II Guys from Petra now on Spotify (and other tips)

[brent]

They are not the same thing. Before you start your usual ball busting about something you do not know about, let me try to find the info for yuou so you can read it first.

Something I do not know about... Well I know mp3 and wma lossless are two completely different formats. Seems you don't. Take the time you want. Our little encounters always starts with you having your terminology wrong and ends with you saying, oh, I meant something else. I just don't like when you say things that aren't true and keep on insisting they are true because you simply never can be wrong ever.

No, they don't. I am not above word salad. I am human. Re our last encounter, I have spoken to several coders for Avid, Nuendo, Cubase, Presonus and they all verified that simply throwing away samples is NOT how any of them convert from 192k to 48k.

[Boray]

Re our last encounter, I have spoken to several coders for Avid, Nuendo, Cubase, Presonus and they all verified that simply throwing away samples is NOT how any of them convert from 192k to 48k.

They apply a LP filter first, right, and then throw samples away. Because they assume there are content above 22 kHz while you said there were not. And if there is no content above the filter limit - the filtered signal is equal to the original, which means you could just throw samples away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downsampli ... ger_factor

[brent]

There is no SRC on the market now that just throw away samples. They all use algorithms interpreting the numbers on either side of the sample, trying to determine what the best average value should be. It never happens the same way twice. It sounds different from manufacturer/coder to the next.

Ever see this site? This is a bit dated, but it is still pretty cool.

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

[Boray]

Yes I've seen that page (or something similar).

As you brought up our 192/24 discussion. Let me point some things out for you.

1. I said you could just pick every 4th sample to play it in 48kHz and that a filter might be needed but that I wasn't sure about the filter. RESULT: Look at the Wikipedia article I linked to. This is exactly the first downsampling algorithm posted there. There might be better algorithms used in heavy music programs, but that's not the point is it? It was a question of if the file could be played on an old computer or not.

2. You said "most computers do not have 48kHz audio as native on their audio cards.". RESULT: False. Do a search on how all Soundblaster cards work as well as many Realtek HD audio codecs which is onboard most computers internally today. Even though they support many sample rates, this is achieved by doing on-board sample rate conversion in real time. I have 4 soundcards: Both Soundblaster cards are fixed at 48kHz as well as the onboard Realtek chip. The only card of mine that really can change the sample rate is a MAYA asio card that I use for recording. AND besides all of this - the default windows mixer setting is 48000 Hz, so if you are the average user you probably haven't changed this setting even if your sound card supports 44kHz or whatever.

3. You said "You would need to convert your 24/192 file to 24/48 or 16/48 to play the file back.". RESULT: False. Your player, Windows or your sound card driver will do the sample rate conversion for you.

4. You said "Proper down-sampling and conversion from 24 to 16-bit does not just throw out samples per se. Missing samples would yield clicks, pops, a change in time and sync issues, not to mention aliasing.". RESULT: False, all of it, except for the part about aliasing - if you don't filter away high frequencies first - and if there are any to begin with. Would a properly mastered purchased audio file contain anything above or below the human hearing range anyway? Probably not.

5. You said "Sure you can truncate samples if you want to, but that is not a proper dither from 24 to 16 bit." RESULT: The most commonly used method of converting from 24 to 16 is cutting away the 8 last bits. Dithering in this is just adding a subtle random noise to the samples before truncating. By adding random numbers to the bits that are going to be cut away, rests of the addition are carried over to the remaining bits. So truncating to 16 bits = 16 bit sound while dither + truncating to 16 bits = 16 bit sound plus a little extra. Dithering noise can of course be added during real time conversion and playback as well.

Well I think that was most of it. The bottom line is that you claimed you had to convert the file to be able to play it on old hardware while I said that was untrue. There is much more cpu power required to decode a mp3 file than to do simple sample rate conversion in real time. The hard drive transfer time required would be (for an uncompressed 192/24 stereo file) 192*1000*2 = 384000 samples per second. 384000 * 3 = 1152000 bytes per second = 1,1 MB/s. That would go back to around 1992. But I guess the file should be compressed in some way anyway.

[executioner]

But there is no difference at all in sound quality between the TGC FLAC download and the CD. And if you got the mp3s ages ago I would guess that was before the album was mastered anyway.

I'm not into the tech items you and Brent are talking about and basically have limited knowledge about what you all are talking about, but I can hear it with my own ears that there is a difference in the quality between MP3/CD. You and this generation might like the distorted sound of a MP3, but the body of richness in the istruments/vocals is gone with the distortion. I can give you a few examples on TGC alone.
1. On the song Take Me Home the MP3 version the guitar work is very tinty with alot of distortion and lacks the low end, on the CD the guitar is very solid with a huge full sound and actually drives the low end in the song.
2. Throughout the album the bass drum is pronounced on the CD with a solid thump and lets you know its there, it separates itself(live sound) and is very distinctive; the MP3 version is very distorted and is very fuzzy and lacks power.
3. The vocals are in the mix on the CD, but on the MP3 the vocals are over the mix and really seem to be not even part of the song. I've found most MP3's I've listened too have this drawback, another example would be BTTR MP3/CD and too be honest is even more pronounced than TGC.
4. The cymbols on TGC sound horrible on the MP3, they seem to be very far imbedded in the mix that their nonexistent, on the CD they are crisp, distinctive, and solid.

