hey everyone, has anyone seen this documentary?

.

it's been talked up by prince fans recently on twitter and on youtube because, apparently, prince told some of his fans to watch it at a recent plectrum electrum listening party. it's called 'the distortion of sound', you can find it on youtube.

.

and, as i began to watch this video, i was extremely excited. finally, a well-produced documentary featuring popular musicians and producers talking about what has really been ruining much of modern musical audio quality-- the loudness wars, modern mixing and mastering techniques which strip music of its dynamic range in order to 'pop' more when played, for instance, on a car radio or over an intercom at a grocery store.

.

instead, they didn't mention the loudness wars once.

.

they focused the entire documentary on mp3 compression and how 'terrible' it is, how it strips the music of its sound quality. they played clips of songs at maybe 98kbps compared to the "uncompressed audio" (which was, of course, compressed by youtube, as all audio uploaded to youtube is) which, of course, sounded much better.

.

the problem is, in pretty much every instance 320kbps mp3 is indistinguishable from a high-quality format! i've done MANY double-blind tests, and i have a very nice hi-fi setup. the difference is negligible, and only able to be perceived on the best of the best systems.

.

metallica's 'death magnetic' won't sound good, no matter what bitrate it's played at! bitrate isn't the problem! the problem is that the album was compressed and flattened in its incredibly loud mastering. listen to nine inch nails last album, 'hesitation marks', in its 'audiophile version.' it was mastered to avoid the loudness wars and dynamic range compression common in modern digital mastering. then, listen to the original. listen to both of them at 320kbps mp3. the difference is CLEAR. much more clear than when comparing lossless audio to 320. bitrate is NOT the problem.

.

so why produce such a dishonest documentary in the first place? well... toward the end of the video, they keep saying 'we need a new way to distribute music that's artist driven.' and then, at the end, you realize the entire documentary was made by harmon kardon. i have NO doubt that harmon will be introducing a new lossless audio service soon, and this sort of stealth PR is shameful.

.

the only thing that will make music sound better in 2014 is combatting the loudness wars. this documentary left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

scratch said:

hey everyone, has anyone seen this documentary?

.

it's been talked up by prince fans recently on twitter and on youtube because, apparently, prince told some of his fans to watch it at a recent plectrum electrum listening party. it's called 'the distortion of sound', you can find it on youtube.

.

and, as i began to watch this video, i was extremely excited. finally, a well-produced documentary featuring popular musicians and producers talking about what has really been ruining much of modern musical audio quality-- the loudness wars, modern mixing and mastering techniques which strip music of its dynamic range in order to 'pop' more when played, for instance, on a car radio or over an intercom at a grocery store.

.

instead, they didn't mention the loudness wars once.

.

they focused the entire documentary on mp3 compression and how 'terrible' it is, how it strips the music of its sound quality. they played clips of songs at maybe 98kbps compared to the "uncompressed audio" (which was, of course, compressed by youtube, as all audio uploaded to youtube is) which, of course, sounded much better.

.

the problem is, in pretty much every instance 320kbps mp3 is indistinguishable from a high-quality format! i've done MANY double-blind tests, and i have a very nice hi-fi setup. the difference is negligible, and only able to be perceived on the best of the best systems.

.

metallica's 'death magnetic' won't sound good, no matter what bitrate it's played at! bitrate isn't the problem! the problem is that the album was compressed and flattened in its incredibly loud mastering. listen to nine inch nails last album, 'hesitation marks', in its 'audiophile version.' it was mastered to avoid the loudness wars and dynamic range compression common in modern digital mastering. then, listen to the original. listen to both of them at 320kbps mp3. the difference is CLEAR. much more clear than when comparing lossless audio to 320. bitrate is NOT the problem.

.

so why produce such a dishonest documentary in the first place? well... toward the end of the video, they keep saying 'we need a new way to distribute music that's artist driven.' and then, at the end, you realize the entire documentary was made by harmon kardon. i have NO doubt that harmon will be introducing a new lossless audio service soon, and this sort of stealth PR is shameful.

.

the only thing that will make music sound better in 2014 is combatting the loudness wars. this documentary left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

Well Ok then!

scratch said:

hey everyone, has anyone seen this documentary?

.

it's been talked up by prince fans recently on twitter and on youtube because, apparently, prince told some of his fans to watch it at a recent plectrum electrum listening party.

Those fans should have told prince how awful "The Breakdown" is mixed.

[Edited 7/17/14 7:49am]

scratch said:

hey everyone, has anyone seen this documentary?

