View Post [edit]
Poster: | Round Robin | Date: | Aug 28, 2009 10:10am |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | dead-head_Monte | Date: | Aug 28, 2009 3:58pm |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
When I encode to mp3, I have 3 great s/w to choose from. Trader's Little Helper is what I use for everything except encoding to mp3. I have Samplitude v 7.x. I use it for all my editing, signal processing, and remastering. I also have CD-Tag. It's a great utility just like TLH. I use CD-Tag for encoding lossless audio to mp3, because it uses the LAME mp3 encoder for V-B-R. Thanks to the dedicated work of its developers and the open source licensing model that allowed the project to tap into engineering resources from all around the world. Best way to go for mp3. I have a great ear for "good sound." I cannot tell the difference bet vbr mp3 and flac, let alone 320 kb mp3. The theory behind this could be to consider what an ideal signal - audio, video, microwave - or any other spectrum is. If I put a perfect square wave into a circuit, processor, or device, I want a perfect square wave output from the device. In simple terms, a square wave can be created by generating a single fundamental audio frequency and an infinite number of harmonics.
For the rest of us, we can measure the performance of any "process" using test equipment in the lab. Passing this signal perfectly through a "device" is always the toughest test. On the other hand, I doubt square waves exist in nature. Here's the math.
This post was modified by dead-head_Monte on 2009-08-28 22:58:06
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Earl B. Powell | Date: | Aug 28, 2009 8:27pm |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
Ultimately this compression, depending on how many bytes are remaining, really removes the more "ambient" nature of the music rather than what I would describe as "physical."
IMO that the quality of the playback equipment has as much to do with it as the ear. I just traded out a 30 year old AIWA 50 watt mini amp for an even older Marantz quad receiver and the difference was like night and day. The frequency range may not be wider, but it was certainly altered by this change. Just like East Coast versus West Coast loudspeaker design.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Tidewater four ten O nine | Date: | Aug 29, 2009 4:58am |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
That ("Someone mentioned the cymbal test, which is fairly valid, except what gets compressed in that case is not the attack but the decay...or length of reverberation".) I can understand.
Normally, with the mp3 the cymbal comes over as more of an abbreviated 'clang' - with the 'wav' it's more of a 'shimmer' i.e. it reverberates longer.
Either way, that (Bertha re-mix) of the September 1975 Lindley Meadows show comes over as a major eye- (err, ear-) opener in terms of cymbals - more cymbals than you can shake a stick at - and I've listened to a lot of Dead shows via here and (cough, cough) LLL's.
Cheers,
TW
Reply [edit]
Poster: | dead-head_Monte | Date: | Aug 29, 2009 10:42am |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
This post was modified by dead-head_Monte on 2009-08-29 17:42:44
Reply [edit]
Poster: | hippie64 | Date: | Aug 29, 2009 11:47am |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
I'm guilty of replaceing a music file into my libary in mp3 it saves space but I dont treat it the same as my recordings that have their musical integrity. I've dl'ed mp3 shows from the net even shows called soundboards but I'm not niave enough to think that was the way the Dead archived their music. I can't speak about rec'ing a show in mp3 and having a realistic facsmile of what was produced, If I was to lay a wager I'd place agianst the mp3 (am I a Loser).
My mp3's are treated as an audio reference for that paticular show. But if I want to count my ACTUAL shows that of course would only be Lossless.
I'm probably speaking arse but we believe what we believe
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Earl B. Powell | Date: | Aug 29, 2009 12:43pm |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
Really the biggest thing I can distinguish between some lossy and all lossless recordings can be described as ambiance. It's the same thing that audiophiles said about the difference between analog LP's or tapes and the "cold" sound of digital. I always thought they overplayed it, as I found it very hard to distinguish the difference between a CD and an LP played on good Hi-Fi equipment.
The widest variation in ambiance we deal with regarding the archived recordings here and at BT sites is reverb. Reverb is either naturally occurring in a room or a hall, or processed by use of various kinds of equipment.
One of the most common complaints about SBD recording is their "sterile" nature. That sterility is the utter lack of reverb in the sound process. The signal is passed from the microphone, through the board and onto the tape machine. Since reverb or echo is naturally occurring in a hall or arena, it's rarely required as a part of signal processing to enhance the sound. (It's counterpart is in the studio, where there is typically no echo, and reverb is added in post production to keep the sound from being so dry or sterile.)
Some boards sound more natural than others simply because of ambient "bleed" into the microphones. This is where the hall reverb is picked up along with the accumulation of desired signals and makes it to the recording device. More sterile or dry sounding boards either come from halls that lack this natural echo or the microphone levels have been set fairly low and do not pick up the bleed from the room.
This is one of the reasons that the matrix recordings have gained such popularity. By combining the AUD, which typically will have picked up nearly 100% of the reverberations in the arena and the dry signal of the SBD, you come up with a very natural sounding recording. Most of these blends have been 60-40 or 65-35 SBD to AUD, and I think that's because there is the notion to have some crowd noise for purposes of a historic archival event. IMO that depending on the venue that an 80-20 would allow the SBD recording to be "wet" enough to take away that aura of sterility.
So reverb is the one critical element that's minimized as an "ambient" characteristic when decoding to lossy formats, but it's also an element of "ambiance" with the recordings we deal with even in lossless formats.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | hippie64 | Date: | Aug 29, 2009 1:42pm |
Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Differentiate betwteen a mp3 at 320 and a flac? |
Peace