Dubstepforum.com

Terpit wrote:

VirtualMark wrote:Club systems have limiters.

If you think about it, there's no such thing as a limiter.

scspkr99 wrote:

wub wrote:Seriously, this argument has been tested and proven to be false. Compression = loss of detail, let's not rehash again

I'd be interested in the proof if you have a link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression

"'lossy' compression is a data encoding method that compresses data by discarding (losing) some of it."

VirtualMark is an idiot, the whole point of lossy formats is they exploit how we perceive sounds, and guess what they don't always do a good job.
In an amplified environment with proper acoustics and speakers designed to reproduce the full spectrum of sounds (a club with a proper rig) loss of frequencies, smearing of transients, loss of clarity is even easier to spot.
RE: bass

The MP3 format has a reputation for making bass and low-frequency content sound weak: that slammin’ bass line can easily lose its phatness! (See audio examples L and M referenced above.) Low frequencies are harder for DSP algorithms to analyse because their durations are long, and amplitude differences over the short analysis windows used by the encoders may only be slight — so the analysis system doesn’t get an entire cycle of a low frequency per analysis window. In some situations, the encoder will be presented with less than a half cycle of any frequency below 114Hz. The AAC format fares much better in bass resolution, and it is thus much more forgiving to the bass.

Clubs have limiters mainly to prevent their speakers from getting blown by idiots who like to drive the signal too hot, not to run everything smashed to shit (though some clubs have soundguys who think that's a good idea).

People should actually understand how MP3 compression works or the other lossy and lossless formats before chatting such shit.
Christ I thought I would be able to avoid the I read it on Gearslutz now I'm an expert as well misinformation brigade by avoiding the production board.
Some of us actually have experience with this in real world applications.

deadly habit wrote:VirtualMark is an idiot, the who point of lossy formats is they exploit how we perceive sounds, and guess what they don't always do a good job.
In an amplified environment with proper acoustics and speakers designed to reproduce the full spectrum of sounds (a club with a proper rig) loss of frequencies, smearing of transients, loss of clarity is even easier to spot.
RE: bass

The MP3 format has a reputation for making bass and low-frequency content sound weak: that slammin’ bass line can easily lose its phatness! (See audio examples L and M referenced above.) Low frequencies are harder for DSP algorithms to analyse because their durations are long, and amplitude differences over the short analysis windows used by the encoders may only be slight — so the analysis system doesn’t get an entire cycle of a low frequency per analysis window. In some situations, the encoder will be presented with less than a half cycle of any frequency below 114Hz. The AAC format fares much better in bass resolution, and it is thus much more forgiving to the bass.

Clubs have limiters mainly to prevent their speakers from getting blown by idiots who like to drive the signal too hot, not to run everything smashed to shit (though some clubs have soundguys who think that's a good idea).

People should actually understand how MP3 compression works or the other lossy and lossless formats before chatting such shit.
Christ I thought I would be able to avoid the I read it on Gearslutz now I'm an expert as well misinformation brigade by avoiding the production board.
Some of us actually have experience with this in real world applications.

fatality

Phigure wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression

"'lossy' compression is a data encoding method that compresses data by discarding (losing) some of it."

So I get this and I get that with lossy compression there has to be some stuff lost, kinda, but whether that's audible is still up for debate I thought.

I spend a fair bit of time over on head fi and every a/b test between 320mp3 and lossless has been inconclusive. I'm not sure why a club rig as opposed to a stereo designed specifically to give the very best playback would emphasise the differences. The point I thought was that the reconstruction of the wave from the mp3 would be indistinguishable.

scspkr99 wrote:

Phigure wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression

"'lossy' compression is a data encoding method that compresses data by discarding (losing) some of it."

So I get this and I get that with lossy compression there has to be some stuff lost, kinda, but whether that's audible is still up for debate I thought.