.

it's been talked up by prince fans recently on twitter and on youtube because, apparently, prince told some of his fans to watch it at a recent plectrum electrum listening party. it's called 'the distortion of sound', you can find it on youtube.

.

and, as i began to watch this video, i was extremely excited. finally, a well-produced documentary featuring popular musicians and producers talking about what has really been ruining much of modern musical audio quality-- the loudness wars, modern mixing and mastering techniques which strip music of its dynamic range in order to 'pop' more when played, for instance, on a car radio or over an intercom at a grocery store.

.

instead, they didn't mention the loudness wars once.

.

they focused the entire documentary on mp3 compression and how 'terrible' it is, how it strips the music of its sound quality. they played clips of songs at maybe 98kbps compared to the "uncompressed audio" (which was, of course, compressed by youtube, as all audio uploaded to youtube is) which, of course, sounded much better.

.

the problem is, in pretty much every instance 320kbps mp3 is indistinguishable from a high-quality format! i've done MANY double-blind tests, and i have a very nice hi-fi setup. the difference is negligible, and only able to be perceived on the best of the best systems.

.

metallica's 'death magnetic' won't sound good, no matter what bitrate it's played at! bitrate isn't the problem! the problem is that the album was compressed and flattened in its incredibly loud mastering. listen to nine inch nails last album, 'hesitation marks', in its 'audiophile version.' it was mastered to avoid the loudness wars and dynamic range compression common in modern digital mastering. then, listen to the original. listen to both of them at 320kbps mp3. the difference is CLEAR. much more clear than when comparing lossless audio to 320. bitrate is NOT the problem.

.

so why produce such a dishonest documentary in the first place? well... toward the end of the video, they keep saying 'we need a new way to distribute music that's artist driven.' and then, at the end, you realize the entire documentary was made by harmon kardon. i have NO doubt that harmon will be introducing a new lossless audio service soon, and this sort of stealth PR is shameful.

.

the only thing that will make music sound better in 2014 is combatting the loudness wars. this documentary left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

I can't agree with you... the first time I made a direct comparison between MP3, regular CD, Dolby AC3 5.1, and then 24 bit 96hz was with The Beatles "Love". And the last format was so dramatically live in presence. But I was testing with an acoustic version of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". Not a lot of instruments, so you could really concentrate on the vocal presence and the quality of the reverb.

Also even to this day in the car, I play 320 MP3's I've ripped myself, and they sound great... but sometimes I put in an actual CD, and it sounds better, it seems to sound more "live".

At least he didn't send you to go watch some sketchy political documentary.

scratch said:

.

instead, they didn't mention the loudness wars once.

.

they focused the entire documentary on mp3 compression and how 'terrible' it is, how it strips the music of its sound quality. they played clips of songs at maybe 98kbps compared to the "uncompressed audio" (which was, of course, compressed by youtube, as all audio uploaded to youtube is) which, of course, sounded much better.

I watched it yesterday and couldn't make it to the end. It was so completely retarded it made me angry. Prince has been releasing 'lossless' downloads recently but they've been mastered so badly it defeats the object. As soon as those waveforms start being clipped you're doing more damage to the sound than converting it to mp3.

Loudness war sucks.

ufoclub said:

scratch said:

hey everyone, has anyone seen this documentary?

.

it's been talked up by prince fans recently on twitter and on youtube because, apparently, prince told some of his fans to watch it at a recent plectrum electrum listening party. it's called 'the distortion of sound', you can find it on youtube.

.

and, as i began to watch this video, i was extremely excited. finally, a well-produced documentary featuring popular musicians and producers talking about what has really been ruining much of modern musical audio quality-- the loudness wars, modern mixing and mastering techniques which strip music of its dynamic range in order to 'pop' more when played, for instance, on a car radio or over an intercom at a grocery store.

.

instead, they didn't mention the loudness wars once.

.

they focused the entire documentary on mp3 compression and how 'terrible' it is, how it strips the music of its sound quality. they played clips of songs at maybe 98kbps compared to the "uncompressed audio" (which was, of course, compressed by youtube, as all audio uploaded to youtube is) which, of course, sounded much better.

.

the problem is, in pretty much every instance 320kbps mp3 is indistinguishable from a high-quality format! i've done MANY double-blind tests, and i have a very nice hi-fi setup. the difference is negligible, and only able to be perceived on the best of the best systems.

