deadly habit wrote:I didn't mention using your chest, I said spectrum analyzer.
The difference isn't there because your speaker can't reproduce the missing frequencies as they aren't capable of it even when it is present, which is why we are discussing PA rigs.
Go and actually perform these tests on a proper PA rig, yes those psychoacoustic effects that mask issues on a mp3 in a nearfield home environment fade away in comparison.
Hell even take your sine wave results compare them through an oscilloscope and magnify the waveforms and tell me again there is no difference.
How do you know the limitations of my systems? Do you honestly think that I don't know what sub bass sounds like? Why would you even make such a blind assumption?
An analyser shows changes over time, I'd have trouble seeing any difference if there was a small one. Have you tried such a test? Or are you just relying on the sound on sound article?
I have heard mp3 played on a rig loads of time! Stop telling me to do this or do that, you have no idea as to who I am or what I do. Your claims are purely anecdotal.
As for the psychoacoustic effect fading, please explain how this happens? Preferably with at least a link to a good article that I can read.
deadly habit wrote:I didn't mention using your chest, I said spectrum analyzer.
The difference isn't there because your speaker can't reproduce the missing frequencies as they aren't capable of it even when it is present, which is why we are discussing PA rigs.
Go and actually perform these tests on a proper PA rig, yes those psychoacoustic effects that mask issues on a mp3 in a nearfield home environment fade away in comparison.
Hell even take your sine wave results compare them through an oscilloscope and magnify the waveforms and tell me again there is no difference.
How do you know the limitations of my systems? Do you honestly think that I don't know what sub bass sounds like? Why would you even make such a blind assumption?
An analyser shows changes over time, I'd have trouble seeing any difference if there was a small one. Have you tried such a test? Or are you just relying on the sound on sound article?
I have heard mp3 played on a rig loads of time! Stop telling me to do this or do that, you have no idea as to who I am or what I do. Your claims are purely anecdotal.
As for the psychoacoustic effect fading, please explain how this happens? Preferably with at least a link to a good article that I can read.
I know the limitations of your systems because you already mentioned having KRKs so I'm guessing it's all cheap consumer grade stuff which is good for what it is, but by no means capable of accurate low end replication.
Do enlighten me to your woofer models, sizes, the design of your cabinets though.
Obviously I've tried such tests since I'm mentioning them.
So you've heard the same song from a 24bit wav, to 16bit wav, to 320cbr and then 320vbr versions on a rig? Because the only time I've been able to do this test is during a soundcheck and when the places were actually closed to the public.
It's one of the nice things about having a friend who travels the country doing sound for a living and designs his own speakers, that and playing out. http://www.amazon.com/Psychoacoustics-M ... 540231595/ http://www.amazon.com/Master-Handbook-A ... 071603328/
Plenty of reading for you there.
ffs i leave for 10 minutes and theres 5 more pages, none about piracy smh
do i really hvae to clear this up for you KNOB JOCKS? 320 (the amount of degrees in a circle) is the maximum a circular sound can be. wav or WAVE files are like a wavy circle and due to the bizarre shape, can fit more bassweight on the surface area. when you compress a vinyl into a 320 mp3, you can't fit all the sublow onto the spherical surface area so windows media player discards some bassweight and some vibes. ONLY, i repeat ONLY a funktion one speaker stack can reconvert the 320 to have vibes again.
128 and 64 etc are even worse because they aren't a full circle (going back to surface area) and only snares and midrange remain. It is possible to retain some hats if you upload a dubplate DIRECTLY to youtube otherwise the bass wont even have a convert or to whenever you can.
deadly habit wrote:I didn't mention using your chest, I said spectrum analyzer.
The difference isn't there because your speaker can't reproduce the missing frequencies as they aren't capable of it even when it is present, which is why we are discussing PA rigs.
Go and actually perform these tests on a proper PA rig, yes those psychoacoustic effects that mask issues on a mp3 in a nearfield home environment fade away in comparison.
Hell even take your sine wave results compare them through an oscilloscope and magnify the waveforms and tell me again there is no difference.
How do you know the limitations of my systems? Do you honestly think that I don't know what sub bass sounds like? Why would you even make such a blind assumption?
