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
Am I going mad?
Old 1 day ago
  #31
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Some people will prefer mp3s....

...and then there are the normal people.


here it is how I see it in a nutshell: You did a mix. You liked that mix better after an mp3 compression process removed almost 90% of the file's data, and rolled off a big chunk of the high end.
It seems that, contrary to what you are saying, the new normal is becoming a preference for the sound of MP3 over CD.
The Sizzling Sound of Music - O'Reilly Radar
I think we should leave the final word on whether or not there is “more to it” to researchers/scientists.
Old 22 hours ago
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Bollo**s

Just listen with a proper tape machine with a proper tape and a proper recording within a mastering environment and then talk. I did and I was surprised as I thought cassette were ****. They are not.

And better still listen to a reel to reel then we talk.

Anyway the topic isn't about cassette is it? It is about 128kbps MP3, audio masking effect and the effect it has on coversion
No one is talking or arguing about the resolution of reel to reels. That’s straw man territory.

Maybe it is possible under ideal circumstances to get a perceivably “good” result out of cassette tape. I still don’t think it’s worth the effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
I did that indeed and anyway the debate it out of topic.
Stick with the original topic if you have anything interesting to add
Otherwise there are plenty of discussion on tape and tape emulation etc etc
Remember we are talking of
*pleasant*
Not
*fidelity*
Please also don’t attempt to mod threads yourself, we take a dim view of that.
Old 20 hours ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Because I think I like the 128 on most music!
It's like if it works better but anyway going back to the topics

My title is am I going crazy because I know what wall I am against talking about it here full of people like you, and then there is the rest which know what they do and that's why 128 become standard in many places.

I am not here arguing about the sonic degradation of it, as I said also reel to reel and vinyl degrade the sound so maybe it's something which makes it more pleasant to the hear. And I am not referring to my mix but to yours for example. Try and see it will be sounding better to the hear of many people. Something you should consider. Like the sound of tape or vinyl, 128 has a sound which will be remembered with nostalgia and hate as both the above formats.

Nevertheless I have a question which is of a stripped down version of a mix can sound better due to less informations hitting the converters and speakers.

I am sure you have no answer to this as most of us but nevertheless it is a possibility.



Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Hmm. Looks to me like the thread title is "Am I Going Mad" - so really anything relating to your capacity for self-delusion is not only on the table, but as they say on Law and Order: "you opened the door, counselor!"

You would LIKE the thread topic to be: "let's all pretend this is a real thing and make up pseudoscientific reasons why"

We all know why you like it, it's because it's what you like. That doesn't make you "crazy" ... although the specifics of your declared tastes are enough to make you "weird". You are more than allowed to like what you like, but please stop trying to convince other people that there is "more to it" than that. No it's not 'leaving more space' for the "human" frequencies. Please. . Nothing more than your individual preference is required to 'explain' the phenomenon. Some people will prefer mp3s....

...and then there are the normal people.


here it is how I see it in a nutshell: You did a mix. You liked that mix better after an mp3 compression process removed almost 90% of the file's data, and rolled off a big chunk of the high end.

conclusion you draw: mp3 improves my mix
conclusion I draw: there was something wrong with your mix to start with

Like maybe it had too much top end. If a high frequency roll-off is more "pleasant" to you, why don't you try rolling off the high frequency on your mix?
Old 20 hours ago
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
and then there is the rest which know what they do and that's why 128 become standard in many places.
128 became a "standard" because it was a tradeoff point - not worth going to higher res because most people thought it was fine. Not because it sounded better than higher resolutions!

Then places like iTunes got wise and upped their kbps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Nevertheless I have a question which is of a stripped down version of a mix can sound better due to less informations hitting the converters and speakers.
I suppose sonically a less dense mix might not be affected as much. Or conversely, the more exposed low level detail like reverb tails might.

I guess some electronic styles might even be positively affected. I doubt your Americana track will ever improve at a lower bitrate though!
Old 19 hours ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 
JayTee4303's Avatar
Going somewhere the thread participants may be uncomfortable with, because the question's been raised, and I'd like to know.

