Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: About MP3 compression and stuff< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 14 2005, 12:56

I just seen a discussion arising in that Tr3s Lunas topic below about MP3 bitrates and such, and I decided to ask this here. I can't understand all the fuss about MP3 compression, and how some people seem to despise it. Seriously, I've been listening to 128kbps MP3 files all my life, and I can't hear any difference between it and an original CD. Did I get used to it, or what?

I normally prefer 128kbps MP3 files to save the precious, precious space in my hard disk - 160kbps is sometimes preferred, and 192kbps is the MOST I can stomach. 96 and below is silly, but to me, a 128kbps MP3 album and a brand new CD bought in a store are the same thing (well, the MP3 is cheaper...). But then, I have waved the banner of "SOUND QUALITY ISN'T EVERYTHING" so many times around here, maybe I shouldn't be talking about this.

And besides, I prefer OGGs (when I have the time and PATIENCE to rip them, that is).


--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
hiawatha Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mar. 2004
Posted: April 14 2005, 13:04

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ April 14 2005, 12:56)
Seriously, I've been listening to 128kbps MP3 files all my life, and I can't hear any difference between it and an original CD. Did I get used to it, or what?

The same is true of me, pretty much. I guess I'm just a cloth-eared nincompoop! I remember scratched records on cheap phonographs and hissy cassettes, and I even have an 8-track of "Ommadawn". Compared to these, MP3 sounds super-duper.

I've seen other forums where someone pipes up that they can tell the difference between MP3 and CD, or even MP3 and the iPod's AAC. The person making the claim ends up ridiculed as having the hearing of a dog, or "haha, yeah right, golden ears!" I know someone who hates CD's because he claims he can hear the buzz of the tiny silences between the "bits" of the data. The same guy cannot go into a Radio Shack because of the deafening whine of the security system.


--------------
"In the land of the Dacotahs,
Where the Falls of Minnehaha
Flash and gleam among the oak-trees,
Laugh and leap into the valley."
- Song of Hiawatha
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: April 14 2005, 13:29

Doesn't it depend on the system they're being played on? The LS3/5A speakers on my hifi tend to expose certain types of deficiency in the source quite mercilessly, whereas on my portable player good and bad recordings seem to sound pretty much the same. And also, as the years go by, the limitations of my own ears are starting to be a significant factor.

So there's no one answer to the question of whether mp3 compression matters, is there?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 14 2005, 18:13

Quote (hiawatha @ April 14 2005, 18:04)
I know someone who hates CD's because he claims he can hear the buzz of the tiny silences between the "bits" of the data.

I actually wonder if it really is that he's hearing. The convertors in PCM digital machines (that includes CD players) have a steep filter stage which is there to cut off frequencies beyond the system's upper limits - if they got through, they'd end up being wrongly reproduced as frequencies lower down. Those filters can have resonances, though, which colour the sound. It's possible he's hearing those.

Whether you can hear the effects of MP3 compression or not does indeed depend on what you're listening to it on. The average computer speakers don't normally show it up, and the headphones which come with MP3 players often don't either.
It works by taking out parts of the sound that (according to the psychoacoustic model they use) we won't hear. One of the phenomena it relies on is that of masking - if you pkay a quiet sound after a loud sound, you're not going to hear it with the same detail as if what you're listening to is all quiet. It therefore tends to throw away certain things which the model suggests are being masked in this way by loud sounds, and does it mostly on frequencies which we're less likely to pay attention to. At 128kbps, that can definitely be heard at work - play something with a lot of percussion crashes in succession (like cymbals, with their high frequency content), and they'll sound slightly 'squelchy'. That's the data reduction algorhythm gating out certain frequencies which the model says it's ok to touch...just of course, if you can hear it, then it's obviously not ok to touch them that much! If you've ever used noise reduction tools (I'll bet you all do that sort of thing for fun, eh? ;) "Come on guys, let's not go out tonight, that's boring - I've got in some beers, and a selection of noise reduction tools to play with"), it's the same kind of sound you can get with those if they're used wrongly, and for the same reasons (gating out certain frequencies).
It does depend on the material - some things doesn't trip the algorhythm up nearly as much as others do.

Something you can try, if you want to hear the data reduction working, but can't notice it on anything in your MP3 collection (other than just making some at a very low bitrate):
Something common in a stereo mix is for the really important things to be in the centre. MP3 takes advantage of that, and will eat away at the stuff at the sides, whilst leaving the things at the centre with less signs of having been touched. What it's done to the more ambient things at the sides isn't really noticeable, because it's masked by what's at the centre...but...aha! We can foil its cunning plan, by taking away what's at the centre, and thereby uncovering all of its dirty deeds!