An analyser shows changes over time, I'd have trouble seeing any difference if there was a small one. Have you tried such a test? Or are you just relying on the sound on sound article?
I have heard mp3 played on a rig loads of time! Stop telling me to do this or do that, you have no idea as to who I am or what I do. Your claims are purely anecdotal.
As for the psychoacoustic effect fading, please explain how this happens? Preferably with at least a link to a good article that I can read.
I know the limitations of your systems because you already mentioned having KRKs so I'm guessing it's all cheap consumer grade stuff which is good for what it is, but by no means capable of accurate low end replication.
Do enlighten me to your woofer models, sizes, the design of your cabinets though.
Obviously I've tried such tests since I'm mentioning them.
So you've heard the same song from a 24bit wav, to 16bit wav, to 320cbr and then 320vbr versions on a rig? Because the only time I've been able to do this test is during a soundcheck and when the places were actually closed to the public.
It's one of the nice things about having a friend who travels the country doing sound for a living and designs his own speakers, that and playing out. http://www.amazon.com/Psychoacoustics-M ... 540231595/ http://www.amazon.com/Master-Handbook-A ... 071603328/
Plenty of reading for you there.
More anecdotal stuff, followed by a link to some books on psychoacoustics. Wow, you really are stupid.
I have owned a JL Audio 13 W7 in the past, which is a lovely subwoofer. It really shakes the shit out of anything. I couldn't hear any difference between mp3 and wav. I currently use a W6 as I needed the boot space. Every time I install a sound system I fully dynamat the car.
As I said, I have already been studying this shit, probably for longer than you have.
And when you performed your test - did you knew what file was being played by any chance? Or did you have a friend play them and not tell you which one?
EDIT: This is from the SOS article you posted:
Regarding frequency response, the theoretical range of human hearing is said, broadly, to be 20Hz-20kHz. Obviously, the lower the lowest frequency that an audio system can reproduce, and the higher the highest frequency an audio system can reproduce, the better. This applies both to the audio file format and to the recording and playback hardware, though in practice, the lower frequencies are usually more of a problem for the playback system’s loudspeakers or headphones than for the format in which the music is stored and disseminated.
garethom wrote:ffs i leave for 10 minutes and theres 5 more pages, none about piracy smh
do i really hvae to clear this up for you KNOB JOCKS? 320 (the amount of degrees in a circle) is the maximum a circular sound can be. wav or WAVE files are like a wavy circle and due to the bizarre shape, can fit more bassweight on the surface area. when you compress a vinyl into a 320 mp3, you can't fit all the sublow onto the spherical surface area so windows media player discards some bassweight and some vibes. ONLY, i repeat ONLY a funktion one speaker stack can reconvert the 320 to have vibes again.
128 and 64 etc are even worse because they aren't a full circle (going back to surface area) and only snares and midrange remain. It is possible to retain some hats if you upload a dubplate DIRECTLY to youtube otherwise the bass wont even have a convert or to whenever you can.
Thanks for clearing it up!
Sorry to hijack the thread. I'm honestly up for bowing out, I said that a few pages back as I've had enough of the conjecture and pseudo science.
garethom wrote:ffs i leave for 10 minutes and theres 5 more pages, none about piracy smh
do i really hvae to clear this up for you KNOB JOCKS? 320 (the amount of degrees in a circle) is the maximum a circular sound can be. wav or WAVE files are like a wavy circle and due to the bizarre shape, can fit more bassweight on the surface area. when you compress a vinyl into a 320 mp3, you can't fit all the sublow onto the spherical surface area so windows media player discards some bassweight and some vibes. ONLY, i repeat ONLY a funktion one speaker stack can reconvert the 320 to have vibes again.
128 and 64 etc are even worse because they aren't a full circle (going back to surface area) and only snares and midrange remain. It is possible to retain some hats if you upload a dubplate DIRECTLY to youtube otherwise the bass wont even have a convert or to whenever you can.
deadly habit wrote:I didn't mention using your chest, I said spectrum analyzer.
The difference isn't there because your speaker can't reproduce the missing frequencies as they aren't capable of it even when it is present, which is why we are discussing PA rigs.