.

metallica's 'death magnetic' won't sound good, no matter what bitrate it's played at! bitrate isn't the problem! the problem is that the album was compressed and flattened in its incredibly loud mastering. listen to nine inch nails last album, 'hesitation marks', in its 'audiophile version.' it was mastered to avoid the loudness wars and dynamic range compression common in modern digital mastering. then, listen to the original. listen to both of them at 320kbps mp3. the difference is CLEAR. much more clear than when comparing lossless audio to 320. bitrate is NOT the problem.

.

so why produce such a dishonest documentary in the first place? well... toward the end of the video, they keep saying 'we need a new way to distribute music that's artist driven.' and then, at the end, you realize the entire documentary was made by harmon kardon. i have NO doubt that harmon will be introducing a new lossless audio service soon, and this sort of stealth PR is shameful.

.

the only thing that will make music sound better in 2014 is combatting the loudness wars. this documentary left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

I can't agree with you... the first time I made a direct comparison between MP3, regular CD, Dolby AC3 5.1, and then 24 bit 96hz was with The Beatles "Love". And the last format was so dramatically live in presence. But I was testing with an acoustic version of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". Not a lot of instruments, so you could really concentrate on the vocal presence and the quality of the reverb.

Also even to this day in the car, I play 320 MP3's I've ripped myself, and they sound great... but sometimes I put in an actual CD, and it sounds better, it seems to sound more "live".

read this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/...h-exploded

.

it seems like it's scientifically impossible for a 24bit recording to sound better. however, i have often heard that these 24bit recordings use a different master, i.e. one that isn't as loud and compressed because they are the 'audiophile' editions. proving my point again. you have to acknowledge though, a lot of modern audio equipment can't even handle 24bit content. and the perceived difference between 24bit and 16bit is just a small fraction of the difference between the perceived difference between a well-mastered album and a poorly-mastered album. beatles stereo remasters are a good comparison.

.

as far as lossless vs 320, why don't you just do a double blind test? it's very easy to set up on the computer you would be amazed how much your brain can invent. you put the CD in, and it sounds better TO YOU, because your brain is trained to think mp3s are far inferior. but i've never seen someone successfully pass a double-blind test. never once. you would be amazed how much perceptions can affect what you hear. i know people that INSIST that high-quality HDMI cables produce a better picture and that it's perfectly clear to their eyes. of course, if you know the science you know this is impossible.

exactly. the docu really made my blood boil. this whole debate stinks of people who don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to music mastering. but, then again, it makes sense that no one in the industry would go after the loudness wars because it would mean shifting the entire industry paradigm away from poor mastering techniques.

It would be so much fun for everyone to get together to do a sound test. I wish it could happen.

That article is a bit misleading. It does in fact state that 24bit expands the dynamic range, meaning it does reproduce sound better, because quiter moments and instruments have more sound resolution (more information). Where this article misleads is saying that most music doesn't get very quiet so it doesn't matter, and then it goes on to make the perspective of 24 bits going UP in volume to a range that would deafen a person. That's pretty silly:

•

He says: "The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques (see 3 below), perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a percievable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands)."

•

That part I quoted gets into his opinion about what is perceptible by claiming what is typical of recordings. But then, He's even admitting to the use of digital dithering which is a fake way to smooth over low level sound resolution on CD's.

•

I could invite you over and play you the difference between 16 bit 96Hz and 24 bit 196Hz of the exact song I mentioned. The difference is obvious... if you have healthy ears and are perceptive to sounds in real life as well as recordings. What this author is completely missing is the fact that once sound leave the speaker, they interact with the room, your ears, and each other. When there is more information, there are more random harmonics and natural interaction with the room which also duplicates how we hear things naturally in life. All sounds are colored by this kind of interaction through our threshold of perception. It's what makes something sound magically live.

•

PS, outside of distant speakers, I listen to and produce sounds with close monitoring using Sennheiser HD800 headphones, so I'm trying to get every single detail, and I can hear every bit of the quiet parts and full range of frequency.

When I hear the difference between the MP3 and the CD it's mainly not because I know which one was going to play! I've sometimes had the same track in the car from two different sources, MP3/CD, and forgotton that I had a CD in. And I'm marveling because it sounds more live, then realize it's the CD playing. But I'll tell you something funny, sometimes I make a MP3 of my music I create to evaluate it because I know that the microsonic condensation it does makes it all a bit more cohesive and new to my ears since I'm familiar with it at 24 bit 96hz and used to every little individual sound. Sometimes I use MP3's to make it seem more baked. How can I describe it? MP3 kind of glues the sound together, in a very subtle way.

