Tech Talk: MP3 (Electronic Beats TV)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 янв 2025
- "Suddenly you don't hear a difference anymore. (...) It's a difference like night and day. And you can hear that, although the magnitude of the error is smilar, it hides very well behind the music." - .MP3 TECH TALK feature, taken from Slices Issue 3-11.
Subscribe to our channel: bit.ly/1BwzEZM
www.electronicb...
We are not talking about 196kps MP3s. I guess every professional uses min. 320.
Not Only ours ears listen frequencies but our body feel so... all frequencies are important, like funktion one state of mind.... To many Digital talker
Rupert Neve talked about how he had to fix a preamp on one of his consoles and that an engineer had felt that something is wrong with that one channel..
He took it in a shop to test it and it had some problems on... 40 000hz
He said some people can tell up to 70 000hz by the body, not by the ear. As we are water, we vibrate all the time.
So i believe you.
Cheers!
The testing material should not be a dance track with a bunch of 16bit 44kHz pitchshifted and bitcrushed samples and minimal reverb. Should've been something from the 70s with acoustic instruments and super HQ reverb, IMHO.
The last sentence of the video is for you.
Try yourself. If you don't have the so called "Golden Ears" it's not easy ;-)
If you think iTunes sound worse than any other media players then your settings are wrong. iTunes can sound 100% transparent with the right settings.
Why assume instant discernment? Audible differences don't instantly manifest unless they are glaringly obvious. Anyone who works in audio knows that long term listening better reveals low level artifacts or subtle distortions that cause listening fatigue.
don't play music via iTunes if you need a reference. There are way better sounding programs. Also, a digitalized Vinyl will not sound as good as mp3 because it can't be as loud (dynamic range) as a digital audio file. mp3 has a problem with overcompressed music. Young people tend to like the sound of mp3 more because they are used to the distortion.
dj use vinyls, real pros are working sounds only in their computers. (And by real pros I mean electroacoustic and electro-experimental musicians)
They were wearing a hat during the listen? Now you know why they did not hear a difference... Unbelievable, really...
if you aren't able to recognize the format you aren't able to listen to music
i can hear as soon as i walk into a flu if is mp3 or not...
mp3 has a weaker low sound. no doubt of that....
WAV is the winner in terms of digital files
This test as presented is very flawed. A simple test at my music school done with the best possible conversions to mp3 still had 80% of students getting the right answer. mp3 is good for people who don't care too much about quality.
+luke vosters Just FYI this featured was made in 2011, so things like testing may be a little dated.
pas mal
what? WHAT? they cant tell a 196? dats weird af
My opinion is, if it isn't worth of releasing on 12 inch its not worth even listening to.
The music they're using has the dynamics of a fart. A blend of mashed up 16 bit loops.
Nice test group too - jeez...can't tell the difference. Good luck with your audio careers lead ears! Sitting on the floor listening to generic Euro Trance is where you shall remain - LMAO
+Howard Bailey i knew two of them and believe me......these guys have great careers...Just google Sasse (Moodmusic) and Filippo Moscatello....you will be surprised
Soheil No doubt. I'm sure they're all decent at their jobs. It was a facetious remark. I was more put off by the track the producers chose to use to tell the difference between the vinyl record and the Mp3 file. Don't get me wrong...I love lots of electronic music but it's usually produced with a ton of high and low end and not a whole lot in the middle. They would have been able to tell the difference with just about anything else. Rock, classical, jazz...even movie soundtrack music (like the awesome productions you sometimes hear at the end of a good movie). If they used a track that had somewhat equal values between 20Hz and 20kHz (pretty much the full spectrum of human hearing) the crew wouldn't have had any problem telling the difference between the two samples. Seeing as they couldn't tell the difference I'm guessing they used a 256kbps to 320kbps MP3 which is much harder to detect. Far less psycho-acoustic analyzing and reduction compared to a track encoded at 128kbps to 224kbps. Was the original track recorded digitally or with tape? There are so many variables to consider it's virtually pointless to even bother to answer the question whether one sounds better than the other.
This less detail and reduction of information makes it sound worse than the originals.
Have been in the audience of a few workshops so far and it is easy noticeable. No matter what they try to explain here, its just hearable on a good system with best recorded music; originals vs just converted to 320 mp3. And he is talking about fidelity.... far away.
"Normal ears" are absolutely enough for this by the way.
Its all right for mainstream pop thru blue tooth plastic speakers, but not more.
Therefore it fits to the average guy, thats simply market behaviour.
This is full of factual errors. is it industry propaganda??
just one example: the frequency response of the ear is dependant of the sound pressure level. (google "equal loudness contour").
i'm not going to waste any more of my time here.