For this you will need a Groucho Marx (failing that, Karl Marx will do) disguise set, a set of ears (Mr Spock-style pointy ones are strictly optional), either something capable of reversing the polarity of signals or an ill-fitting jack plug, and a flask of weak lemon drink (you may not substitute Guinness for this).
After putting on the disguise (in case you get caught in the act - this way you'll not be recognised later), and checking that the ears are affixed, you can get to work.

In a stereo signal, things which are in the centre are, as you'll probably know already, common to both channels. You'll also probably know from school maths classes that -1 + 1 = 0. What we can then do is create a negative version of one channel, and all the things which are common to both channels will magically disappear when they're added together (and you will be hailed as audio's answer to David Copperfield...possibly). You can do that in software (split the stereo file into two separate channels, then look for an option to reverse the polarity - it may well be called phase - of one. You'll probably have to convert the file to wave/AIFF or something first), or in hardware (look for a button marked with an ø on mixer channels, or wire up a pair of leads with one where the wires are swapped around at one end) - either way, one needs to be reversed, then the two have to be mixed together. An alternative involves the ill-fitting (stereo) jack plug (preferably a minijack - I've never come across this phenomena with the 1/4" types). If they're not quite seated right, they can have the same effect of making the centre signal disappear - you'll have to fiddle around a bit to get that to work, though!
At this point, you may drink the weak lemon drink.

What will you then hear? Usually a rather nasty, squelchy-sounding signal which bears some kind of relation or other to the track as you know it. It's usually quite extremely mangled-sounding, even if the full stereo track isn't (the effect can be quite pronounced with Minidiscs, which don't tend to display many disturbing artefacts when the signal is played normally).

Perhaps that'll give at least some insight into the workings of the system - enjoy your weak lemon drink, everyone!
Back to top
Profile PM 
raven4x4x Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1535
Joined: Jan. 2002
Posted: April 14 2005, 23:17

That ends the lecture for Audio Systems and Sound Quality 101.  :)  

It would all depend a lot on the quality of the speakers, amplifier etc, and also the individual listener. I quite enjoy burning 'best of' CDs, and I've never heard any drop in quality between them and the CDs. The combination of the ripping, Nero's volume normalizer (which makes sure that all the tracks are more or less the same volume) and my speakers tends to bring out the bass in some tracks a little more, but not a drop in quality at all. Then again, I've never actually listened to my CD then the original CD to compare them. I'll have to do that today: I'll use the surround sound system. I'm sure it won't be an awful lot of difference though.


--------------
Thank-you for helping us help you help us all.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: April 15 2005, 04:08

I'd like more precise details about the making of the lemon drink please, Korgscrew.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 15 2005, 08:59

Another fact is, most speakers are designed to make material sound good, so they'll often smooth over little inconsistencies which would otherwise be disturbing when you're listening for enjoyment. Speakers like the BBC designed LS3/5A which Alan mentioned are exactly the opposite - they're designed for studio situations where you want all the faults to be apparent (so that, hopefully, they can be corrected!). Speakers of that type are far more likely to let you hear what data reduction is doing to a signal than any of the standard 'make everything sound good' type.

MP3 does have more of a noticeable effect on the high frequencies, so it can indeed make things sound more bassy. It's not a terribly good idea to try and correct that afterwards, by the way - boosting frequencies on an MP3 tends to reveal the artefacts that were hidden before (I make it sound like a treasure hunt, don't I?).

The classic anorak's weak lemon drink would be made with Happy Shopper lemon squash. A more upmarket version can be made with Robinson's Lemon Barley water, but my personal recommendation would be to mix a Citron Pressé from freshly squeezed lemon juice (using Jif Lemon rather defeats the point), water and sugar (golden caster is good, or demerera, though it's harder to get that to dissolve). Some ice cubes and a sprig of mint add the finishing touches. It's best out of a long glass, rather than a flask, though.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: April 15 2005, 09:22

Quote (Korgscrew @ April 15 2005, 13:59)
Speakers like the BBC designed LS3/5A which Alan mentioned are exactly the opposite - they're designed for studio situations where you want all the faults to be apparent (so that, hopefully, they can be corrected! ). Speakers of that type are far more likely to let you hear what data reduction is doing to a signal than any of the standard 'make everything sound good' type.

