-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Major record labels to kill CD format by end of 2012?
- Thread starter Brian Bowers
- Start date
No argument here :-[WNTIRadio said:
You will probably get a tagged ALAC file, so it will be lossless...
M
mikerichardson
Guest
Are 256 kbps AAC (MP4) files really that bad?
I can tell if a song is a 128 kbps MP3, you know, that does sound pretty crappy, but I can't really say I've ever had a complaint of 256 kbps AAC.
I can tell if a song is a 128 kbps MP3, you know, that does sound pretty crappy, but I can't really say I've ever had a complaint of 256 kbps AAC.
Yepp, I can hear and tell the difference between a 256k AAC file and the original WAV. I also set up audio processing for a living, so I tend to hear things that most people don't. But it's there, that little bit of swishy sound on the cymbals and other high frequencies, and sometimes they just kind of lay flat. The stereo image isn't nearly as good on AAC. Which makes sense when you figure you're throwing out 4 of the 5 bits of the original file. A codec can only mask so much. Same thing with the video codecs. Watching sports on cable is annoying as hell when it goes pixel happy during fast motion.
I think the problem is there's nobody other there in the "younger generation" who knows what being an audiophile is anymore. I remember as a youngster saving up to get my first decent sound system. Now, kids listen to poorly encoded audio files - add to that some of the outrageous mastering done on some music! No wonder the audiophile is a dying breed.
If it isn't in some sort of lossless file format I personally don't think it's worthy of any consideration, not that I consider alot of today's music "listenable" in the first place. I heard enough poorly encoded audio being pushed through stations with aggressive processing and I say one thing ... no thanks!
If it isn't in some sort of lossless file format I personally don't think it's worthy of any consideration, not that I consider alot of today's music "listenable" in the first place. I heard enough poorly encoded audio being pushed through stations with aggressive processing and I say one thing ... no thanks!
I guarantee you there will be a lossless option.
Even my record label distributions have learned to do a .wav pack & a .mp3 pack. They understand, it just took them a long time.
Even my record label distributions have learned to do a .wav pack & a .mp3 pack. They understand, it just took them a long time.
chriscollins said:
I think 128 kb/s AAC sounds awesome. I have yet to hear a song so encoded where artifacts really annoy me. Still, when ripping CDs onto my computer, I'll use error-corrected linear for stuff I really like, and 192 AAC, (for which I have never heard any artifacts) for the rest. That being said, anyone using 128 AAC files as source material for broadcast is asking for trouble (Friends don't let friends use MP3!).
I'm, personally, not at all disappointed with the quality of 256 kb/s AAC purchased downloads, which has been the standard at the iTunes Music store for a couple years now. And Lord knows, I care for quality more than a lot of producers do.
The main reason I prefer to buy CDs is that I like to have a hard copy, with (hopefully) liner notes, artist credits and photos.Seriously though, I remember when I first started hearing the audio instead of the music, and it took many years to come back to where the music is more important than some slight imperfection I have to really tune myself into to hear. I think my hearing's pretty well-trained, but I really want nothing to do with the "I can hear it, so it's bad... and if you can't, it must be your inferior hearing" p*ssing match.
Kind Regards,
David
Sorry, but I'm from the school of a physical copy of my music; CD, vinyl, minidisc, reel to reel, cassette, DCC, DAT; no downloaded junk.
Not to take-off my tinfoil hat, but when/if there is an EMP from our Iranian friends, there'll be no music except for vacuum tube record players and open reel decks.
Not to take-off my tinfoil hat, but when/if there is an EMP from our Iranian friends, there'll be no music except for vacuum tube record players and open reel decks.
Bill DeFelice said:
One would think so... But AES conducted some listening tests with young people (students) and when presented with the original material in CD quality and the perceptually encoded version, the vast majority of participants not only heard the difference, but liked the CD-quality better! There's still hope
Regards,
Goran Tomas
I can always tell which stations are using some form of compression on either their files or the STL when I listen vs. those who run linear all the way through. As David was pointing out, the processing can really exaggerate the artifacts on files that may be very difficult to hear when it's not going through the latest O, O or V (or others if you prefer) smash box. Preemphasis and clipping REALLY show off compression artifacts. The L-R also gets filled up with garbage too... if you can, listen to the L-R of a compressed file, it's pretty scary.