HDMI cables aren't a good comparison in this debate, because that's like saying speaker wires make something sound better. They don't, unless the cheap ones have noise.

You're right about most people not even knowing how to monitor 24bit higher Hz sound. Many common ways of listening will compress the signal down before it hits your ears. When the Beatles LOVE disc first came out, I had friends that thought they were hearing the good tracks with their digital coaxial cable (this was before the dominiance of HDMI). I told them that they weren't really hearing it, because that was actually not a true transmission of the tracks. The receiver was compressing it on the fly to pass through their digital cable. I would go and get the individual audio cables connected for each channel (thats 6 audio cables from the player to the reciever)... and then everyone could hear the difference. There is no mistaking it. Also remember, I was listening to a recording of one vocal with one acoustic guitar. It had quiet bits, and complicated reverb/echo.

There are little portable players finally coming out that can transmit a higher res sound signal through headphones. I wonder how those will sound.

Oh yeah this part of the article is silly:

"you have to realise that when playing back a CD, the amplifier is usually set so that the quietest sounds on the CD can just be heard above the noise floor of the listening environment (sitting room or cans). So if the average noise floor for a sitting room is say 50dB (or 30dB for cans) then the dynamic range of the CD starts at this point and is capable of 96dB (at least) above the room noise floor. If the full dynamic range of a CD was actually used (on top of the noise floor), the home listener (if they had the equipment) would almost certainly cause themselves severe pain and permanent hearing damage. If this is the case with CD, what about 24bit Hi-Rez. If we were to use the full dynamic range of 24bit and a listener had the equipment to reproduce it all, there is a fair chance, depending on age and general health, that the listener would die instantly. The most fit would probably just go into coma for a few weeks and wake up totally deaf. I'm not joking or exaggerating here, think about it, 144dB + say 50dB for the room's noise floor. But 180dB is the figure often quoted for sound pressure levels powerful enough to kill and some people have been killed by 160dB. However, this is unlikely to happen in the real world as no DACs on the market can output the 144dB dynamic range of 24bit (so they are not true 24bit converters), almost no one has a speaker system capable of 144dB dynamic range and as said before, around 60dB is the most dynamic range you will find on a commercial recording."

This writer is assuming that "the amplifier is usually set so that the quietest sounds on the CD can just be heard above the noise floor of the listening environment" and is completely discounting that the 24 bit advantage is in the quieter areas, quite the opposite of his perspective. Also this article completely ignores the Hz factor in sound as well. His arguement of imperceptible differences would have more ground there, so I'm surprised!

scratch said:

ufoclub said:

read this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/...h-exploded

.

it seems like it's scientifically impossible for a 24bit recording to sound better. however, i have often heard that these 24bit recordings use a different master, i.e. one that isn't as loud and compressed because they are the 'audiophile' editions. proving my point again. you have to acknowledge though, a lot of modern audio equipment can't even handle 24bit content. and the perceived difference between 24bit and 16bit is just a small fraction of the difference between the perceived difference between a well-mastered album and a poorly-mastered album. beatles stereo remasters are a good comparison.

.

as far as lossless vs 320, why don't you just do a double blind test? it's very easy to set up on the computer you would be amazed how much your brain can invent. you put the CD in, and it sounds better TO YOU, because your brain is trained to think mp3s are far inferior. but i've never seen someone successfully pass a double-blind test. never once. you would be amazed how much perceptions can affect what you hear. i know people that INSIST that high-quality HDMI cables produce a better picture and that it's perfectly clear to their eyes. of course, if you know the science you know this is impossible.

Prince has been releasing 'lossless' downloads recently but they've been mastered so badly it defeats the object. As soon as those waveforms start being clipped you're doing more damage to the sound than converting it to mp3.

Loudness war sucks.

exactly. the docu really made my blood boil. this whole debate stinks of people who don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to music mastering. but, then again, it makes sense that no one in the industry would go after the loudness wars because it would mean shifting the entire industry paradigm away from poor mastering techniques.

Actually, there is no way to debate this because the reality exists that you can test it for yourself...

You could get a disc where the recording exists in both compressed format like MP3 (like a dolby digital recording), a lossless CD quality, and a higher 24 bit rate 96 hz, etc.

And then if you have a player that can do it, and a great speaker system or headphones, you could play the same track (a quiet one) on all three formats. and then play a really busy one with fast instruments in all three formats to compare.