Starting with a simple question. Human ears perceive a 1 khz, 100 dB SPL tone "louder" than a 100 dB SPL tone at 100 hz or 10,000 hz, and this effect falls under the term Fletcher-Munson Effect, because they published early papers on the subject.

(More or less, let's not quibble here, please..)

I seem to remember a similar, named, audio/perceptual. ..principle... where humans, exposed to a bandwidth-limited signal, will... mentally re-construct... the "missing audio"... like perhaps they will ...perceive "chest thump" from an audio recording that includes kick drum beater click, but which rolls off steeply below 150 hz, and therefore, doesn't actually include "chest thump" frequencies.

Simple question, is this a "named phenemenom" like Fletcher Munson, and if so, what is it called?
Old 18 hours ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeegee 303 View Post
It seems that, contrary to what you are saying, the new normal is becoming a preference for the sound of MP3 over CD.
The Sizzling Sound of Music - O'Reilly Radar
I think we should leave the final word on whether or not there is “more to it” to researchers/scientists.
Good article.

Reminded me of this. In the early 2000s there was a track I was extremely impressed with the production and engineering of (a Seba drum& bass track). It was an amazing production top to bottom but the sizzle on the high end was quite pleasing and stood out.

Brought it into Soundforge (still miss Soundforge) which had a very precise EQ readout, and I noticed the high end was clipped in almost a straight line with a tiny bit of resonance at the top. Figured that must have something to do with the sizzle.

I tried high end cuts. . didn't get the sizzle, and no matter what I used the cut wasn't nearly as sharp. Asked every engineer I knew. . none knew what it was (everyone was thinking in terms of engineering techniques.)

Turned out it was the fact that it was a 128mp3 that gave it that quality. I eventually noticed that every other 128mp3 had that same cut. The "sizzle" just sounded exceptional in this particular track due to any number of reasons.

My experience backs the article. There's definitely a particular quality there (which means there's something to both fall in love with and hate, depending), and that sizzle definitely stands out in some tracks.

From the article:

each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises. In other words, students prefer the quality of that kind of sound over the sound of music of much higher quality. He said that they seemed to prefer “sizzle sounds” that MP3s bring to music. It is a sound they are familiar with.

Directly ties into the "learned response" discussion too.
Old 18 hours ago
  #37
Lives for gear
I've had a similar experience to the OP but not quite the same. Back in the day, when disk space wasn't so cheap, I ripped a lot of my CD's, for convenience, to 192 (later 256) MP3. I noticed that on some of the sixties and earlier stuff I actually preferred the MP3 playback. I was curious at the time and mentioned it to friends but never pursued the 'why' of it. Maybe I should try to find songs or disks that had that quality and look to see if there's any commonality in the recordings or the remastering to CD (the majority purchased in the early days of CD before DR smashing became the trend). I do remember some of my favorite Stones and Doors stuff sounded better to me than the CD.

I never liked the iPod sound so 128 was never an option.

The collection's archived and tagged in FLAC now so it's moot at this point.
Old 18 hours ago
  #38
high end monitors will reveal very clearly mp3 compression, I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps, I recently compared a CD of a micheal jackson song to a youtube video, again only on good monitors will you hear a clear difference, it's all pointless if your monitoring is lying to you, so that is part of the illusion.
Old 16 hours ago
  #39
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Thinking it from point of view of technical aspect it kind of make sense: the masking effect makes some frequency stand out while the one which are covered get removed and therefore there is less information going to the D/A and therefore what gets there sounds more clear. Is this a possible reason?
No. The original masked signals get discarded but during the decoding process, the bits that were discarded get replaced by noise so that the overall volume and loudness remain the same. In the end, there is just as much stuff in the decoded signal but some of it is random noise and some is the original signal.

