Learning from the past, my audio experiences

[shabbs]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

Does EAC>FLAC>LAME still count?

Hell yeah! It's where I should be too... but I've been too lazy.

Are you using MAREO?

[Code Monkey]

Originally Posted by shabbs

Hell yeah! It's where I should be too... but I've been too lazy.

Are you using MAREO?

No, I've looked at it, but since it's just a r-click to convert the FLAC files with dBpowerAmp, it offers very little time savings over the setup I have.

I rip to FLAC with EAC, tweak my tags with Tag&Rename, and then go ahead and convert to mp3 with dBpowerAmp, which is followed by another id3 tag tweaking (very minor, I use the comment field to document the format history, so "EAC/FLAC" becomes "EAC/FLAC - LAME preset fast standard") and add album art, with the final step being a run through mp3gain. Then I add the FLAC archive to a collection of FLAC archives that gets burnt to DVD once I have enough, and the mp3s go to my general music collection.

If I weren't so anal about the tags, MAREO might save some time, but since I am who I am, it would just leave me correcting two sets of tags instead of fixing the FLAC files before transcoding.

[kornchild2002]

OK, I retract my previous statement. I thought I would use some of my iTunes gift cards to give 128kbps VBR iTunes AAC a try. It was sort of a hassle to plug in my iPod to my car CD deck any time I wanted to listen to music. I just wasn't comfortable carrying around my iPod just to go to Wal-Mart or the movies. So I kept my Lame library and never transcoded my lossless files to iTunes AAC.

I sat down and conducted numeroud blind ABX tests. After weeks of personal training, I was finally able to distinguish the difference between 128kbps iTunes AAC and the source CD. Now I am satisfied with my Lame mp3 files.

I don't know why I wanted to switch to iTunes AAC. I guess my stock pile of iTunes gift cards made me think about it. Now, I can use those gift cards to purchase movies, music videos, and TV shows instead of music.

Long live Lame mp3!

[Stereomovers]

Wow! Interesting thread. Nice to read about users experiences and pointers for getting the best possible compression.

Here is a Musical Artists point of view on the subject:

Ah the wonderful world of audio! Where to start...
How about the fact that since the slow extinction of vinyl started, "Audio Quality" has always been going downwards... True there are many great sounding mp3's you can get on the ITMS, but nothing even comes close to reproducing the music like a good old 12 inch. From the moment we all went digital with the arrival of the cd, we all started to get use to a lesser sound quality.

The cd codec (44,1khz-16bit) (invented by Philipps I think) took out all the pops and hiss you would get from a dirty vinyl, and used-out turn table cartriges. ANd you could all of a sudden skip from one song to the next in a heart beat, but that is what they were telling us to market it. How the cd was so much better and bla bla bla...

What they didnt brag about was the fact that the low-low frequencies and the high-high frequencies were truncated by the redbook audio cd codec. Not the worst of things since these are frequencies that the human ear doesnt necesarly pick up, but the human body feels deep growling bass. And that my friends, in my book is part of the music too!

The other thing that sucked about the arrival of cds, it that we were made to beleive they were better and thus more expensive to produce and sell... Maybe for the first year because of the new technology and all, but in the real world, a plastic disc that is stamped, and put in a small 5"x5" case is way CHEAPER to manufacture and distribute then a 140g Vinyl record, and a 12"x12" case. Major Labels were just increasing their profit margins...

So to get back to "Audio Quality"; for most people today the reference point is a cd you would buy at a store, and compressing that music in a light weight format to carry on our ipods. We have experienced with lots of different codecs and bitrates trying to find the best possible compression for our debut ep, and after months of trial & error, active listening, doing A-B's, we finally ended up using something that we decided was "good enough" for myspace. We compressed with the Lame mp3 codec at 192. You can hear the results here!

Every single codec we tried all altered the overall "image" of our songs in a different way, and none sound 100% like the mastered cd we got done!

But in this digital era, you have to make your music knowing that once it will get into the audiences ears, it will be a compressed mp3 or if you are lucky a sale in with the ITMS-apple lossless codec. And by lucky I mean that you will actual see a couple cents from someone downloading your song! The songs we have on itunes music store do sound truer to the originals then the lame codec. So we have to say the last revision the apple did to their codec in September, is the best audio compression we can get... for now.

There is still no better medium to transfer Audio than the 12" but it is unpractical, and the cd became more practical with a little price to pay, sacrafice a little quality for a lot of practicality! AND now the mp3/mp4/aac/etc...etc... where we sacrifice just a little more quality, and go up 10 fold in practicality.

The bottom line is: the best possible audio compression, is the one that reflects the master recording perfectly, but that is asking a little too much, since the compression shaves off 80-90% of the file weight!

There was a really good article by George Peterson of Mix Magazine a couple of months ago that talked about this in depth. It might be available on their website Mix Online or something. It was called "Life in the era of Good Enough!"

So that was our 99cents worth on "audio compresssion".

PL&RnR!
Alex
Stereomovers

[bioss]

Welcome Alex - I have troubles with your Myspace sound bites - they do not play (I am using IE Version 6). Sounds good on iTunes, though.

cheers/Patrick

[shabbs]

Originally Posted by Stereomovers

Every single codec we tried all altered the overall "image" of our songs in a different way, and none sound 100% like the mastered cd we got done!

