The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Stupid Idea? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 1 week ago
  #1
Gear Nut
Stupid Idea?

Just happened to read something about MP3 processing the other day and how it removes low level sound adjacent to higher level sound and it seemed like a nifty idea to clean up and clarify a mix or stem. Of course, at the expense of fidelity. Has anyone ever used MP3 processing as an effect or audio tool?
Old 1 week ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 

The plan' seems to assume what's removed is both 'dirt(?), unwanted content, plus doesn't add new artifacts of it's own.
Interesting shot though

I wouldn't bet I could reliably hear the loss on 320 mp3, on the other hand I've never heard an mp3 sound 'cleaner than the source.

Last edited by Wayne; 1 week ago at 03:48 AM.. Reason: clarity...
Old 1 week ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 

I don't see how clean up and losing fidelity are compatible.

I think this is going down the wrong road.
Old 1 week ago
  #4
Expander
Old 1 week ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 

An expander doesn't really address it either.
Old 1 week ago
  #6
No what you want is more lf and hf next to the lf and hf. You should go the other direction and sample it at 192 and 96 kHz as wav files so you can see if that sounds better. It will. Try what I tried just running a signal from the signal plugin in a 192 session in Pro Tools. Then do effects on it with some plugins. I recommend the free plugin fromage, I used several free plugins on a 192 kHz signal and got some interesting and audible results. I recorded automation in the original signal plugin, and added acon chorus and some tdl eq and did automation records for every plugin just turning dials. I had a video up OUAT...it was called f***kin s**t up. It was clear listening back to it that it was a deeper sound than the lower sample rate and much worse when you do an mp3 compression...there is still a video on my utube featuring some of the audio and a screen record I think it's called '2 signals official video'

YouTube

I did some further work with the 2 192 kHz signals and put it on a travelog video I did:

YouTube

Don't think the audio will be as good as my source videos were because youtube does its compression. But there may be a chance that it is better than average. It started as 192kHz though.

I also have a few songs and other files that are not a song but a test on Soundcloud that tested 192 kHz.

Listen to Testing 192kHz Audio On M Track 8x4 in Pro Tools #np on #SoundCloud
Testing 192kHz Audio On M Track 8x4 in Pro Tools | Free Listening on SoundCloud
Old 1 week ago
  #7
Lives for gear
Oh, no, not again.

BrainDeadLooney, its BS what you tell.

To the OP: Encoding to MP3 means, that there is a algorithm at work throwing away information that is masked, information, you cant hear anyway. So it makes no snse, encoding to MP3 doesnt "clear up" things.

There is no (0, zero, nada) scientific test, that suggests anyone can hear the difference of a 320kbit MP3 and the same file in "HQ", means 192kHz or such.

So what BrainDeadLooney hears is pure imagination or he is a mutant.

And again: Here it is explained once and for all time and to end all that braindead discussions about samplerates:

Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell

Everything else is Bull****.
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Gear Nut
 

I think it would be to subtle.

In a complex mix no one can say: that one sound is an mp3.

I've mixed some songs that have low Quality sound samples from freesoundsamples.com
No one will ever know. 95% of listners don't care btw.

Some substractive EQ wil do a far better job.
Old 1 week ago
  #9
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddy View Post
Just happened to read something about MP3 processing the other day and how it removes low level sound adjacent to higher level sound and it seemed like a nifty idea to clean up and clarify a mix or stem. Of course, at the expense of fidelity. Has anyone ever used MP3 processing as an effect or audio tool?
Yes. Some mp3 converters offer the option of super-low sample rates, with the result having incredibly obvious interpolation. Like an in-and-out cell phone call. Perfect if you're a sound designer and you need the sound of an in-and-out cell phone call. Or in space-epic movies, in those battle scenes when the comms are messing up due to being blasted by enemy Discrepitators.

Really lame, cheap-ass radio stations sometimes use these ultra-lo-res mp3's with their records and commercials to economize on drive space. The country stations in Central California that put extra reverb on everything come to mind. So I guess you could call that an audio tool. But if you or I tried to use it for cleaning up audio, the audio tool would be us.