Go and actually perform these tests on a proper PA rig, yes those psychoacoustic effects that mask issues on a mp3 in a nearfield home environment fade away in comparison.
Hell even take your sine wave results compare them through an oscilloscope and magnify the waveforms and tell me again there is no difference.
How do you know the limitations of my systems? Do you honestly think that I don't know what sub bass sounds like? Why would you even make such a blind assumption?
An analyser shows changes over time, I'd have trouble seeing any difference if there was a small one. Have you tried such a test? Or are you just relying on the sound on sound article?
I have heard mp3 played on a rig loads of time! Stop telling me to do this or do that, you have no idea as to who I am or what I do. Your claims are purely anecdotal.
As for the psychoacoustic effect fading, please explain how this happens? Preferably with at least a link to a good article that I can read.
I know the limitations of your systems because you already mentioned having KRKs so I'm guessing it's all cheap consumer grade stuff which is good for what it is, but by no means capable of accurate low end replication.
Do enlighten me to your woofer models, sizes, the design of your cabinets though.
Obviously I've tried such tests since I'm mentioning them.
So you've heard the same song from a 24bit wav, to 16bit wav, to 320cbr and then 320vbr versions on a rig? Because the only time I've been able to do this test is during a soundcheck and when the places were actually closed to the public.
It's one of the nice things about having a friend who travels the country doing sound for a living and designs his own speakers, that and playing out. http://www.amazon.com/Psychoacoustics-M ... 540231595/ http://www.amazon.com/Master-Handbook-A ... 071603328/
Plenty of reading for you there.
More anecdotal stuff, followed by a link to some books on psychoacoustics. Wow, you really are stupid.
I have owned a JL Audio 13 W7 in the past, which is a lovely subwoofer. It really shakes the shit out of anything. I couldn't hear any difference between mp3 and wav. I currently use a W6 as I needed the boot space. Every time I install a sound system I fully dynamat the car.
As I said, I have already been studying this shit, probably for longer than you have.
And when you performed your test - did you knew what file was being played by any chance? Or did you have a friend play them and not tell you which one?
EDIT: This is from the SOS article you posted:
Regarding frequency response, the theoretical range of human hearing is said, broadly, to be 20Hz-20kHz. Obviously, the lower the lowest frequency that an audio system can reproduce, and the higher the highest frequency an audio system can reproduce, the better. This applies both to the audio file format and to the recording and playback hardware, though in practice, the lower frequencies are usually more of a problem for the playback system’s loudspeakers or headphones than for the format in which the music is stored and disseminated.
Nice comeback, is a book too much do read for you?
Also from that article which I quoted earlier it explained the issues MP3 encoders have with low frequency, not the actual storage and playback.
Well I've been making music and studying audio including acoustics and speaker design starting at around 12 and I'm 30 now, and still learning since it's an unending process.
I've worked in PA design and installation, studio design and installation, home theater design and installation, recording, and pro audio equipment sales and installation for a livelihood, not just as a hobby.
Can you say the same?
deadly habit wrote:Nice comeback, is a book too much do read for you?
Also from that article which I quoted earlier it explained the issues MP3 encoders have with low frequency, not the actual storage and playback.
Well I've been making music and studying audio including acoustics and speaker design starting at around 12 and I'm 30 now, and still learning since it's an unending process.
I've worked in PA design and installation, studio design and installation, home theater design and installation, recording, and pro audio equipment sales and installation for a livelihood, not just as a hobby.
Can you say the same?
Lol! And after all that you STILL don't understand a null test. If the low end isn't there, how is it affecting the bass?
Secondly - you played some songs on a PA system to see if you can hear a difference - yet you knew what formats you were playing beforehand! That is not how you do a blind test. Back to audio school for you, clearly your years of experience haven't paid off.
EDIT: And yes, I have both qualifications and experience in a few fields. There's no point in telling you as I'll just get called a liar! So lets just stick to the facts and sound arguments eh.
