Re: [ARSCLIST] Compressed files & differences (was something else)

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Another interesting thing to try is, play back an MP3 file with iTunes, then MusicMatch, then 
Windows Media Player. Then your favorite audio editor, or maybe two. I bet you hear differences. 
Keep your soundcard and speakers constant.

On speakers, I hear much less subtle differences than Richard describes -- I hear big differences 
trying basically the same intercutting of WAV and 192K MP3 files. However, on headphones, 
particularly earbuds, particularly in typical noisy environments like walking the dogs on a 
traffic-prone street, I can't hear enough differences to impede my music enjoyment. So 192K MP3 is 
fine for the iPod.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Compressed files & differences (was something else)


> At 01:33 PM 1/22/2006, Don Cox wrote:
> > On 21/01/06, Mike Richter wrote:
> > > Frank Strauss wrote:
> > >> Hi Tom-I am a long time lurker on this list, trying to learn what I
> > >> can, and have been very interested in this thread. I have put about
> > >> 500 cd's into iTunes, using mp3 format at 196 kbs. I love music, and
> > >> have always thought I had reasonably good ears. I am disturbed to
> > >> think that with iTunes(and by this,
> > >>
> > > It is possible to detect the differences depending on encoder,
> > > bitrate, and most significantly listening closely, particularly when
> > > one knows what to listen for. Among the differences, imaging is
> > > distorted, though that matters little on a studio recording.
> >
> > I also found audible differences between different decoders, on my
> > computer.
>
>
> Funny story department...or why you should never do anything ad-hoc at a seminar.
>
> I was giving a presentation on audio archiving and had a demo CD prepared and was playing 
> selections. Someone asked about MP3s. I happened to have had one of the selections on the demo CD 
> also as an MP3 on my Palm Tungsten T3 so I swapped the 1/8" miniplug from the Sony CD Walkman 
> (with LINE out) and the Palm's headphone out. The MP3 sounded terrible.
>
> When I got home, I took the MP3 and loaded it into Samplitude, aligned it with the WAV file and 
> intercut the two and burned it out to the new version of demo CD. You can barely (and I mean 
> barely) tell the difference. There is a subtle difference on the bass. I think this was a 192 kb/s 
> MP3, but I could be wrong.
>
> I emailed the conference organizer and explained this and asked her to email all the attendees 
> explaining the error in the demonstration: we were demonstrating the difference between the Sony 
> CD Walkman's D-A and output section vs. The Palm's.
>
> So, in my testing, MP3s can sound very close to the original WAV file in the 192-256 kb/s region 
> and there are FAR more differences in the D-A and downstream of that.
>
> I would like to suggest that the same differences occur when someone upgrades from 44.1/16 to 
> 88.2/24 and hears a world of difference. Perhaps what is being heard is the new cleaner converters 
> on the higher resolution device (or the analog stages). IMHO the only fair test (and sometimes 
> that's not even fair) is to run 44.1/16 AND 88.2/24 or 96/24 through the same converter and then 
> compare, preferably by intercutting two sound files and playing back a stream.
>
> I remastered and released one of Marie-Lynn Hammond's albums whih HAD been out on CD previously. I 
> took a digital clone of the previous CD and my version from the 30 in/s 2-track masters and 
> intercut. Marie-Lynn heard the difference immediately on a moderate system. Her voice sounded much 
> cleaner. I wonder what A-D had been used in 1990 to make the original CD.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard