Better mastered music could be on the way!

[char_lotte]

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

I listen to .mp2 also. If I think a high resolution whatever sounds good to me I will buy it.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

just send in another e-mail to Linn. they never replied to the first one and they should have within up to 3 days... if this doesn't work out this time as well I'm going to give them another chance. if that fails too I'll have no other choice but to conclude Linn is not the most transparent company and don't like answering inconvenient questions.

 

[Native_bon]

According to this article there are advantages with recording ie. Head room, Noise floor and DSP.

With Playback, the headroom argument is no longer valid. Apparently 24 bit does capture more soft tiny details, so it depends how much of them get buried in the noise floor your equipment. http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

Been interesting, and it's far from straight forward.

your amp will definitely have worse SNR to even show full potential of CD, let alone hi-rez.

24bit does not capture more soft, tiny details. if anything it captures more loud details. 96dB dynamic range is enough to capture sounds from 120dB loud (way too loud for you to listen to without fatigue for a few minutes) down to 30dB (which is about the level of natural noise floor of your home during the day).

I record in the studio a lot. There is a very big difference between 16bit & 24bit... when using 16bit files or 16bit float engine with any music software, you get limited dynamic head compared to 24bit files. The very first time i swicthed from 16bit to 24 in the studio it was just a joy.

Every mix in the studio was just so much easy. each instrument sat much better in the mix a had its own space & more head room... & dynamic range.

Now here is the not so good bit... If an original file or master tape was recorded in 16bit resolution...trying to remaster this in 24bit resolution is when things start to get out of hand. It may sound more dynamic both you also can hear that as a result of more dynamics the file or music beings to sound thin & unpleasant.

To sum it up original files mastered in 24bit, sound far better than 16bit files. All things being equal

 

[MajorFubar]

Don't waste your breath. I already argued a few pages ago that those of us who record and create rather than just consume are more likely to hear differences between audio formats, but all I got told to do was go try an ABX test, which I already said I didn't need to do. (That was regarding MP3 vs lossless.)

 

[CnoEvil]

I record in the studio a lot. There is a very big difference between 16bit & 24bit... when using 16bit files or 16bit float engine with any music software, you get limited dynamic head compared to 24bit files. The very first time i swicthed from 16bit to 24 in the studio it was just a joy.

Every mix in the studio was just so much easy. each instrument sat much better in the mix a had its own space & more head room... & dynamic range.

Now here is the not so good bit... If an original file or master tape was recorded in 16bit resolution...trying to remaster this in 24bit resolution is when things start to get out of hand. It may sound more dynamic both you also can hear that as a result of more dynamics the file or music beings to sound thin & unpleasant.

To sum it up original files mastered in 24bit, sound far better than 16bit files. All things being equal

Now we completely agree!

 

[Native_bon]

Don't waste your breath. I already argued a few pages ago that those of us who record and create rather than just consume are more likely to hear differences between audio formats, but all I got told to do was go try an ABX test, which I already said I didn't need to do. (That was regarding MP3 vs lossless.)

You are right & they are right as well.... I will explain why.. I record & play my hifi music in a studio enviroment. Good acoustics & well treated room. So if i play an mp3 file & lossless am most likely to hear the difference. Mp3 flies tend to be a bit rough around the edges. You get a much cleaner sound with lossless files. Having said that the difference does not hit you in the face like night & day.. You may only notice the difference if u got a revealing system.

Also am currently using a new recording studio software that compresses files to mp3 files & sounds just almost as good as the original files. Its called Ogg Vorbis files. So with this format of compression almost impossible to notice the difference..

 

[MajorFubar]

called Ogg Vorbis files

Yeah I've seen those Stems from Rockband and Guitar Hero games often seem to be leaked as multitrack Moggs, and enthusiasts in the internet go mad for them.

 

[the record spot]

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.

What about a professional mastering engineer who works day in day out with this stuff?

 

[Overdose]

Sound engineers are still human and don't have special hearing abilities, just an affinity for that type of work. If anything, prolonged exposure to elevated 'noise' levels in the industry would actually have a negative effect on hearing.

 

[Anonymous]

The hilarity still continues lol. There we have guy’s who record in studios but the novice computer music enthusiast still knows better simple because he can measure sound waves lol

 

[Overdose]

The hilarity still continues lol

And ignorance too it would seem.

 

[Anonymous]

The hilarity still continues lol

And ignorance too it would seem.

At least my mind is open you’re stuck inside tunnel full of chips and analysts to the point you have forgot what listening to music is all about. As I wrote there is guy’s from studios now you reply with their deaf from over listening to music. Strange how it’s the computer based systems that can’t hear the 24bit to 16bit difference yet everyone else can. Like most recordings there is good and bad. But no everyone is deaf apart from the computer user. This debate has over run it’s course.

