What GM said about, “there is no reason why all music can’t go to 48/24”… I personally agree with him. We have enough storage, we have enough bandwidth and technology to make downloads, even streaming work. Local buffer sizes can be increased, and if someone is listening to an album or radio station with a playlist, the next song in order is already queued. So the download of that song into the buffer can be taking place while the previous song is still being played.
Don’t get me wrong, I would not agree with removing mp3’s altogether, but they should be resigned to an option for low speed or dial up connections.
We are a fast food world. Fast food and music. There are those who do not know the difference, because they have not been introduced to the difference. …and that’s what really needs to happen. A 128k mp3 is basically music in a cheap styrofoam container.
I guess we’re lucky that mp3’s weren’t available when music was assembled to be sent to deep space.
I’m no expert, but I’ve been told the problem isn’t speed, or even bandwidth, but it’s aggregate bandwidth. Most infrastructure can handle large music files in a timely manner, but if the system in the aggregate switched to larger music files, the sudden increase in the overall amount of data would choke the system, and bring it to its knees
That is, if I understand the issue correctly. I think it was Tones who explained it to me
As far as I can tell the average consumer listening in a normal domestic room with a consumer level system isn’t going to be able to tell the difference between a 128kbps mp3 or a wav file. Even less so if listening on a computer generic with a generic sound card.
I don’t doubt that someone listening on a system with a high end monitoring system with high end converters in a quiet room may well hear the difference between a 320kbps file and a wav but I can’t on my setup. I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps files though.
I will say this though, I can enjoy good music in any format. It’s not that long ago that, well a few years perhaps, that I was listening to music on an am radio or my parents ancient hmv record player. For mix review and sales I do agree that the file should be of the highest quality if possible.
I’ve been thinking about that phase inversion test. I now think that I had it the wrong way around. It wasn’t the mp3 conversion adding stuff. The noise I could hear is probably the information lost in the conversion. Some of it did sound like that phasey poor sound quality that sometimes afflicts online streaming though.
Dave, I think there’s data lost in the mp3 as well as added, if I understood what I read correctly. The added data is noise to mask artifacts, or something like that.
I’d also like to mention again that not all encoders are the same. The Lame encoder in particular (the free one) is crowd-sourced, and the algorithms get changed all the time, so there can be differences in files depending on which version of encoding is used. The one you pay for may have better overall quality at lower bit rates. I do remember there was a bad Lame release a couple of years back.
I don’t think MP3 conversion causes loss of dynamics, at least not at 256kbps. I compared one of my wav files with an mp3 version of it, and Wavelab reported them both as having the same average RMS loudness. That’s also what I hear.
Let’s remember that a wav file is itself an encoding, and of course, there are plenty still complaining about that (Google “intersample peaks” to get an idea). I would also like to point out that sound on DVD and Bluray discs is also encoded to save space (not MP3, but a lossy encoding nonetheless).
Early
The issue is usually more to do with bad algorithms than MP3 itself in my experience. There can be a massive difference between 128 kbit tracks. I usually try for higher bitrates, not because I really need that bitrate, but because higher bitrate files have usually been encoded with better algorithms.
That’s my guess anyway.
Generally most DVDs are coded with Dolby Digital AC3, or DTS. (Sometimes, rarely, both) Both of these are lossy multi-chanel audio codecs, and both are generally accepted as superior to MP3. DTS is generally accepted as the better codec overall. But they are both lossy.
The DVD spec is fairly flexible, and it allows two channel 48KHz PCM, but it wouldn’t be surround.
Blu Ray codecs are a different thing… Dolby Digital TrueHD is based on the Meridian Lossless Packet (MLP) spec developed by Meridian for DVD-A, and will support 24/96 with up to 14 channels and is completely lossless.
DTS have a high resolution lossless codec for Blu Ray called DTS Master Audio that will support 24/196 in 2 channel and 24/96 with up to 8 channels.
Oops, I stand corrected on the BluRay. Didn’t realize it was lossless. Anyway, I certainly can’t hear any problems with DVDs, since there is no .wav source to compare with! Wonder why we all don’t just use FLAC?
I think, in the end, our own ears are going to be as good as our audience’s ears so as long as we are satisfied with the result then all should be well.
For what it’s worth, I can’t stand listening to 128kbps MP3 files. In fact, many years ago I ripped my CD collection at that rate to try and save disk space, but ended up spending 3 weeks last year re-ripping it at a higher bitrate.
Sorry, what I meant was, the representation of sound as digits is an encoding of an analog electrical signal, and people argue passionately about the limitations of that encoding. Inter-sample peaks is a good example of such an argument. Inter-sample peak distortion is not in the original analog electrical signal, but theoretically could be produced by the decoding. Just as an example, not that I’m arguing that I can hear it (how on earth would I know if I heard it since there’s nothing to compare it with!). My point was, there’s lots of encoding going on, you can argue about them all, I just think we should talk about what we can hear, not what we can see in a spectrum analyzer.
But back to the OP, hey, where’d he go? Looks like he left the room a few days ago! He’s out in the hallway chuckling!
indeed, hearing is everything but we all hear differently even on different days or hours! our ears are just not very good really, but some are better than others.
Thanks Mark for the tutorial. I’m so far behind the times I simply remembering when they were discussing the approaching roll out of the DVD that it could have 24/48kHz.
Does anybody here use a BluRay burner? This might be a dumb question, but will the audio play back on a regular DVD player?
I ask because I wondering about the possibilities and feasibility of releasing music on a BluRay disc
I remember back in the days when MP3 became popular people said that 128kb/s was CD-quality, yet somehow CD’s sound distinctly better than their ripped version.
The test that was carried out in the Club Fabric In London, (Which has one of the best high volume level Soundsystems in the Planet …period) …by 3 sets of “credible industry ears” commented that the difference between 320kbs & wav was “relatively undetectable” at high SPLs (and with my Pmc’s/Jbls/B&W’s I concur. )compared to 128/192/256. differences can be heard…but not at 320kbs.
it’s either undetectable or not