Of course this would make many people ask 'why use them in your home, then?' The answer is that, given a good source, they are magnificent - they don't disguise any of the signal detail, but let it all come through. I bought them in the days when I was listening to live Wagner recordings a lot, and they were the only (small) speakers I ever found that were capable of fully conveying both the subtle inflections in the voices as well as the sense of weight and space and ambience of the music.
Quote
my personal recommendation would be to mix a Citron Pressé from freshly squeezed lemon juice (using Jif Lemon rather defeats the point), water and sugar (golden caster is good, or demerera, though it's harder to get that to dissolve). Some ice cubes and a sprig of mint add the finishing touches.
However, this is far more important. My thanks. I particularly like the sprig of mint touch, which has a small but noticeable effect on those oh-so-delicate olfactory harmonics detected by the upper taste buds close to the nasal area.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: April 15 2005, 18:23

@ Korgscrew: what you wrote above is a very accurate description of what I've elsewhere (in a particular website - see below) seen defined as the OOPS effect (OOPS meaning Out of Phase Stereo). I know how to do that, and I've used it many more times on actual CDs, especially by the Beatles, than on mp3s. One of the many sites that list my name as a contributor :) is indeed a Beatles one, called "What goes on" and listing all of the anomalies appearing in the Fab Four's recordings. Many of these anomalies were revealed by applying OOPS on the Beatles CDs, and, trust me, the result is, more often than not, spectacular. :)

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 15 2005, 19:28

Quote (Ugo @ April 15 2005, 18:23)
I know how to do that, and I've used it many more times on actual CDs, especially by the Beatles, than on mp3s. One of the many sites that list my name as a contributor :) is indeed a Beatles one, called "What goes on" and listing all of the anomalies appearing in the Fab Four's recordings. Many of these anomalies were revealed by applying OOPS on the Beatles CDs, and, trust me, the result is, more often than not, spectacular. :)

I saw you do that, you little bugger.

;)

Yeah, I also did that a couple of times - but by digital means, however, inverting one channel and mixing it to Mono.

Well, I guess I'll only notice the quality drop that MP3 causes if I play 'em in better equipment. So I'll just stick to poor equipment for a while! I don't mind it.


--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 15 2005, 19:47

Actually, I realise that I forgot to add something to my walk-through, and that is that the two signals must be added together in mono for them to cancel out. If they are still panned left and right, then they will instead create an odd, widened stereo effect which has no centre.

Anyway...Phase is actually the wrong term, though it's often used (which is why I said it may well be called that) - making two waveforms out of phase involves time delaying one, so that it is half an oscillation out of sync with the other, which means that when one reaches a peak, the other is in the exact opposite position. That's exactly the same effect as reversing the polarity, which is why the two terms are often interchanged, but if you want to be really accurate (and impress your friends with more than your weak lemon drink - or indeed, strong freshly squeezed Citron Pressé), then the two shouldn't be confused. Not one to worry greatly over, people very often say phase when they mean polarity, I'm fairly sure even I do occasionally.

What you're actually getting by doing this cancellation trick is known as the S component (S for side, its companion M, middle, is what you get by adding the two channels together) - next time someone mentions OOPS to you, you can say "Ah, you mean obtaining the S component" and see how strangely they look at you, thinking you must be talking about something from a TV science fiction series.

Right, back to the subject:
What you're finding with the Beatles recordings is exactly the same principle that MP3 data reduction is relying on. When the sounds in the centre are there, you don't hear what's at the sides nearly as clearly.
If you want to carry that experiment on further, put on one of your Beatles CDs fairly quietly while someone crashes a pair of cymbals together right in your face - I'll bet you won't hear the details in the mix nearly as clearly then (you might also spill your weak lemon drink, if they do it to you unexpectedly) ;)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 15 2005, 20:21

Quote (Korgscrew @ April 15 2005, 19:47)
Actually, I realise that I forgot to add something to my walk-through, and that is that the two signals must be added together in mono for them to cancel out. If they are still panned left and right, then they will instead create an odd, widened stereo effect which has no centre.

Heck, of course! How couldn't I realise that before? I always noticed how sounds recorded "Out Ot Phase" sound... odd, but I could never really explain how. I heard that trick applied on Brian Eno's "Dead Finks Don't Talk", and I even applied it myself on "Buses". It sounds like one single sound is coming from "the sides" because the centre "disappears". Heh, you cleared up a nice doubt I had, Korg. Thank ye! :)

--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: April 16 2005, 05:18

This thread keeps getting sidetracked form the main issue, which is the weak lemon drink. And my next question is - if you put the sprig of mint in upside down, have you reversed its polarity, or changed its phase by pi?

