You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Robots for Robots → The Daily UFO → empirical fact: good mp3 sounds as good as wav.
Yes... but you can see here, that among the lossy codecs, only OGG is almost losless here at 192 kbps
@robotworks: with what kind of sound did you test that?
it wouldn't surprise me if the musical type would make a difference
maybe you should test it with noise or something
...but still not current common standard, if one's got a web site with dj sets on it and wants them to be immediately available for everyone in a world of stimulus satiation and impatience then one still should provide them as mp3...
...ogg is quite ok in that connection..., but true, there can't be any development of common standards if everyone only looks about common standards...
...oh, i just love those on the one hand/on the other hand things...;)
very interesting graphic !
I used a sound sample I generated using sines: 20 Hz 40 Hz, 80 Hz, 160 hz, 320 Hz etc. till 22400 Hz (that way I have well separated rays on the spectrum)
But here is a test of the MP3 lame encoder with a white noise:
is this high frequency data usefull anyway?
that's what compression is based on isn't it, the fact that you can't hear such high frequencies? but maybe they affect the sound still in a way you can experience, don't know how that works
because even my needle has frequency response ending at 15khz(ortofon elektro) and i don't hear any lack of high frequences.
or do i confuse different things?
that would only mean it wouldn't make a difference (regarding frequencies higher than 15khz) when recording mp3's from vinyl, but it still can make a difference with the original music source I think
@robotworks: interesting stuff!
you should test if there's a difference between a minimal electro record and some acoustic disco stuff
i can imagine the loss is worse for the latter than the first, or am I kicking in open doors here?
Human ear has a 20 Hz to 20 KHz frequency response, up to 22 KHz in some cases.
Ortofon Concorde electro has a 20 to 22 kHz frequency range at -3 dB.
It only falls at 15 kHz at -2 dB but high frequencies are still here
http://www.djdeals.com/ortofonCONCORDEELEKTRO.htm
@zip: Regarding minimal electro and acoustic disco, I think the loss will just be the same graphically, but the subjective effect of that loss will not be the same. The ambiance of a minimal electo track would resist better to the loss...
-3 db from 0... it's just a matter of volume level (on the original record)... The cartridge can't play high frequencies if they have a level that is over -3 dB. But many records are pressed at -3 dB, even -6dB sometimes
Here the dB means the same thing than Volume Unit (VU)
Above Zero dB you get clipping and distortion
This all very instructive stuff ... thanks RobotWorks for the tests and marvelous graphs
What about 24b 96 kHz flac rips? The 96 kHz refers to the sample rate. It means that the audio is being recorded (sampled ) 96 thousand times per second. In essence, the recording device or software is taking a
Frequencies that are unable to be heard by the human ear may also interact with audible frequencies to affect the sound.
yes I thought so, interesting larry
At end, it is all up to your ears and whether you think it's worth it when you listen on your equipment.
that's why I listen to (at least) 160khz mp3's at home
but playing stuff out is different, sound seems to lack power in mp3's format (although I can only guess, never really tried it myself, but I noticed it with dj's playing dubious cdr's)
maybe's got something to do with the interaction between audible and non audible frequencies?
Harmonics that disappear or are changed in high frequencies alterate the precision of TONE. It's the texture of sound that become poorer. All frequencies in the graphics I posted belong to the audible spectrum. But human ears are "educated" to give more importance to frequencies that allow voice and language comprehension (between 1.5 kHz and 7.5 kHz). Frequencies above belong to the tone subtility, but it's what make the difference...
P.S. For all graphics the original wav file was 44.1 kHz/ 16 bit
Human ear has a 20 Hz to 20 KHz frequency response, up to 22 KHz in some cases.
Isn't that when you are born as a baby? And then it goes down quickly like when you are 20 its more 20Hz to 16KHz and 30 15KHz.
I think in the future people want to have 96kbps MP3's for the vintage sound (and will use it to master it like that) just as some of us like the sound of old cassette tapes (basicly it all comes to no high frequencies then I guess)
Also in theory a track made with an Amiga and buzzing hi frequency monitor hum over it will sound better in 128kbp MP3 then the wav file hehe
Smackos has a very good point. Sometimes I find that a track 192 sounds more together than the wav 
... and also 7" have lesser bass presence ... right?
Isn't that when you are born as a baby? And then it goes down quickly like when you are 20 its more 20Hz to 16KHz and 30 15KHz.
yeah and isn't it ironic that those old fogeys spend tons on audiophile equipment
Smackos has a very good point. Sometimes I find that a track 192 sounds more together than the wav
Probably cause youre ears are ruined like half of the kids these days , listening to music on there cell phones. One thing is low-fi recording to 4 , 8 track another is crap sounding 192 kps mp3 that are that have that shinny over compressed sound youve come to love.
@robotworks, what settings did you use? you can always turn off lowpass filtering if you want those high freqs, but i don't think it would contribute to a better sound. most music only has noise in those freqs anyway, especially vinyl rips.
change topic title to :empirical fact: good mp3 sounds as good as wav to 100 year old.
320k still has the full hearing range (upto 20khz). the extra 2050Hz on a cd are there to ease the filtering specs.
For the mp3 I used LAME with the following configuration:
-Constant bitrate (CBR)
-encoding="Normal"
-freq="44100"
-channels="stereo"
-copyright_bit="0"
-original_bit="0"
-crc="0"
-force_iso="0"
Distortion in high frequencies on vinyl makes the sound more "dirty" but don't remove anything to its richness and "energy".
Regarding the compact Cassettes, it depends on the recoder/player, I read that best units have the wide range (20 Hz to 20 kHz)
Squadra Smackos wrote:Isn't that when you are born as a baby? And then it goes down quickly like when you are 20 its more 20Hz to 16KHz and 30 15KHz.
yeah and isn't it ironic that those old fogeys spend tons on audiophile equipment
Some of them have babies. And hearing music from early on creates a different mindset to sound. 
Here is a wav file with frequencies that are only between 15 kHz and 20 kHz. Each sine sound last 1 second and is separated from the other by 1 second silence:
1) 15 kHz sine during 1 sec
2) 1 sec silence
3) 16 kHz sine
4) 1 sec silence
5) 17 kHz... etc
Next it's 18 kHz and 20 kHz
http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/11/14 … ifreq2.wav
rather use good headphones to listen to it. Increase the volume if you hear nothing.
Edit: I changed the file, with the previous distortion at high volume was creating new frequencies
Why use mp3 when you can use flac
Why use mp3 when you can use flac
Can't use it on mp3-players...
VLC can play FLAC. You can do the conversion for portable players, if needed. But OGG seems pretty good too... With the AoTuv codec anyway... and even if it also has to be verified with other kind of sound...
Globally it seems that Open-Source codecs are (or have become) better. But they cannot be sold, so industrials are not interested.
Robots for Robots → The Daily UFO → empirical fact: good mp3 sounds as good as wav.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently used extensions: pun_approval, pun_admin_add_user. Copyright © 2009 PunBB