Quote:
Or am I just a fool? I am sure there are good reason to NOT encode to 128 (one is that a second generation 128 is really awful) but in itself with a nice converter and from a good master, I have to admit it sounds good to me. Anyone agrees?
Not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
My title is am I going crazy because I know what wall I am against talking about it here full of people like you, and then there is the rest which know what they do and that's why 128 become standard in many places.
128 Kbps was not chosen for the sonic quality. It was very much a compromise on sonic quality and no one involved ever claimed that it was as good as CD (or better). It was chosen due to the file/data-stream size. I don't know how old you are but when this format were created by Frauhenhoffer, bandwidth was at a premium! Downloading files over a modem took time! Even MP3s!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
I am not here arguing about the sonic degradation of it, as I said also reel to reel and vinyl degrade the sound so maybe it's something which makes it more pleasant to the hear. And I am not referring to my mix but to yours for example. Try and see it will be sounding better to the hear of many people. Something you should consider. Like the sound of tape or vinyl, 128 has a sound which will be remembered with nostalgia and hate as both the above formats.
You really shouldn't make any assumptions about what people have or have not tried or have considered. Anyway, reel to reel was designed to be a professional grade format. Fidelity was a a high priority. It isn't as high fidelity as digital but it certainly shouldn't be compared to vinyl or cassette. The latter two are decidedly and obviously very much low fidelity formats intended purely for distribution. Sure some people like that sound but the vast majority of people don't! That is why vinyl is pretty much dead and cassette... who cares. Pure crap!

Alistair
Old 15 hours ago
  #40
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
Because I think I like the 128 on most music!
then go ahead and like it. Just stop it already with the "theories" why. I am sure somewhere there is someone that likes to eat dog poo. If that person makes a list of reasons why dog poo 'tastes good', nobody really cares what's on the list.

Quote:
Try and see it will be sounding better to the hear of many people. Something you should consider

I am a professional recording engineer. I send out .wav files for production and duplication, and I send out mp3s via email for in-progress mixes and for artists to self-comp their playlists. I do this almost every single day. Do not patronize me. I know what a 128k mp3 sounds like. I have "tried it". I also know what my clients think and what my students think, and I am reminded of it every time they ask if they could please have the full res file.

And every studio withholds the full-res file if the artist is not paid up. Which also ought to tell you something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura
Nevertheless I have a question which is of a stripped down version of a mix can sound better due to less informations hitting the converters and speakers.
for the pseudoscience

if a "stripped down version" of your mix sounds better, it is probably because less information is hitting your brain. How is it possible that this has yet to occur to you? Why don't you try decongesting your mix on an engineering and musical arrangement level instead of replacing the audio information with crude blocks of data?

I guess that's why nobody in the world likes to listen to orchestra music because there's "too much information". I have an idea, why not turn your stereo OFF? Then there would be no information, which obviously would sound best of all.

As I said earlier, you are entitled to like anything you like, but you are clearly in way over your head on the 'science' tip - and your attempt to 'convince' others that mp3's are "better" is laughable.

BTW, that's your 128k mp3 on the left:
Attached Thumbnails
Am I going mad?-images.jpg  
Old 15 hours ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Some talking past each other going on.

They're definitely lower quality by all scientific measure, but there's a "particular" quality to them, as in its the same kind of quality over and over, that cuts out what's often considered "harsh" frequencies in an identifiable way. Any time there's a particular and repeated quality to something, some will prefer it, due to the mere exposure effect (Mere-exposure effect - Wikipedia)

THAT'S where the science to the preference actually lies here. . . in the psychology.

I don't prefer 128 mp3s by any means, but I understand where the OP is coming from, and had the "what's this sizzle" experience myself back in the day that so many others have also had. I absolutely buy that people legitimately can prefer them for these reasons.
Old 15 hours ago
  #42
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeegee 303 View Post
It seems that, contrary to what you are saying, the new normal is becoming a preference for the sound of MP3 over CD.
The Sizzling Sound of Music - O'Reilly Radar
from the article:
Quote:
that each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises
Since there is no data shown, for all we know, the percentage has risen from one percent preferring it, to two percent preferring it. The preference for the format can still be said to be "rising".

Quote:
I think we should leave the final word on whether or not there is “more to it” to researchers/scientists.
Yes, let's. This is one guy 'surveying' his students. If this is your idea of "research" and "science", then where is his data for this bald assertion? What was the methodology of his "survey"? Who has replicated it? Isn't a big part of an experiment the ability of of others to replicate the results? Every semester I have my students try to tell wav from high and low bitrate mp3s and while some are not sensitive to the difference, I cannot recall one student who was sensitive to the difference, and actually preferred the mp3.