Interesting perspective. Good to hear from the "other side" as well.

Did you guys look at using SACD or DVD Audio for offering better quality music than a standard CD?

Cheers.

[kornchild2002]

That is a interesting point of view Alex. We often only hear of one side, the consumer and never really hear from the artists. I agree with shabbs (like normal) that SACD or true DVD audio would offer much better quality but this would probably come at a price to the smaller "less known" bands. It is nice to hear that there is some hope for the smaller bands out there that they can get their music onto iTunes.

Not to digress or anything but what instrument or part do you have with the band? I am not really into electronica but I am liking your new EP (One). I may just have to purchase it off of iTunes, the $4 price makes it that much nicer. Thanks for posting.

[jhart71]

Very informative! Thank you Kornchild for posting this. I look to you and Teqnilogik for basically all of my iTunes answers . . .

Like you, I ripped many times before deciding on a Lossless main library. In 2001, I ripped my whole library as iTunes 128MP3, then in 2003 as iTunes 128AAC, and then in 2004 as iTunes 192AAC (which I've been using since). I really toasted my bubble-back iMac's slot-loading CD drive! Good thing I have a new computer now . . .

Only this past year have I started re-ripping once-and-for-all as Apple Lossless. Then the CDs get put into a box and stored!

[kornchild2002]

Originally Posted by jhart71

Very informative! Thank you Kornchild for posting this. I look to you and Teqnilogik for basically all of my iTunes answers . . .

Like you, I ripped many times before deciding on a Lossless main library. In 2001, I ripped my whole library as iTunes 128MP3, then in 2003 as iTunes 128AAC, and then in 2004 as iTunes 192AAC (which I've been using since). I really toasted my bubble-back iMac's slot-loading CD drive! Good thing I have a new computer now . . .

Only this past year have I started re-ripping once-and-for-all as Apple Lossless. Then the CDs get put into a box and stored!

That is the absolute best thing you can do. I use dbpoweramp to rip my CDs to Apple lossless now, I then use foobar2000 to encode those files with the Lame mp3 encoder. That way, you rip a CD once and that is all. You can then pick any format/bitrate you want and you can keep changing your mind. All it takes is a simple right-click convert and you are off a running again.

[jhart71]

I've noticed that transcoding Apple Lossless files into another format is ultra-smooth in iTunes . . . unlike ripping and re-ripping that really take a toll on your CD/DVD drive.

Another reason I like having an Apple Lossless main library is when friends want to make a compilation CD - they sound much better than Lossy-to-CD.

[Code Monkey]

Originally Posted by jhart71

Another reason I like having an Apple Lossless main library is when friends want to make a compilation CD - they sound much better than Lossy-to-CD.

I just wish Apple would support FLAC for iTunes, I'll live if they never support it on the iPod, but I refuse to use ALAC for anything except testing purposes.

[Stereomovers]

Originally Posted by bioss

Welcome Alex - I have troubles with your Myspace sound bites - they do not play (I am using IE Version 6). Sounds good on iTunes, though.

cheers/Patrick

Thanks Patrick. We only have sound clips on the myspace.
We should have some new material for you soon.

Cheers from Montreal,

Alex

[Stereomovers]

Originally Posted by shabbs

Interesting perspective. Good to hear from the "other side" as well.

Did you guys look at using SACD or DVD Audio for offering better quality music than a standard CD?

Cheers.

Hey Shabbs, greetings from the "other side"

With regards to SACDs and DVD audio. The primary advantage is primarly the storage capacity. And that you are not stuck with the typical 74 minutes of audio. The sound quality remains the same if you code at 44.1 - 16 bit. I figure we could use a higher sampling rate (48k-96k 24 bit) but the problem is that, not that many of us have devices that can read this.
So that doesnt work for us either.

We are currently looking into pressing a limited quantity of good old vinyl for audiophils...
which in my opinion still blows away the SACD and DVD audio medium.

Cheers,

SM

[Stereomovers]

Originally Posted by kornchild2002

That is a interesting point of view Alex. We often only hear of one side, the consumer and never really hear from the artists. I agree with shabbs (like normal) that SACD or true DVD audio would offer much better quality but this would probably come at a price to the smaller "less known" bands. It is nice to hear that there is some hope for the smaller bands out there that they can get their music onto iTunes.

Not to digress or anything but what instrument or part do you have with the band? I am not really into electronica but I am liking your new EP (One). I may just have to purchase it off of iTunes, the $4 price makes it that much nicer. Thanks for posting.

Hey Kornchild,

To sum it up on sound quality:
mp3 < cd < sacd & dvd < VINYL

I am the lead singer, and play rythm guitar
Simon (the other half (stereo=2) plays drums and manages the samplers)
We are a 5 man live act, but Simon & I compose and write all the material.

Cheers for the comments on the ep and I hope you did finally get it on itunes!

Peace, Love & Rock'n'Roll!

A.

[2pac]

Wow. Great job. keep it going dude