Last edited by Brent Hahn; 1 week ago at 05:27 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 

How it removes low level sound adjacent to higher level sound? You obviously didn't understand what you were reading.

Once analog is converted to binary there are NO higher and Lower sound levels any more. You're dealing strictly with Ones and Zeroes.
Anything you, think you know about what's going on, based on analog science isn't going to happen, nor is it even going to come close.

Stop being faked out by the computer screen's GUI. A computer is just a complex adding machine. It used program algorithms to add and subtract numbers from the original binary numbers That's it man. If you think anything else is actually going on you're believing in a fantasy.

MP3's are just a down sampling, a lower compression of numbers taken from the original set of samples. Its no different then low resolution photos or TV. If you don't look to close at those you may not see all the individual pixels causing a nasty graininess. In audio, less essential bits thrown away in order to make the file size smaller. Most of the loss comes from the highest frequency ranges where you have allot of samples taken of very short, high frequency waves. It will also make all frequencies much grainer and increase the numbers of unnatural artifacts as the bits are reassembled into analog waves and sine waves have much of their original forms reconstructed in unnatural ways. Anything above 10/12Khz is likely to be severely damages or completely thrown away and missing, never to be returned when converting back to a higher sample rate.

Guess the easiest way of explaining it would be to use a graph.

Here are three sample rates. The lowest uses the fewest number of blocks (binary voltage readings of the sine wave)
The red wave is the analog wave. The boxes below are the digital approximation of the analog waveform that's been converted to digital.
When you record a wave file, CD quality would be 16/44.1. The first number is the number of boxes stacked in height, the second number is the number of boxes set side by side representing the horizontal passage of time. Both height and width samples are needed to measure amplitude (height) and frequency Width of the analog waveform.
The vertical




Once its binary, conversion from a high sample rate to a low one like MP3's is simply a matter of how many boxes you can remove and still have the waveform still look/sound like the original. Of course for most casual listeners who aren't used to working with digital audio are likely to have their ears easily tricked into believing the audio fidelity isn't missed, especially when they don't have A/B comparisons readily available.

I would hope, most people who visit a site like this populated by experts in audio would do enough experimentation and reading on their own to separate fact from fiction and already have a good idea of how much audio gets damaged by down sampling to lower sample rates and MP3's. Personally I haven't used an MP3 file in at least a year and even then it was just to learn a song for a band off the net. Even at 62 and having played in countless rock bands my ears are still good enough to recognize how awful an MP3 sounds in comparison to a high sample rate version of a song.

By far the worst example of what happens can be heard on satellite radio where all the programing and music is compressed down to low fidelity MP3's If you have any kind of ear training at all, the snake hiss tones in the treble ranges would drive you nuts. I grew up listening to analog radio and even AM with its limited frequency response and radio interference is preferable over the chalk board and fingernail sound of MP3's on the radio. There must be something that makes MP3's even worse when transmitted because the tubular sounding snake tones are far less offensive when listening to an MP3 on other playback systems.

Something gets exaggerated when broadcasted making it extremely hard on the ears, and even for an expert like me who has exceptional selective hearing when I need to hear individual musical parts, I'm unable to block out those nasty artifacts for any length of time. If anything I want to do just the opposite and clearly hear artifacts when mixing audio. As you can guess I don't listen to much digital radio or MP3's because of how irritating they sound to me.
Old 1 week ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrgkmc View Post
MP3's are just a down sampling, a lower compression of numbers taken from the original set of samples. Its no different then low resolution photos or TV.
This is just 100% wrong. The mp3 compression is perceptual and includes transforming the digital stream into windowed "bins" for analysis and processing.

It's not "just a down sampling". That's nonsense.

[irony]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrgkmc View Post
I would hope, most people who visit a site like this populated by experts in audio would do enough experimentation and reading on their own to separate fact from fiction
[/irony]
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
robotunes / Modular Mania - all things Eurorack and modular synths/effects
23
Adotinthecosmos2 / Live Sound
19
Adotinthecosmos2 / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
14
Gorgutz / Studio building / acoustics
9
mimp / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
10

Forum Jump
Forum Jump