 

[the record spot]

Sound engineers are still human and don't have special hearing abilities, just an affinity for that type of work. If anything, prolonged exposure to elevated 'noise' levels in the industry would actually have a negative effect on hearing.

I wasn't referring to "sound engineers", I was referring to mastering. Not all of them work at elevated levels in the studio, or at least, levels that result in prolonged damage.

The point is that I'd guess some could discern a difference (I personally can't, even down to 192kbps), particularly where they work in the industry and close up to the detail in a recording.

 

[manicm]

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.

I never read that iTunes is bad for ripping MP3s and WAVs, it's from my own experience. And Record Spot - EACs WAVs sound way better than iTunes. iTunes does its own AAC OK, and I've ripped AIFFs from it fine as well.

 

[the record spot]

I've used both iTunes and EAC for years. WAV playback is identical to my ears.

 

[Overdose]

Sound engineers are still human and don't have special hearing abilities, just an affinity for that type of work. If anything, prolonged exposure to elevated 'noise' levels in the industry would actually have a negative effect on hearing.

I wasn't referring to "sound engineers", I was referring to mastering. Not all of them work at elevated levels in the studio, or at least, levels that result in prolonged damage.

The point is that I'd guess some could discern a difference (I personally can't, even down to 192kbps), particularly where they work in the industry and close up to the detail in a recording.

'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.

 

[steve_1979]

I record & play my hifi music in a studio enviroment. Good acoustics & well treated room.

Out of interest Native_bon, what studios have you worked in and what music have you helped produce? Have you worked on anything famous that we may know of?

The hilarity still continues lol. There we have guy’s who record in studios but the novice computer music enthusiast still knows better simple because he can measure sound waves lol

It's fine by me if people want to claim that they can hear a difference between 320kbps MP3s and lossless files. But as I said earlier in the thread, if they're unwilling to use good scientific method to come to their conclusions then the claims are unreliable and their credibility is questionable.

It does strike me as funny though. The people who think that they can hear a difference are the same people who aren't willing to try ripping the MP3s themselves and then compare the files using a proper ABX test.

 

[Overdose]

At least my mind is open you’re stuck inside tunnel full of chips and analysts to the point you have forgot what listening to music is all about. As I wrote there is guy’s from studios now you reply with their deaf from over listening to music. Strange how it’s the computer based systems that can’t hear the 24bit to 16bit difference yet everyone else can. Like most recordings there is good and bad. But no everyone is deaf apart from the computer user. This debate has over run it’s course.

I'm not entirely sure what all of that statement above means, It does seem a bit hypocritical though when viewed in the light of something that you said earlier.

Had a huge dilemma on my hands here I am with thousands of CD’s and a small fortune spent over the years. All of a sudden I have heard music playback take a huge leap forward from down loading. The gap for me was too big to ignore on sound quality because that is what enjoying music is all about. Spent many months transferring all my CD’s to a NAZ. Sold off the whole cd based system along with the CDs and went for my current system. 24bit recordings are another step ahead of 16bit , it’s not hard to work out there is more information on 24bit to 16 bit.

A couple of questions if I may?

Did you not use a computer to download and rip your music collection?

These CD rips you made (you know, the thousands that you've admitted to ripping?) , I hope you ditched them all when you sold the extensive CD collection, because that would be rather naughty otherwise and not particularly charitable to the industry that you should be supporting, rather than ripping off in a piracy type manner. Of course you probably did get rid though, didn't you?

 

[Native_bon]

I record & play my hifi music in a studio enviroment. Good acoustics & well treated room.

Out or interest Native_bon, what studios have you worked in and what music have you helped produce? Have you worked on anything famous that we may know of?

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.

The question of producers not being able to hear well is just rubbish. The most important thing to a music producer is thier ears, & we take very good care of our ears. Am into music production cause i enjoy it. My stye of music is soul, jazzz & world music...

 

[Overdose]

The question of producers not being able to hear well is just rubbish. The most important thing to a music producer is thier ears, & we take very good care of our ears. Am into music production cause i enjoy it. My stye of music is soul, jazzz & world music...

Who said producers can't hear well?

When did you last have a full audiometetric test?

 

[Native_bon]

Yes I get my hearing tested at least once a year.

 

[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.

 

[MajorFubar]

steve quack.

:rofl: It's Steve Quirk not Quack! I think he's left now, though I was a fan of his Fusion Flavours

Well done for getting your recording on a radio station and good luck with your venture :cheers:

 

[Overdose]

Yes I get my hearing tested at least once a year.

That's good and wise in your chosen vocation, you'll know all about the limit of your range of hearing then. 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.

 

[Native_bon]

steve quack.

:rofl: It's Steve Quirk not Quack! I think he's left now, though I was a fan of his Fusion Flavours

Well done for getting your recording on a radio station and good luck with your venture :cheers:

Oh Thanx for the correction. Was not sure how to spell. Yes i use to enjoy his sections a lot too. How times change.