I spend a fair bit of time over on head fi and every a/b test between 320mp3 and lossless has been inconclusive. I'm not sure why a club rig as opposed to a stereo designed specifically to give the very best playback would emphasise the differences. The point I thought was that the reconstruction of the wave from the mp3 would be indistinguishable.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/a ... lation.htm
The reason why it's easier to spot on a club rig is that most home stereos aren't designed with say 18" subs to reproduce all the bass content nor does the average room have the space for certain speaker designs to hit their sweet spots.

Cheers I'll check that out later, it seems one for my own time.

Wow, there is so much misinformation here!

Lossy compression takes out sounds that we can't hear! Unless the scientists who designed it say that their model is no longer valid, then none of you idiots are going to convince me otherwise!

Most people are stupid - they lack critical thinking and just believe the nonsense that is spread around the internet.

As I said - sub bass is very very easy to reproduce!

Deadly Habit - it is you that is the idiot, for getting all of your information from one Sound on Sound opinion article. If you read what it actually says - you'll see that the words "reputation for sounding weak" appear - this proves what I'm saying about myths. If we actually compare the signals and do a null test THERE IS NO LOSS IN BASS YOU FUCKING MORON.

Wub - yes, thanks for stating the obvious. Lossy compression loses information, nobody would dispute that. What I am disputing is that NO HUMAN can tell the difference at 320 unless they have some of the best ears in the world, and an equally high quality sound system. Again - do a null test.

Phigure - again, what part of lossy compression do you think I don't understand? You're just dragging up the same tired points and showing a lack of understanding.

Terpit - no such thing as a limiter? What? I don't understand your point. But you do have an impressive beer gut.

Please, go to university and study some science before running your mouths off about a subject like this. Most of you know next to nothing about this! Sure, I respect some of your musical abilities, but we're discussing scientific fact here, which is purely objective.

deadly habit wrote:The reason why it's easier to spot on a club rig is that most home stereos aren't designed with say 18" subs to reproduce all the bass content nor does the average room have the space for certain speaker designs to hit their sweet spots.

Yet a null test proves that this isn't true. It also proves that

You = stupid person.

why u guys even argueing

VirtualMark wrote: Which part didn't you understand? I thought it was pretty simple, but I didn't realise that English isn't your first language. My apologies.
This is generally what happens in a discussion.
I hope you now understand what I was "on about".

VirtualMark wrote: I wasn't trying to be patronising, he didn't understand what I was saying and I didn't think it was hard to understand. If you look above you'll see he's started with the insults already!
It's funny, if you challenge someones opinion, instead of looking at it scientifically, they dig their heels in and start to defend it as much as they can.
and there's a lot more technical converstaions there where people actually know what they're talking about. And the attitude is different - if you're corrected you can see that some people have a deep understanding of some areas.

VirtualMark wrote: Instead of making smart ass comments, why not try to back up some of your points with facts, and discuss like an adult?

VirtualMark wrote:Are you an idiot? Why are you telling me this?
The other idiot claims that sub bass loses detail in the compression process - READ THE POST. Then explain how sub bass can lose detail - this will be interesting.
The fact that people think that 320 loses sub bass is just hilarious! I really wish they'd put an IQ test on this forum at times, the same old myths refuse to die and there's always someone willing to believe in them.
Honestly, I don't care. I don't even know why I'm arguing this - it's rudimentary.

seems like a nice guy

edit arguing, better correct it before I get called a nitwit

VirtualMark wrote:Lossy compression takes out sounds that we can't hear! Unless the scientists who designed it say that their model is no longer valid, then none of you idiots are going to convince me otherwise!