Last edited by VirtualMark on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WHAT ARE YOU A PSEUDO INTELLECT U KNOW NUFFING I GET STR8 UP FACTS M8 U JUST PUT OUT ANECDOTES NOT LIKE THEY MEAN ANYTHING LET ME GIVE YOU SOME OF MY ANECDOTES BUT THOSE ARE FACTS U DIPSHIT
U REALLY ARE STUPID ARENT U
HEY IM A NICE GUY
condescending "know it-all" dipshit
can we please get back on topic, deadly put out some really nice stuff from the gaming industry as to which I agree
Imho the DRM model has cost them more clients then it paid off, also if not mistaken I've read a similar article from a Norway/Swedish survey. If not mistaken back then a topic was opened as well
Last edited by mIrReN on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If your chest ain't rattlin it ain't happenin'" - DJ Pinch
"Move pples bodies and stimulate their minds"
we just ride the wave
Life sucks; Get used² it.
He would win, I don't accept! I'll be the first to admit that my production needs improving, and that Deadly is a better producer.
That being said - this isn't about music, it's about whether or not a lossy compression format affects the bass output. A question that can easily be answered by measurement, yet I still haven't heard any reason why a null test is considered less valid than someones chest?
deadly habit wrote:Nice comeback, is a book too much do read for you?
Also from that article which I quoted earlier it explained the issues MP3 encoders have with low frequency, not the actual storage and playback.
Well I've been making music and studying audio including acoustics and speaker design starting at around 12 and I'm 30 now, and still learning since it's an unending process.
I've worked in PA design and installation, studio design and installation, home theater design and installation, recording, and pro audio equipment sales and installation for a livelihood, not just as a hobby.
Can you say the same?
Lol! And after all that you STILL don't understand a null test. If the low end isn't there, how is it affecting the bass?
Secondly - you played some songs on a PA system to see if you can hear a difference - yet you knew what formats you were playing beforehand! That is not how you do a blind test. Back to audio school for you, clearly your years of experience haven't paid off.
EDIT: And yes, I have both qualifications and experience in a few fields. There's no point in telling you as I'll just get called a liar! So lets just stick to the facts and sound arguments eh.
I never said I did a blind test, I said a comparison. Where are your source files for the null test lacking low end so I can run them through analyzers? Provide me with a 24 bit 96k wav, a 320 compressed of that source material, and another 24 bit 96k wav of the null result and I'll show you the low end being fucked with.
My years of experience pay the bills, not just make me sound like a know it all on a forum.
Explain then why 24 bit 96k wav in studio environments and not mp3?
MP3 is only good for issues when network transfer speed is an issue or storage space available, saying that it's a non lossy format and there is no difference is just idiotic.
deadly habit wrote:I never said I did a blind test, I said a comparison. Where are your source files for the null test lacking low end so I can run them through analyzers? Provide me with a 24 bit 96k wav, a 320 compressed of that source material, and another 24 bit 96k wav of the null result and I'll show you the low end being fucked with.
My years of experience pay the bills, not just make me sound like a know it all on a forum.
Explain then why 24 bit 96k wav in studio environments and not mp3?
MP3 is only good for issues when network transfer speed is an issue or storage space available, saying that it's a non lossy format and there is no difference is just idiotic.
Stupid Habit - find me the part in this thread where I described mp3 as a NON LOSSY FORMAT.
To compare 320 mp3 to 24/96 wav isn't fair. Firstly the null test will show quantization noise as you've had to reduce it to 16bit/44.1khz. A fairer comparison would be 16 bit 44.1 wav to 320 mp3.
In the studio you wouldn't want to use a lossy compression format, as each time you compress you lose data. So by the time you have finished the production you will have recompressed several times. As for 96khz - it depends as to what part of the process you're talking about. Most people produce in 44.1, but I know a lot of M.E's like to use a higher sampling rate so that they don't need to use oversampling on their plugin chains.
We're not talking about production here tho are we? I was under the impression that we were talking about 320 mp3 playback?
As for not doing a blind test and still thinking you can hear a difference - YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT BLIND! That's the basic rule, you have biased the test and allowed you brain to fool you! Stupid schoolboy error.