Everybody is looking for a Hot Take. All the obvious hot takes have already been, well, "taken" - so the easiest, cheapest, laziest Hot Take that is left is to "gentrify" something that everyone knows sucks - and say how it's "not so bad", or in the case of the OP, that it is actually "better". It's so predictable, it's so boring. It's not really even a "take", it's just knee-jerk contrarianism. Which by definition, is just as predictable and just as unoriginal as knee-jerk conformity. And now we have somebody like the OP lecturing his betters on how we should "try it" and how it is "something we should consider".

In any case, wake me up when any "researchers" or "scientists" conclude that everyone prefers the 128k mp3 because it is "easier on the converters"
Old 14 hours ago
  #43
Gear Maniac
 

I personally can hear the difference between Wav, 320 and lower res bit depth etc because I have practiced listening. I hate the "sizzle" but that may be due to age as it is a fact that once past about the age of 18-20 human hearing changes. I suppose it's possible the sizzle that is pleasing to some is a replacement for something their ears can no longer sense. I am completely apathetic about why someone would like it, I don't. I consider 320 moderately acceptable, but it is still quite different from WAV, just as there is an audible difference between 16 bit and 24+ bit recordings IMHO. My guess is that 320 has become the defacto standard due to current streaming rates and storage availability/cost. When the former goes up and the latter goes down as they have trended, I expect the standard will increase again. Note: I am not anti modern music-bit crushing does not offend my ears, but if it wasn't recorded and mixed with bit crushing as part of the performance, I don't believe adding it will "improve" the track/song. Yes it can be done artistically but that just makes it different, not inherently better.
Old 14 hours ago
  #44
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
They're definitely lower quality by all scientific measure
but wait, they might make it "easier on the converters" - isn't that "science"?
wait, some professor did a survey of his students - that's "science", right?


Quote:
that cuts out what's often considered "harsh" frequencies in an identifiable way
and of course as musicians, tracking engineers, mixing engineers and mastering engineers we are incapable of cutting out "harsh" frequencies ourselves. If only there was some device - some hardware or plug-in that we could use to cut out "harsh" frequencies without having to rely on a data compression scheme to do it for us....

By the way, which is it? Do mp3s sound better than the full-res audio because the highs have been cut or because "sizzle" has been added?

Quote:
. Any time there's a particular and repeated quality to something, some will prefer it, due to the mere exposure effect (Mere-exposure effect - Wikipedia)
kind of like how someone who eats at McDonald's every day thinks it is good tasting food?
Old 13 hours ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Its got a unique high frequency quality to it man. Doesn't sound like a typical high cut, adds a sizzle.

The article isn't scientific, but it resonated with me because it reminded me of the exact same experience I myself had in spending a few months wondering about the quality of something I enjoyed the sound of, before realizing that quality was the result of mp3 encoding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
kind of like how someone who eats at McDonald's every day thinks it is good tasting food?
Yes. Whenever there's a repeated distinct trait to something, there will be people who come to prefer it.

There's all kinds of ways of destructively manipulating sound in ways that people like.

Its NOT better quality audio by any means. But I can see how some can come to prefer it. I'm HEAVY on "learned response" being quite possibly more powerful than anything else in most people's preferences.

I personally haven't eaten a McDonalds hamburger in over 12 years now (I don't do fast "food"), but I would honestly prefer a good burger to a good steak 7 times out of 10. Even though steak is technically the higher quality food.

EDIT - Food isn't an equivalent, that's always a false metaphor when it comes to sound, because with sound we're just talking about the tastebuds part of eating. Not the digestion process and health effects. Sound doesn't get digested and then used to maintain your organs and health. The implication with fast food is that its terrible for you, but that has nothing to do with the way it feels to your tastebuds. Big Macs taste good, they're just terrible for your health so I don't mess with them.

Last edited by newguy1; 13 hours ago at 09:15 PM..
Old 13 hours ago
  #46
Lives for gear
I'd like to make it clear that my preference was in no way related to repeated exposure. Most everything was better on the CD. It was just certain recordings from the 60s and earlier that I preferred. Not even sure it was the whole disk. I might revisit it now out of curiosity.