LOL did you really just say that

so a 64kbps compressed mp3 is only missing sounds that we can't hear?! btw they're not scientists either

Oh fuck off a simple glance at a spectral analyzer (SCIENCE) comparing the two disproves you immediately.
Yes a simple sine wave through an encoder won't produce signal loss because it doesn't have much to encode, but once it gets more complex than just a simple sine wave (you know a song) guess what starts to get cut?

mIrReN wrote:seems like a nice guy

edit arguing, better correct it before I get called a nitwit

My apologies if I have offended you, that is not my intention. I just don't like myths and incorrect information being spread by people who are too lazy to study a subject. It's incredibly annoying.

And if you look back, you'll see that I'm not the only one slinging insults around. And I'm rarely the one to start it. I might disagree with someone, and I do respond by giving some back. But I try not to let it get heated until someone else does.

u did it mark

uve achieved maximum cunttage

VirtualMark wrote:Phigure - again, what part of lossy compression do you think I don't understand? You're just dragging up the same tired points and showing a lack of understanding.

"Instead of making smart ass comments, why not try to back up some of your points with facts, and discuss like an adult?"

VirtualMark wrote:You = stupid person.

definitely discussing like an adult

props on that though, that was really clever

deadly habit wrote:Oh fuck off a simple glance at a spectral analyzer (SCIENCE) comparing the two disproves you immediately.
Yes a simple sine wave through an encoder won't produce signal loss because it doesn't have much to encode, but once it gets more complex than just a simple sine wave (you know a song) guess what starts to get cut?

Have you performed the null test yet? Generally, what you will hear is some swooshy white noise, that is all. I have tried it. Clearly you haven't.

Staring at an analyser isn't as accurate as performing a null test. Jesus, you're an old hand here, I thought you'd know that! A null test just shows the differences between two audio files! Basic, basic stuff.

also

VirtualMark wrote:I'm not the only one slinging insults around. And I'm rarely the one to start it.

VirtualMark wrote:

rayman612 wrote:^ those tests arent done on club rigs bro

Why would they be? A club rig isn't designed for high fidelity.

Please remember to use your brain the next time you reply.

I'd really suggest getting yourself out to a few more clubs, those KRKs may be fatiguing your ears in ways you can't begin to comprehend.

VirtualMark wrote: My apologies if I have offended you, that is not my intention. I just don't like myths and incorrect information being spread by people who are too lazy to study a subject. It's incredibly annoying.

And if you look back, you'll see that I'm not the only one slinging insults around. And I'm rarely the one to start it. I might disagree with someone, and I do respond by giving some back. But I try not to let it get heated until someone else does.

No you didn't start to be condescending in a discussion at all. They started it! a gege goo goo
Now you're still condescending and calling them lazy LOOOOL, maybe if u didn't start to be condescending you might have a nice discussion without all the 'you morons' etc. Go back on your piedestal/ivory tower. Don't apologize when it's clearly not your intention

VirtualMark wrote:

deadly habit wrote:Oh fuck off a simple glance at a spectral analyzer (SCIENCE) comparing the two disproves you immediately.
Yes a simple sine wave through an encoder won't produce signal loss because it doesn't have much to encode, but once it gets more complex than just a simple sine wave (you know a song) guess what starts to get cut?

Have you performed the null test yet? Generally, what you will hear is some swooshy white noise, that is all. I have tried it. Clearly you haven't.

Staring at an analyser isn't as accurate as performing a null test. Jesus, you're an old hand here, I thought you'd know that! A null test just shows the differences between two audio files! Basic, basic stuff.

When you assume, you make an ass out of you not me. I'm well aware of null tests, and have performed them. You're the one talking science and now discounting A METERING TOOL.
If you want to discuss psychoacoustics say so, but don't cherry pick and call it science, especially since certain psychoacoustical properties differ from person to person since our ears and brains aren't mass manufactured to the same exact factory specifications.
For those of you who don't want to deal with VirtualMark's twatish tone and refer to the Gearslutz thread he's likely pulling this from http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-sho ... -test.html
or just pop this in your google search bar site:gearslutz.com mp3 vs wav

Also here ya go the boss of Funktion One discussing mp3 starting around 6:40