INDIAN MUSIC FORUMS

Sign up Calendar Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
nicneufeld

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,564
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "cabernethy"
Can anyone else notice a glaring difference between the 2 samples ?
I would say I wish I could, but perhaps its a case of the blessings of ignorance, in that I can be quite satisfied with MP3...

What sort of listening apparatus did you use? Headphones, monitors? And how would you describe the differences? Ie., what contrast does the ear pick up that is so glaring to you?
0
cabernethy

Registered:
Posts: 284
Reply with quote  #32 
I Used the file>win7>vlc>spdifout>apogee d/a>TLA Valve EQ>SS AMP>AE Hifi Speakers

The most telling thing for me was the travel on the Kharaj string. Within a couple of listens I picked up that what I suspect are the FLAC snips sounded fatter, wider, more natural. The Chiks also sounded very compressed during the MP3 snips when the bass of the Kharaj joined them. The MP3 snips in general sounded like they had less travel than FLAC to me. I Also listened very, very carefully to the dying sustain of the notes . In what I believe are the FLAC's, I perceived a what I interpreted as a much more natural dying away of the sound.

The key point here is that I listened for the air in the sound. The natural movements that are so analog and evolving that any reduction/compression algorithm would have great difficulty in reproducing.

I Know they were very short pieces but I felt more immediately involved with my Flac choices.

I Know I've been a bit aggressive over this and do want to apologise. But as I said earlier, I have always felt that air in music is vitally important and not to be overlooked and in every genre that I have worked with/played/listened to, there is none where this is as key as ICM. The tiny nuances introduced during meend, shrutis especially - I believe are degraded the most when down sampling.

I am also very suprised that I'm the only person that has come forward and said they notice the difference. This is the thing that kill's me the most. If there is no perceptible difference in the vast majority of ears what hope do we really have of preserving in the highest quality formats that are out there.

Thanks for taking the time Nic, I appreciate it.
0
Jeevie

Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #33 
I don't like the sound of mp3 either. I have an ipod but only really use it when I am running errands. Otherwise, I listen to as much as I can on vinyl. A truly amazing sound. Only thing is that it takes up too much space.
0
John

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 425
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "cabernethy"
apogee d/a
Second only to your fine ear, there we have the major reason behind being able to spot the difference.
I for one congratulate you on defending yourself so vehemently - no need for an apology! I also think that what you say about what happens between the notes should be heeded by all, for therein lies some of this music's greatest beauty!

8)

__________________
"Truth cannot be taught, truth can only be discovered"
-- Hazrat Inayat Khan
0
cabernethy

Registered:
Posts: 284
Reply with quote  #35 
Thank you for the compliment John, at age 43 they are certainly nowhere near as fine as they use to be

You are spot on, but let's take detract from the tech that I use for one minute and ask the question -

How many forumites have ever set their PC/Laptop up for 24bit/96K ?

Because the the truth is that most basic PC audio cards have supported these rates for a long time.
0
SitarMac

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 447
Reply with quote  #36 
Before I moved to California in 2002, i ripped all my NB CD's at 320 mp3's. I still listen to the recordings and they sound fine to me. I have a nice Bose system connected to my iMac, so the speakers aren't shitty.......maybe its just me.
__________________
Just a listener now....Was fun while i played though!
0
cabernethy

Registered:
Posts: 284
Reply with quote  #37 
I'm sure it sounds great, but do yourself a favour and plug a CD player directly into the Bose and have a listen to all that air you are missing out on.
0
polishcomedy

Registered:
Posts: 48
Reply with quote  #38 
One thing I should mention is that Apple products encode/rip to AAC files natively, which is apparently a better compression scheme.
0
nigama

Registered:
Posts: 70
Reply with quote  #39 
Sounds true to me :?: , but what about the best way to record/transform .mp4 ?
i.g. to save as to
"Cirque Du Soleil" "The Beatles" LOVE "Here Comes The Sun" Bharatanatyam Khatak
0
cabernethy

Registered:
Posts: 284
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "polishcomedy"
One thing I should mention is that Apple products encode/rip to AAC files natively, which is apparently a better compression scheme.
Some people prefer AAC over MP3 both are the illegitimate offspring of WAV, both compressed and therefore a digital representation of the full picture. I personally do not want some techie in the codec lab 'deciding' which parts of the sound would be most pleasing to my ears

Carl

With MP4 you have an even bigger problem, compression on top of compression......
0
fossesitar

Registered:
Posts: 983
Reply with quote  #41 
The great thing about music, and about having such incredible tools to listen with (the human ear and the human brain) is that we CAN hear these differences and when you are in an altered and/or exalted state the differences you hear can be monumental and contribute greatly to our upliftment and inspiration or lack of same..... this is ESPECIALLY true for the PLAYER of a musical instrument......

AND - he great thing about the human ear and the human brain is that we are quite capable of IGNORING these subtle but monumental differences and being uplifted and "spiritualized by an MP3 or even an MP4. No moralizing here, just statinng what my own experience has been and believe me I do notice the difference especially when I am playing (amplifiers for one example) but I also have been able to blissfully ignore poor sound quality, harsh/trebly recording technique, lack of air, etc etc to be inspired by the music I hear. My 2c.
0
cabernethy

Registered:
Posts: 284
Reply with quote  #42 
Of course you are right. The 2 ICM pieces which I can state without hesitation have changed my life (1) The early Puria Taan recording by UVK and (2) The Bageshri Alap by PKK are both of the worst quality that I ever heard. The Bageshri in particular is off a VHS tape that slips right as the pandit moves to the upper tectrachord

I'm not sure why, but with the Puria the quality matters less to me as it cuts clean through the trees and gets right to the heart of the matter. I can only imagine what my experience of these 2 pieces would be like if they had been preserved a little better.

We can be educated and uplifted by sound regardless of sonic quality. My point is, when you have the CHOICE.....go high !!!!

Carl
0
polishcomedy

Registered:
Posts: 48
Reply with quote  #43 
I lay claim to having a pretty good set of ears. A while back I ripped my whole CD collection to uncompressed FLAC and 320kbps mp3. I made mp3's because my car stereo has a usb jack allowing me to hook up a thumb drive to it, but it won't read FLAC files. I didn't like having duplicates of all my albums, so I really listened closely to the two file formats on my hi-fi system (not computer speakers/headphones). I honestly couldn't tell a lick of difference, so for the matter of being able to play files on my mp3 player, iPad, computer, car, etc. I deleted all the FLAC files. My dad is a huge audiophile. His whole system is boutique components from various parts of the world. He drove out of state to buy his speakers years ago. Granted, he's suffered some hearing loss due to age and abuse, but I once played him a CD and a CD full of mp3's on his system, and he couldn't tell them apart. I find it suspect that you guys can find such VAST differences in quality. Sure, a crappy 128kbs mp3 from the original days of mp3, I agree, but not with modern encoding mechanisms at higher bit rates.
0
cabernethy

Registered:
Posts: 284
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "polishcomedy"
I find it suspect that you guys can find such VAST differences in quality. Sure, a crappy 128kbs mp3 from the original days of mp3, I agree, but not with modern encoding mechanisms at higher bit rates.
Of course not everyone can tell the difference and most are happier with convenience like you say which is my main gripe. Marisa Robles once told me I had a very fine set of ears which is good enough for me

Actually, if you read back, the results were quite subtle, it's just that THEY ARE THERE and the fact remains that as you digitally encode into an ever so convenient format, you are losing data (LOST) and therefore qualities/air from the original that can never be re-assembled accurately.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.