I think we should be told.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 16 2005, 10:54

Depends on whether it was in rotation at the time - if you stirred the drink and the mint started to spin, it would be at 180° phase when it's upside down. Put it in upside down to start with and you've reversed its polarity. Out of phase mint sprigs don't cancel each other out, though - this may be because weak lemon drink has the ability to defy the laws of physics.

If you take off the stem, that's data reduction. It might not affect the taste much, but it's not quite the same as when it's all there...

Reverse phase/polarity tricks in audio can be fun - things can seem to come from beyond the speakers (some stereo TVs use tricks like that, to make the sound seem to come from beyond the confines of their small cabinets). A number of 'stereo' synthesisers in the 80s used similar tricks, some using out of phase delays, others just having one output the reverse polarity of the other. Not a bad effect, until you sum it into mono and it all disappears (not quite so bad if it's just the delay that's disappearing, but still not too impressive! ). That's a concern for people making things intended for radio play (i.e. commercial music) or TV, as a lot of people listen in mono, but otherwise, it's a fun thing to play with.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: April 16 2005, 11:46

Quote (Korgscrew @ April 16 2005, 15:54)
weak lemon drink has the ability to defy the laws of physics.

I knew in my bones that the weak lemon drink was important, but didn't know till now exactly why ...

I presume this is the basis of the trick they used to make 'reprocessed stereo' LPs from mono recordings of classical music, back in.... whenever it was. Not sure what they did - presumably mixed some straight mono (to give some weight to the centre) with some out-of-phase mono, somehow? Anyway, whatever they did, it had the effect of replacing the normal stereo image with a kind of ghostly orchestra sound smeared all over the wall. I wonder if anyone ever did think it was any good?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: April 16 2005, 13:53

I know that, when the Beatles started recording LP's, their Mono records would be remixed on the United States as "Fake Stereo", where the lower frequencies (bass, etc.) would be pushed to one side, the the higher frequencies to the other. I don't think that's what they did to orchestra LP's, though: they would sound way too unnatural! Of course, that's just me guessing.

--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
arron11196 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: April 2005
Posted: April 17 2005, 17:42

Although I feel Sir M might be bored by this, I feel as though I should mention it (This is from research undertaken as part of a university assignment, so I'm hoping this is accurate!;):

MP3s actually have 3 different sub layers within the modelling system Korgscrew refers to. Commonly, everyone uses Audio layer 3, which is about the 96 -160 kilobits per second mark. Also available are layer 2, which is around 160 - 224 kilobits, and layer 1, surprise surprise - 224 - 320 kilobits per second. (These ranges aren't stringently locked as different encoding programs use different ranges for each encoding layer)

MPEG audio layer 3 is the full name of MP3s, which has also come to mean any file compressed with MP 1,2, or 3 Fraunhofer IIS model compression. This would otherwise signify that everyone goes around listening to 128 kbps (or there abouts) music.

To add a more personal touch, I'd add that even though my music is stored on my computer in MP3 format, I don't listen to it on headphones. I've got a fairly decent (or so I think) setup, including reasonable quality soundcard, -> jack - 2 phono, -> SONY TA-FE 570 (currently) -> Silver Anniversary QED cable, -> Gale 3020's. I will add more detail to this spec on request. All this gumph allows me to store all of my collection on my system, accessible night or day, encoded at 256 kbits/sec (it's REALLY difficult to hear the difference past 224) and makes me a happy bunny.

The idea that 128 kbps can sound good using my above suggested theory isn't outlandish as one might expect me to claim. I actually performed a test with a friend where he extracted a track from a CD neither of us knew and encoded it at the different bitrates for comparison. Funnily enough, the best sounding with that particular track was 128 kbps - but I've since discovered that the Fraunhofer IIS compression algorythm (sp?) employs compensation techniques so that most people can't tell the difference on most tracks.

I hope I have managed to add an insightful and potentially thoroughly riviting post that will add sunshine to everyones' day.  :D

I've heard about this weak lemon drink before. If you get the balance of sugar just right, exact to the parts per million, doesnt it begin to fizz and become incandescent as well?


--------------
Arron J Eagling

Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature.

(insert the last 5 mins of Crises here)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sonilink Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: Jan. 2005
Posted: May 28 2005, 19:06

te record mp3 from CD, use music match jukebox

--------------
Take the Time
Back to top
Profile PM 
theweightless Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 604
Joined: April 2001
Posted: May 28 2005, 20:37

what's the difference between mp3 and mp4?

--------------
ASMK
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: May 28 2005, 22:45

I honestly, truly don't know. But reading Arron's excellent post, I'd expect it to be audio files encoded with bitrates below 96bbps?

--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
21 replies since April 14 2005, 12:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net