And to an earlier poster, this was not on studio monitors through my DAW. It was on my normal 'listening to music' playback system. I was using an EMU 0404 for conversion at the time.

That being said, I can't tell the difference between WAV and 320 under normal, relaxed listening environments. But hey! There's even people who claim to hear a difference between WAV and FLAC which is what my collection is archived in.
Old 13 hours ago
  #47
Here for the gear
So, if the topic is just about whether 128kbps MP3's sound "pleasing" to the ear, I will say of course it's subjective... but me (personally), I have abhorred the "quality" of MP3s since their inception. Dunno about you kids, but since the days of buying tracks individually on iTunes, Amazon, et al, every song I listen to with my exceptional hearing sounds like it's coming from a 5" speaker at the bottom of a toilet. Watery, warbly, highs are crushed and splashed in not a good way, and lows are rarely discernible from mids. Now, that's my ear, of course.

To the broader scope of the problem, if there is one: ever heard of the "frog in hot water" test? It's my observation that we as a society have slowly been cooked for 10-15 years to believe streaming audio is "acceptable" quality. In so much as that now, lower-quality-for-streaming-purposes has become the norm that we, as audiophiles, now accept as "warm and beautiful". Not all of us, and especially not musicians and sound engineers... but, my mom for example. You think she cares if highs are crushed?

I still buy CDs. Some argue those too are 'crap' now because they are only 44.1k 16-bit (smdh)
Old 13 hours ago
  #48
Lives for gear
Mmmm. Burgers. Rib Eye. Hungry now.
Old 12 hours ago
  #49
Lives for gear
 

And I feel you joeq, that as an audio engineer the ideal to shoot for is not the 128 mp3!

Maybe if that particular sizzle is desired then get creative and bounce an mp3 and filter out everything but that bit at the top, and then layer/EQ it into a great sounding mix.
Old 10 hours ago
  #50
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
And I feel you joeq, that as an audio engineer the ideal to shoot for is not the 128 mp3!

Maybe if that particular sizzle is desired then get creative and bounce an mp3 and filter out everything but that bit at the top, and then layer/EQ it into a great sounding mix.
There are a million creative ways to add "a little something" of a certain nature to your mix. Genuinely creative ways. I seriously doubt if whatever Funny Bone is tickled by the "sizzle" of mp3 encoding artifacts can never be tickled by any other source of 'sizzle'.

If one was to listen carefully and contemplate the nature of the desired sound - which after all, is our job - one might even be able to come up with something that had the same desired effect but sounded even better in the long run. For example, if people liked margarine in their cookies, maybe they might like a butter cookie even better!

The idea that an mp3 artifact is so freaking "magical" that the only way to get it is to data-compress a file and mix that back in, is frankly just absurd. "Mere-exposure" is just what it says: it's "mere". It speaks only to habits of the observer - NOT to the magical quality of what he is exposed to. The fact that some people (who call themselves musicians and engineers) want to not only excuse their unrefined palates, but actually elevate them to some form of 'higher' taste actually makes me a little bit nauseated.

There is a whole UNIVERSE of sound out there - in case they have not noticed. And this arbitrary crappy little format is what they have chosen to 'stand up for'? How lazy, how sad. How ridiculous. We tolerate low-rate mp3 because it has a smaller file size. Period. I have zero f*cks left to give for the lowest common denominator.

IMO, if someone actually thinks McDonald's is "good" food, they ought to be a little bit embarrassed about it.
Old 9 hours ago
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Of course there are a million ways. Now there's a million and one. I don't understand being AGAINST something like another sonic option, I'm always open to anything and everything. Most use a bitcrusher to get those sizzly digital highs, mp3 compression is something that could give a slightly different flavor of that.
Old 9 hours ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Thumbs down

well mp3 is not rolling off high frequencies, but instead is removing masked ones, thing which you can't do in your mix, smart fella.

Also unfortunately for you "normal" people might just prefer mp3, as some might prefer synths to acoustic instruments.

and who are you to define normality anyway? are you normal at all? what do YOU prefer? WAV 16/44.1 or MP3 128kbps?
Do you prefer WAv 24/96 or 24/192? can you tell difference between these formats?

