With nowdays bandwidths, why do we keep using destructive compression for songs?
A lot of listening today occurs through streaming services, and huge uncompressed songs will eat into data plans quickly.
24/192 music downloads make no sense
91–100 of 242 posts
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#92First, let me state that I believe that CD audio, played through a modern DAC and quality stereo equipment is pretty much the pinnacle of home audio listening. That is to say, I think 44.1kHz 16-bit PCM audio is plenty good and I'm in no rush to replace my CD collection, nor do I think significant investment in higher bandwidth audio (for playback, mixing and mastering are another story) buys you much. That said, the…
But the within-audible-range-"beat" at the recorded "listening position" (where the microphones are located) would be recorded anyway, no?[1] So how does hi-res audio help in this case?
[1] AFAIK most music is not recorded like that, instruments are recorded separately and then overlaid; but then adding realistic-sounding "beats" based on whatever positioning the sound engineer envisions should be possible in software?
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#93So, what are the better settings for ripping songs?
Compression wise I go for 256kbps AAC. It's quite superior to MP3 as a codec.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#94First, let me state that I believe that CD audio, played through a modern DAC and quality stereo equipment is pretty much the pinnacle of home audio listening. That is to say, I think 44.1kHz 16-bit PCM audio is plenty good and I'm in no rush to replace my CD collection, nor do I think significant investment in higher bandwidth audio (for playback, mixing and mastering are another story) buys you much. That said, the…
First off, from the point of view of the linear theory of sound waves, you're plain wrong. Two waves of any frequencies will only interact additively in linear media -- so no low frequencies are created through their interaction (unless non-linear effects come into play, but those usually create higher, not lower, order harmonics afaik). Beating is merely an interpretation of a modulating wave, the reality is the Fourier spectrum.
Second, as far as I know our hearing is composed of linear excitation elements (they have a definite bandwidth), and this is confirmed pretty well by experiments with human hearing -- you can see the threshold of our hearing at about 20kHz and that we experience tones of different frequencies fairly independently. Those assumptions imply that two tones, one at e.g. 50kHz and another at 50.001kHz are inaudible, end of story.
You can actually do this experiment yourself if you have a signal generator that can do 1Hz amplitude modulation and drive a transducer with a non-negligible sensitivity in that range.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#95The single worst thing that harms audio quality is excessive compression. It's ruining everything, I'd say. Heck, I'm sure everyone who knows their worth would agree that compression harms audio quality. Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war edit: compression as in dynamic range compression, not data compression like mp3 in audio
Dynamic range compression is an important part of the aesthetic of pop music today, like it or not. Pop hits don't sound the same without it. For this reason (unaffected by normalization on itunes/youtube) it will be slow to go away.
This is true. HDTracks.com offers one of the Green Day records with no mastering compression.
Yes, it has much more dynamic range, but it sounds wrong. Compression basically emulates what our ears naturally do when hearing very loud material, so compression gives one the feeling that the music is LOUD.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dynamic range compression is an important part of the aesthetic of pop music today, like it or not. Pop hits don't sound the same without it. For this reason (unaffected by normalization on itunes/youtube) it will be slow to go away.
I recall listening to a vinyl rip of Lady Gaga's first album, and found that "Pokerface" was much more enjoyable with the additional dynamic range. So I'm not sure if overcompression is necessary for newer songs, but rather that it's just what the mass market has become accustomed to because of the loudness war.
It's a common misconception that vinyl necessarily imparts all possible audio benefits to whatever is pressed into it.
Now, I'm not Gaga's recording engineer, and for all I know you're absolutely right and her & her team remastered each track without compression for the vinyl pressing. Considering how rare such a process is in industry recording, however, I doubt it. I assume that really the difference you're hearing is typical of all vinyl recordings: a type of distortion that comes from both pressing and playback through an RIAA preamplifier.
People use all sorts of terms to describe the difference between vinyl & digital sound, but mostly descriptors center around words like "warmer," or "more open" or "brighter." These are really just beneficial side-effects of the standards developed to overcome vinyl's limitations as a recording medium.
So, in reality quality and compression come in to play long before the pressing actually occurs, on the mastered track itself. I've come to realize that a poorly handled transfer to vinyl will often sound not nearly as clear or detailed as a high-res or even "Mastered for iTunes" track.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#97There's a big difference in impulse response with different sample rates, any one can see it on a oscilloscope, I bet some one can hear the difference. Those who don't have a oscilloscope can see the picture here: http://i.imgur.com/wY0wzcW.png
The two pictures don't have the same vertical scaling, and it's clear that the probe is ahead of the LPF in the signal chain.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#98I can't hear a difference between 96khz/44khz in it's raw form. However, I can tell the difference from effects in audio mixing. The extra detail can really make a difference in how well an audio effect VST works. I have a 96khz/24bit interface that I use and ATH-M30X headphones, and I can tell a difference between at least some 24bit FLAC files and 16bit highest-quality-possible MP3s. I was mixing my own music and t…
Cymbals are the biggest tell for compressed music. Even with crappy speakers they sound very strange.
SiruisXM satellite radio is probably the worst offender. Makes music unlistenable to me.
Even 128Kbps MP3s render cymbals better.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> higher bitdepths and sampling rates can be quite useful in mixing That is really the central issue. It's much like imaging since the time of Ansel Adams: the sensor can capture more dynamic range than the human eye can experience. The producer may have use for that range when editing, but the audience will never know what was -- may have been -- missed. And we're not talking about limits of reproduction. We're talk…
> That is really the central issue. It's much like imaging since the time of Ansel Adams: the sensor can capture more dynamic range than the human eye can experience. That's not really true. Dynamic range refers to the difference between the biggest value that isn't clipped and the smallest value that isn't rounded to zero. The human eye is a logarithmic detector, cameras are linear. The only reason HDR is a thing is…
You're thinking about absolute range of a human system. Yes, I can look into shadows and my iris will imperceptibly dilate. Similarly, the stapedius muscle can dampen input to the oval window. So you can appreciate a wide dynamic range. But instantaneously, your retina is only good for about 7-8 EV steps. Modern imaging sensors deliver well over 10 EV, some deliver more than 14. Depending on which format you save to, you could be throwing away half the information! So, much like a artist should record 24/192, a photographer should be saving to RAW. But no monitor or film or the human eye will ever capture all that range in one instant. So, especially for temporal media, like audio and video, that space can be scoped down in the interest of space saving without any perceptible loss.
Re: 24/192 music downloads make no sense
#100The single worst thing that harms audio quality is excessive compression. It's ruining everything, I'd say. Heck, I'm sure everyone who knows their worth would agree that compression harms audio quality. Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war edit: compression as in dynamic range compression, not data compression like mp3 in audio
I have mixed feelings about it. But I fully agree all music should be uncompressed by default.
The good thing about compression is that it allows you to save your hearing quite a bit. Some music have dramatic parts that get super loud, which can have awesome emotional response; but it does take a toll on your hearing, unless you are in a very silent environment or have fantastic headphone insulation (I have none) -- so compression actually allows me to hear everything the music has to offer. I also use compression tool on my soundcard to play most games, specially FPSes that have incredibly loud bangs and yet you need to hear footsteps and quiet environmental noises -- with a compressor that's possible without blowing up your ears.