I'd rather listen to an LP with a few clicks or pops than an MP3. At least the annoying high end gurgle isn't there with the LP. And I'm not that old... the CD debuted when I was 6. But I've always been an audiophile. Not one of those $10,000 tube amp and electrostatic speakers snob audiophile, but one that didn't mind spending a reasonable amount of money on good speakers and a good amp to enjoy the fullest range I can reproduce in my living room. I have the home studio/audio processing evaluation lab, but that's a whole different story.
Had the pleasure a few years ago to listen to some mixes at a major studio (SSL 9000, SSL 4000) with custom Griffin monitors. Whoa! This was pre mastering too, so the full dynamic range was there. Mastering has its place, but it's become an abuse in the past 15 years.
I'd rather listen to an LP with a few clicks or pops than an MP3. At least the annoying high end gurgle isn't there with the LP. And I'm not that old... the CD debuted when I was 6. But I've always been an audiophile. Not one of those $10,000 tube amp and electrostatic speakers snob audiophile, but one that didn't mind spending a reasonable amount of money on good speakers and a good amp to enjoy the fullest range I can reproduce in my living room. I have the home studio/audio processing evaluation lab, but that's a whole different story.
Had the pleasure a few years ago to listen to some mixes at a major studio (SSL 9000, SSL 4000) with custom Griffin monitors. Whoa! This was pre mastering too, so the full dynamic range was there. Mastering has its place, but it's become an abuse in the past 15 years.
David Reaves said:chriscollins said:
I think 128 kb/s AAC sounds awesome. I have yet to hear a song so encoded where artifacts really annoy me. Still, when ripping CDs onto my computer, I'll use error-corrected linear for stuff I really like, and 192 AAC, (for which I have never heard any artifacts) for the rest. That being said, anyone using 128 AAC files as source material for broadcast is asking for trouble (Friends don't let friends use MP3!).
I'm, personally, not at all disappointed with the quality of 256 kb/s AAC purchased downloads, which has been the standard at the iTunes Music store for a couple years now. And Lord knows, I care for quality more than a lot of producers do.
Seriously though, I remember when I first started hearing the audio instead of the music, and it took many years to come back to where the music is more important than some slight imperfection I have to really tune myself into to hear. I think my hearing's pretty well-trained, but I really want nothing to do with the "I can hear it, so it's bad... and if you can't, it must be your inferior hearing" p*ssing match.
Kind Regards,
David
As broadcasters, David, I think we are coming from a concern about cascading algorithms... That AAC file does sound great at 256, but if it hits a compressed microwave hop or is re-encoding for streaming, it can quickly sound like crap. We don't have that problem with a linear or lossless file. I use compression too (for my iPhone) and it is 192 AAC. I also keep a FLAC copy, for home listening.
David Reaves said:
Yes, that is why I think labels will use it for the lossless download... It's license free & anything using it plays on any iDevice. I am different in that I hate having physical media. It just wastes space in my house. I like a well tagged, electronic library.
Now all we need is a service/corporation that will somehow make real physical storage media for audio that's
not as easily destroyed as a CD.
I don't know, something like a plastic disc with a modulated groove cut in a spiral pattern that provides a linear
displacement in time when rotated at a certain speed.
If we didn't have to worry about tracking with a laser, the datastream could be much more robust.
I wonder if anyone will figure out how to put music on a physical medium that's durable enough for copyrighted material?
It's got to be possible somehow.
???
not as easily destroyed as a CD.
I don't know, something like a plastic disc with a modulated groove cut in a spiral pattern that provides a linear
displacement in time when rotated at a certain speed.
If we didn't have to worry about tracking with a laser, the datastream could be much more robust.
I wonder if anyone will figure out how to put music on a physical medium that's durable enough for copyrighted material?
It's got to be possible somehow.
???
as far as i'm concerned, the record labels killed the CD by running the artist's music thru a digital limiter set to the "steamroller" position of 0dBfs. (a.k.a. "loudness war" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war ; http://www.indexcom.com/tech ; http://www.mixonline.com/mixline/reierson_loudness_war_0802/ ; http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ )
Tom Wells said:
You can get my blood boiling pretty quick when you start talking about mastering.
Talk about total destruction of a waveform. It is sad.
- Status