I am not NOT NOT advocating mp3 128. I am just saying that sounds better than I remembered...

give it a try and encode properly with a proper encoder, in best setting and tell me if you really can tell the difference and if so you prefer one or the other and in which case what it is?

I will be waiting for your test so I can see if mine was so much far away from your or if we are in the same line... each case it will be interesting as until now we just talked theories, but instead would be cool to see what your real world experience would be... and of course you can always spend a day listening to that reverb tale which no one really cares, but give it a quick rough listening and let me know



Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Hmm. Looks to me like the thread title is "Am I Going Mad" - so really anything relating to your capacity for self-delusion is not only on the table, but as they say on Law and Order: "you opened the door, counselor!"

You would LIKE the thread topic to be: "let's all pretend this is a real thing and make up pseudoscientific reasons why"

We all know why you like it, it's because it's what you like. That doesn't make you "crazy" ... although the specifics of your declared tastes are enough to make you "weird". You are more than allowed to like what you like, but please stop trying to convince other people that there is "more to it" than that. No it's not 'leaving more space' for the "human" frequencies. Please. . Nothing more than your individual preference is required to 'explain' the phenomenon. Some people will prefer mp3s....

...and then there are the normal people.


here it is how I see it in a nutshell: You did a mix. You liked that mix better after an mp3 compression process removed almost 90% of the file's data, and rolled off a big chunk of the high end.

conclusion you draw: mp3 improves my mix
conclusion I draw: there was something wrong with your mix to start with

Like maybe it had too much top end. If a high frequency roll-off is more "pleasant" to you, why don't you try rolling off the high frequency on your mix?
Old 9 hours ago
  #53
Lower bitrate MP3s definitely do roll off high end...look at them in a spectrum analyser!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ayskura View Post
well mp3 is not rolling off high frequencies, but instead is removing masked ones, thing which you can't do in your mix, smart fella.

Also unfortunately for you "normal" people might just prefer mp3, as some might prefer synths to acoustic instruments.

and who are you to define normality anyway? are you normal at all? what do YOU prefer? WAV 16/44.1 or MP3 128kbps?
Do you prefer WAv 24/96 or 24/192? can you tell difference between these formats?

I am not NOT NOT advocating mp3 128. I am just saying that sounds better than I remembered...

give it a try and encode properly with a proper encoder, in best setting and tell me if you really can tell the difference and if so you prefer one or the other and in which case what it is?

I will be waiting for your test so I can see if mine was so much far away from your or if we are in the same line... each case it will be interesting as until now we just talked theories, but instead would be cool to see what your real world experience would be... and of course you can always spend a day listening to that reverb tale which no one really cares, but give it a quick rough listening and let me know
Old 9 hours ago
  #54
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

I guess I don't get why someone would lead off a thread with "Never mind the science, this is what I like," and then try to talk science.
Old 2 hours ago
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Talking

let me put it differently: MP3 does not roll off the high end by default, but uses an algorithm to determine which frequencies would be masked and remove them. Giving priority to frequencies human perceive best. and slowly adding more as the kbps goes higher.

look at a properly encoded 320 kbps on a spectrum analyzer and tell me if the high end is rolled off.

but most important don't look at the spectrum analyzer and and tell me if you can hear any roll off on a 320 properly encoded?

I believe mp3 often gets encoded badly that's why they get their bad reputation.

When we studied them in university we did lot of tests and saw the theory and the actual way of application: also with different algorithms and there is a real difference between them even with the LAME which most people uses.

now it is the same why people say that CD sounds **** comparing to vinyl. The reality is a good CD sounds great but engineers (esp. here on Gearslutz for what I can read) often mix them over-compressed making them unbearable.
it's not the fault of the medium, it's the engineer fault.

embrace lossy like mp3 because it's here to stay.

youtube, spotify, any digital radio, your movie on netflix all use some form of mp3 compression and if your mix doesn't sound good on mp3 is because your mix is ****



Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Lower bitrate MP3s definitely do roll off high end...look at them in a spectrum analyser!
Topic:
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump