MP3 failings

Rocker

robinbowes said:

Got a link to the video? On what were you listening to it?

No problem, it is Dale Watson;

https://youtu.be/Gl0ZaGuzNgg

BTW, what does SCM50 mean?

Sporky

Rocker said:

BTW, what does SCM50 mean?

Do you really not have Google? That must be awfully inconvenient.

robinbowes

Rocker said:

The bass on the link I mentioned is simply not there. It was when the recording was made. 

How do you know? To what are you comparing the live recording?

R.

digitalscream

monquixote said:

A statement like "mp3 sounds bad" is meaningless. 

Most of the time when people think an mp3 sounds bad is because it's been ripped badly or it's gone through multiple generations of compression, or some other processing has been applied.

128k sounds a bit ropey, but once you get to 256 or 320 practically no one can hear the difference in a blind test.

Also you don't need to use mp3 these days. AAC or Vorbis is a much better choice.

There's also the fact that most streams and mp3 downloads aren't meant to be listened to on high-end stereos - they're often mastered specifically to sound right on low-to-mid-quality headphones and in the car, because that's where they're most often used these days.

Paul_C

The drummer looks mightily bored in that video

notanon

Beatles Shea stadium - equivalent kbps from an audience point of view  - 0 KB :-)

As usual trade off between speed and space. I use 256+ compression here but as others point out what is the average playback? £10 earphones? As with pictures take the master on the camera, share it and people upload it it then download it and upload it and the image/sound can be awful - lossy compression on each circuit :-(

I got cheesed off listening to some jazz tutorials the other day on my computer so ran it through my amp difference was huge.

bad input + bad output = terrible result
bad input + good output = bad result
good input + bad output = bad result
good input + good output = good result

All of the above depends on one's hearing of course. I heard of some guy who insisted on running his HiFi on a separate ring main to cut out electric noise for his <insert name here> Bang & Oulfson super expensive equipment. He could have been correct about improvement (I never heard it) but I personally probably would never pick that up now?? Maybe when I was younger?

I have noticed watching old BBC open university programmes are like having a cataract + glaucoma + age related macular degeneration all in one.

Zoolooter

If your on the move a portable Fiio X3 is fantastic for Flac files. Big difference compared to mp3.

RobDavies

Everyone know that Youtube is a bit shit for audio quality, don't they?

Having said that, I downloaded the particular track on Spotify (320kps), played it through a decent DAC / HIfi and the bass is just low in the mix, with no mid or top end to define it against the rest of the instruments.

I blame the audio engineer more than modern technology....

digitalscream

RobDavies said:

Everyone know that Youtube is a bit shit for audio quality, don't they?

Having said that, I downloaded the particular track on Spotify (320kps) and the bass is just low in the mix, with no mid or top end to define it against the rest of the instruments.

Yep...no amount of format shenanigans can fix a weedy mix.

Danny1969

I remember in the early days of youtube it converted uploads to mono, you had to edit the end to keep it in stereo

Not a fan of mp3's myself and don't normally bother with them for anything other than an iPod. Drive's are so big these days I can quite happily spare the 40Mb versus 5Mb for a wav format when ripping stuff myself

Youtube is ok as background music though, playing through my laptop I can't hear any bass anyway

Drew_TNBD

Youtube doesn't use mp3. It uses AAC.

Rocker

robinbowes said:

Rocker said:

The bass on the link I mentioned is simply not there. It was when the recording was made. 

How do you know? To what are you comparing the live recording?

R.

No, I did not compare the MP3 to the live recording. On the video I can see the bass player playing. Very little if any of that bass playing is audible during playback....

robinbowes

Rocker said:

robinbowes said:

Rocker said:

The bass on the link I mentioned is simply not there. It was when the recording was made. 

How do you know? To what are you comparing the live recording?

R.

No, I did not compare the MP3 to the live recording. On the video I can see the bass player playing. Very little if any of that bass playing is audible during playback....

Why did you assume that this was because of "MP3 failings"?

It's just the way it's mixed.

R.

Rocker

Interesting point @robinbowes.  One I will put to the test tomorrow or the next day.   Last evening my friend sent me a link to the Tom Waits song: 'Til The Money Runs Out

I have the CD that this song is on, Heartattack And Vine, so I can compare the online version against the FLAC version on my computer. If you or anyone wants a copy of the FLAC file, send me a PM with your email address - purely for research purposes of course - and you can check it out for yourself.

  

fretmeister

Go and listen to "...and justice for all" on LP and MP3.

No bass in either version, because Hetfield was a twat during mixing.
and a great shame as it has some of Newsteds best playing.

Rocker

Agree 100% @fretmeister ;

Rocker

Tonight as Palace were putting Arsenal to the sword, I got a chance to listen to the Tom Waits song 'til the money runs out', both from the link alluded to above and on CD.  TBH my first impressions were that the two had very little differences.  But on redoing the test, it became apparent that the bass quality on the CD was much better than on the link.  The link had the bass to be sure, but it sounded softer and less distinct than on the CD.  There is a difference but not all that much.  Interesting experiment, Tom Waits sings in the low registers, not much high frequency content anyway, an experiment that I will conduct as often as I can.

Sporky

Rocker said:

I got a chance to listen to the Tom Waits song 'til the money runs out', both from the link alluded to above and on CD. 

Did you do it blind? Did you volume match to within 0.2dB? If not it means precisely nothing.

RobDavies

Rocker said:

Tonight as Palace were putting Arsenal to the sword, I got a chance to listen to the Tom Waits song 'til the money runs out', both from the link alluded to above and on CD.  TBH my first impressions were that the two had very little differences.  But on redoing the test, it became apparent that the bass quality on the CD was much better than on the link.  The link had the bass to be sure, but it sounded softer and less distinct than on the CD.  There is a difference but not all that much.  Interesting experiment, Tom Waits sings in the low registers, not much high frequency content anyway, an experiment that I will conduct as often as I can.

Out of interest, what are you playing your FLAC files on/through?

robinbowes

I'm not sure what you're trying to test here. You appear to be comparing different recordings on different media and concluding that they're different because of the media. If you want to conclude anything at all about the media you need to listen to exactly the same recording at exactly the same volume on each media. You don't seem to be doing that. Ah well...