These are just a few examples that I'm giving you, I could probably write a difference for each song on TGC but lack the time.
On another note; I've always felt the album Revival was soley made with MP3 in mind because even the CD sounds like a MP3.

[Boray]

executioner, I guess you are comparing both through the same speakers and the same sound card?

[Boray]

Here is a little listening test:
http://boray.wontek.net/petra/taketest2.wav

It's two 19 seconds long clips after each other. One of them is unchanged lossless FLAC (that should be the same as CD quality) and the other one is encoded and decoded 320 mp3. I won't tell you which is which. That is your job.

I think there is a difference, but I don't think it's that obvious that people claim.

[brent]

I am busy on an installation right now, so I will get to the previous post later. Being able to tell a difference is relative to the content listening system and hearing. I use 1 of the best codecs there is an people tell me that 320 sounds just like cd. When I listen on my monitors or high end speakers in a good room I can definitely tell the difference. But, I live with the music, in know what I should be hearing. I generally do not listen to other people's music when I do tests I listen to music I know well.

[executioner]

executioner, I guess you are comparing both through the same speakers and the same sound card?

Note: I do not use my desktop for any MP3 or audio functions and do not own a laptop; Here is what I have.

1. Car Audio: Kenwood(BT852HD) This comes with CD and MP3 Aux with bass boost and has full HD capability; speakers are standard Kenwood 6x9(4) & 5x7(2). I notice a medium difference in quality and clearity on this system with CD over MP3.

2. MP3: I do not own a sole only MP3 player, but have the option on my cell phone HTC Evo 3D. This is rated high in the MP3 catagory for cell phones and in fact is the only cell phone MP3 player with the exception of the IPhone 3GS to be recommended to be used as a MP3 and quality is on level with the top marketed MP3 players.

3. Home audio: Bose Wave Music System III with MP3 Dock(external). I use both the CD and MP3 on this model and this is where I hear the biggest difference in quality. I have a set of Bose Headphones AE2 that I use with this model and when I use the headphones on this system and listen to the MP3/CD back to back on the same album the difference is like night/day. It's to a point to where you are listening to a totally different production of the same album. The CD is so much richer, crisper, tighter, crystal clear, and the instruments/vocals are totally intertwined with each other, unlike the MP3 where it fails on the examples just listed.
This might sound weird but I have the ability to put on my headphones and sit there and just listen to a specific instrument or vocal in a song and solely focus on it and I will be in a complete zone to where all I hear is that specific instrument; every other sound just goes in the background or falls away.
I guess you could say I'm alot like Brent when it comes to quality in audio. I will take audio over video anyday and if I had to choose I would prefer to be blind over being deaf.

[Boray]

I listen on my computer through a pair of these:
http://www.alesis.com/m1activemkii

[curt]

I find it funny that neither Brent nor exectioner have given Boray an answer to the question that he asked in his listening test. Which is the mp3 and which is the flac?

They both claim that the difference is very evident, but they don't want to take the risk of being wrong, so it seems it's not that obvious anyway.

Brent even claimed that mp3-files from download services consist of 50 % distortion. Given all the defects he lists when it comes to mp3-files the task should be quite easy. But it seems it's not. Come on guys... There's 50 % chance you'll give the right answer even if you can't hear the difference.

I've read quite a lot on mp3 files and sound compressions and the generel point seems to be that there is a difference, but (depending on the bitrate) not a very big one. The results of blind-testing seems to be that it's quite hard to tell the difference. And even if people hear a difference, they are not always able to tell which one is the uncompressed (best sounding).

I don't claim that the difference does not exist. And I don't think it's bad in any way to be conserned about sound quality. Given there is a difference that you are able to hear with your ears.

[brent]

I have not listened. Too busy. My daughter is graduating high school, I have family coming in from CA, OK, etc. I have better things to do basically.

I can hear a difference between a 320kbps MP3 and the real thing. If I recorded a some tones for you, and did some panning, you could to.

[curt]

It takes less than a minute to take the test, and if the difference is obvious, you wont need to spend time analysing.
50 % distortion should be quite easy to recognise.

[p-freak]

I am no audiophile and listen to my music in 192 kbps mp3-files. I listened to the file Boray created and I do hear there's a difference, but for me it's almost impossible to tell which one is supposed to be better. My guess would be that the second one is flac, but I can't say why. I listen through my Acer Aspire 5740 laptop with Sennheiser HD 202 headphones.

[executioner]

Sorry, got busy with appointments and life in general. The only internet connection I use is my HTC Evo Smartphone and I went tried listening to the clip last night and the file came up as "out of date". Too be honest even if I was able to listen to it on my smartphone either file would have sounded bad(distorted) because they've been compressed so much to break it down to make it fit. Plus I'm not into hearing files, I want to hear the difference between the actual CD and MP3/FLAC.