TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- What you're actually losing when you compress to MP3...
What you're actually losing when you compress to MP3...
Really interesting study about what is actually lost when you comrpess to MP3 - the track and the vid are made entirely from compression loss for Tom's Diner (mp3 and Mp4 respectively).
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/237...ompress-to-mp3/
That is indeed interesting, and on the project's info page he states he used 320 kbps MP3s. So even at the highest quality level, there is significant loss.
doesnt matter only if you can distinguish between 320 and CD quality in a blind test
MP3's = Good transitions.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by evo8 doesnt matter only if you can distinguish between 320 and CD quality in a blind test |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Palm There's a big difference between 320kbps MP3 and WAV to me however it's not that easily found by A/B comparing listening test. The test is really for how long I can listen to loud music without getting tired. With wav I can listen 12 times as long as with 320kbps MP3. With 128kbps I can't almos listen to one song. And all of this is further problematic with over compresses music from mastering. Listening to vinyl has a lot of noise and crackles but it's not tiring. From my perspective I can t wait to 24bit 96khz is the snandard for streaming and with the new American radio/TV compression guidelines that allows for much better dynamics without loosing loudness (average rms normalization benefit uncompressed music and punish over compressed music) - we may have a good time a head. This analog to digital transition (mp3, YouTube, streaming, not cd though) have been heel but there's light in the end of the tunnel. Kids of tomorrow may not have to experience all this shit sound. Except for shitty Asia stereos though. |
just making the jump from mp3 to lossless right now will provide us 20 years of fresh high quality relief from this overindulged quagmire we suffer through presently. Somebody said 24Bit / 96Khz Stanard? holy shitballs. sometimes i bounce short abstract effectey loops like at -32db~-24db in the internal mixer at 24/96 and listen very closely. there's so much space and so much available density, the bottleneck of efficiency becomes my ears and brain.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ RANN True, and I can on a nice system, but honestly only as a comparitive (i.e. I have a track in both mediums to A/B against). I know engineers though that can nail mp3 bit rates though. Impressive shit. I completely agree with this. I was going to say it in the recent soundcloud thread but I cannot fucking wait for soundcloud to go under; Shitty lossy compression, buggy interface, even glitchier waveform players and tons of spam and circle jerk posts. Spotify is marginally better at 320k for their "high quality" (lol) option but most somehow suffer through 160 or god forbid 96 on mobile. We've gone through a period of having decent quality reproduction (vinyl, CD, SACD etc) to really bad (in the name of availability) and hopefully with infrastructure improving (higher internet bandwidth, more server space etc) we'll get a period of high quality again, like wav or flac streaming. Can't wait. |
There was an Ogg vs mp3 test I listened to a couple of years ago and Ogg sounded way smoother to me. I don't know how it all works but the claim was the compression algorithms are just better.
The thing about ogg is that it produces smaller files compared to MP3, and that it's open source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis#Quality
I supported ogg very strongly back in the day, but it never really caught on due to MP3 being so dominant. I'm not sure how relevant it is now that we've got lossless compression and faster internet speeds.
Ogg isn't a audio format. The lossless format most people circulate use the ogg protocol.
Aren't there artifacts introduced by phasing?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.