAC version and the dynamic range has been compressed quite a lot. I think that the increased volume on the MP3 version is caused entirely by the compression of the dynamic range because there is no sign of clipping on the top of the biggest peaks.

In listening tests the difference between the Linn FLAC file and the Linn MP3 file is very noticable and obvious to hear. But when I converted the Linn FLAC file into an MP3 myself it sounded identical to the original FLAC version.

Thursdays Linn FLAC

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnday5FLAC.jpg

Thursdays Linn MP3

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnday5MP3.jpg

My MP3 version converted from the Linn FLAC file

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Myday5MP3.jpg

 

[SteveR750]

I don't need any ABX or blind testing to tell me that 320k MP3s are audibly inferior to WAVs.

I've tried this before, but using J River to burn discs in CDA and also MP3. I compared both versions using JRMC randomly some time ago, which is why I'm pretty confident (with the psycho caveat etc etc etc)

Anyone who thinks that they can hear a difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a lossless WAV, FLAC or ALAC file are mistaken. I can easily prove this to you too. All you have to do is follow these two simple steps.*



1. Convert a lossless WAV, FLAC, or ALAC file into a 320kbps MP3 using LAME.

2. Use Foobar with the ABX add on to compare the lossless file to the MP3 file.

* For detailed instructions on how to do this see post number #8 on page 6 of this thread.

Nope. Sorry.

[quote="char_lotte]

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

[/quote]

Not many boys either. What you doing later?

 

[BenLaw]

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

Do you listen to any hi-res material char_lotte? Or anything less than CD quality?

 

[char_lotte]

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

Do you listen to any hi-res material char_lotte? Or anything less than CD quality?

Yes.

 

[John Duncan]

[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?

[/quote]

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

 

[char_lotte]

[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]

Enough already. I thought I was the creepy flirt ?.

 

[drummerman]

I'm happy to just be creepy

regards

 

[steve_1979]

I'm happy to just be creepy

Sweetie you can flirt with me any time you like.

 

[BenLaw]

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

Do you listen to any hi-res material char_lotte? Or anything less than CD quality?

Yes.

And what are your thoughts on the varying (or not) qualities of the formats?

 

[char_lotte]

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

Do you listen to any hi-res material char_lotte? Or anything less than CD quality?

Yes.

And what are your thoughts on the varying (or not) qualities of the formats?

There hasn't been a format yet that has stopped me from being able to enjoy my music.

 

[BenLaw]

That's good, same here As you find mp3 still enjoyable does that mean you no longer feel the need to buy hi res?