Congratulations, you're a salesman and peddle shit. Salesmen are usually the least knowledgeable people in my experience - I don't go to PC World for PC advice for example. As I said I could bore you with my background, but I'd rather just stick to facts and sound arguments. I don't like it when people start saying about their knowledge or experience - it's a form of Ad Hominem attack where you try to undermine the other persons argument by talking about them instead of the argument. It's irrelevant - your argument is all I care about.
deadly habit wrote:I never said I did a blind test, I said a comparison. Where are your source files for the null test lacking low end so I can run them through analyzers? Provide me with a 24 bit 96k wav, a 320 compressed of that source material, and another 24 bit 96k wav of the null result and I'll show you the low end being fucked with.
My years of experience pay the bills, not just make me sound like a know it all on a forum.
Explain then why 24 bit 96k wav in studio environments and not mp3?
MP3 is only good for issues when network transfer speed is an issue or storage space available, saying that it's a non lossy format and there is no difference is just idiotic.
Stupid Habit - find me the part in this thread where I described mp3 as a NON LOSSY FORMAT.
To compare 320 mp3 to 24/96 wav isn't fair. Firstly the null test will show quantization noise as you've had to reduce it to 16bit/44.1khz. A fairer comparison would be 16 bit 44.1 wav to 320 mp3.
In the studio you wouldn't want to use a lossy compression format, as each time you compress you lose data. So by the time you have finished the production you will have recompressed several times. As for 96khz - it depends as to what part of the process you're talking about. Most people produce in 44.1, but I know a lot of M.E's like to use a higher sampling rate so that they don't need to use oversampling on their plugin chains.
We're not talking about production here tho are we? I was under the impression that we were talking about 320 mp3 playback?
As for not doing a blind test and still thinking you can hear a difference - YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT BLIND! That's the basic rule, you have biased the test and allowed you brain to fool you! Stupid schoolboy error.
Congratulations, you're a salesman and peddle shit. Salesmen are usually the least knowledgeable people in my experience - I don't go to PC World for PC advice for example. As I said I could bore you with my background, but I'd rather just stick to facts and sound arguments. I don't like it when people start saying about their knowledge or experience - it's a form of Ad Hominem attack where you try to undermine the other persons argument by talking about them instead of the argument. It's irrelevant - your argument is all I care about.
You seemed to miss the design and installation part and recording which has dick all to do with sales, I was a salesman for a little over a year and guess what I got many side gigs and other offers because I wasn't just selling a product I would actually steer them to better products if we didn't sell them and explain why, along with helping my customers in my free time off the clock, because I enjoy audio.
You're the one who started off calling people names and now you want to bitch about ad hominem attacks?
You yourself just keep saying it's fact, it's science without providing any backings to those claims.
You said link articles to back my claims, I linked you 2 books on Psychoacoustics and Acoustics.
How do you respond, by linking children's books? You brought this on yourself.
As I said provide the files and I'll show you, not "it isn't fair" to use a high bitrate non lossless file, that's called cherry picking.
I told you how an accurate blind test would be done in multiple controlled environments using the same audio material over the spectrum of nearfield, midfield, and pa styled speakers.
And it also can't be just short comparisons, that can be part of it, but do it over a longer period of time and the fatiguing nature will become more apparent as well.
Muncey wrote:You guise need to watch Tony Andrews RBMA lolz.
I believe you said "VirtualMark is an idiot". You called me names first.
I have also helped countless people in my time, because I enjoy audio and enjoy helping people. I have zero respect for people who thrive on spreading misinformation - to be honest that's the main reason I post. It's not to try to convince the ignorant people I argue with - it's for the intelligent people that come here wanting to learn.
And as I already stated, I HAVE READ BOOKS ON PSYCHOACOUSTICS. I hate to point it out, but I'm 33 and have been studying longer than you have. I was put forward a year at school, I'm no dunce. I got A's in my A levels in Physics, Maths and Computing. I have never stopped learning and improving my knowledge. Need I go on?
Generally when I post on a thread like this, I put things in laymans terms, and they still get misunderstood.
I'm aware of listening fatigue - I don't get it from 320s.
And FFS who has a collection of 24 bit 96khz music? That was never the argument! You're just twisting things now, you're the one who is cherry picking. Perhaps I'll up the mp3 bitrate to free format 640?