I know that I did switch back and forth between the same George Harrsion/Beatles song demo tracks on the same LOVE disc to see what the difference was. Remember they were from the same remaster. There really was a difference!

I suppose these days, you could do the test with a music blu-ray album.

[Edited 7/19/14 13:20pm]

ufoclub said:

Actually, there is no way to debate this because the reality exists that you can test it for yourself...

You could get a disc where the recording exists in both compressed format like MP3 (like a dolby digital recording), a lossless CD quality, and a higher 24 bit rate 96 hz, etc.

And then if you have a player that can do it, and a great speaker system or headphones, you could play the same track (a quiet one) on all three formats. and then play a really busy one with fast instruments in all three formats to compare.

I know that I did switch back and forth between the same George Harrsion/Beatles song demo tracks on the same LOVE disc to see what the difference was. Remember they were from the same remaster. There really was a difference!

I suppose these days, you could do the test with a music blu-ray album.

[Edited 7/19/14 13:20pm]

i understand there may be a difference in the high-quality version, but have you considered that the difference is because these high quality audiophile versions of the record in 24bit are mastered differently than the standard version? i've often heard that these versions use a less compressed master ala the recent beatles mono reissue.

ufoclub said:

Actually, there is no way to debate this because the reality exists that you can test it for yourself...

You could get a disc where the recording exists in both compressed format like MP3 (like a dolby digital recording), a lossless CD quality, and a higher 24 bit rate 96 hz, etc.

And then if you have a player that can do it, and a great speaker system or headphones, you could play the same track (a quiet one) on all three formats. and then play a really busy one with fast instruments in all three formats to compare.

I know that I did switch back and forth between the same George Harrsion/Beatles song demo tracks on the same LOVE disc to see what the difference was. Remember they were from the same remaster. There really was a difference!

I suppose these days, you could do the test with a music blu-ray album.

[Edited 7/19/14 13:20pm]

i've listened to 24bit music and worked in a studio before that recorded higher.. my system can handle the higher bit depth stuff but i don't have a lot of music in the format. i couldn't tell much a difference between the 24 bit on that new nine inch nails album 'audiophile version' vs the 16bit flac... both sounded excellent. i could definitely tell more of a difference between the 'audiophile version' which was mastered with older analogue mastering techniques vs the standard version of the album released with the louder digital compression. wasn't that crazy about the album but it's an example of a new album that was very well-mastered, and it still sounds EXCELLENT even in 320. much better than, for instance, the breakdown, which would be poorly mastered even in 24bits. see what i'm saying?

[Edited 7/19/14 20:11pm]

scratch said:

ufoclub said:

Actually, there is no way to debate this because the reality exists that you can test it for yourself...

You could get a disc where the recording exists in both compressed format like MP3 (like a dolby digital recording), a lossless CD quality, and a higher 24 bit rate 96 hz, etc.

And then if you have a player that can do it, and a great speaker system or headphones, you could play the same track (a quiet one) on all three formats. and then play a really busy one with fast instruments in all three formats to compare.

I know that I did switch back and forth between the same George Harrsion/Beatles song demo tracks on the same LOVE disc to see what the difference was. Remember they were from the same remaster. There really was a difference!

I suppose these days, you could do the test with a music blu-ray album.

[Edited 7/19/14 13:20pm]

i understand there may be a difference in the high-quality version, but have you considered that the difference is because these high quality audiophile versions of the record in 24bit are mastered differently than the standard version? i've often heard that these versions use a less compressed master ala the recent beatles mono reissue.

Hear you about different masters, but I'm speaking of the SAME master for The Beatles "Love" disc. They derived the CD audio and the Dolby digital track from the same high bitrate high frequency range master. I'm about the get the blu-ray audio of "Songs in the Key of Life" and if they have the same master in different formats, I'll report if it sounds different.

ufoclub said:

scratch said:

i understand there may be a difference in the high-quality version, but have you considered that the difference is because these high quality audiophile versions of the record in 24bit are mastered differently than the standard version? i've often heard that these versions use a less compressed master ala the recent beatles mono reissue.

Hear you about different masters, but I'm speaking of the SAME master for The Beatles "Love" disc. They derived the CD audio and the Dolby digital track from the same high bitrate high frequency range master. I'm about the get the blu-ray audio of "Songs in the Key of Life" and if they have the same master in different formats, I'll report if it sounds different.

I'm definitely gonna do more reading on the difference between the bitrates, and try to get more 24bit stuff to listen to on my high-end headphones (Sennheiser HD600 and Koss Electrostats which rival the best systems out there) but for most people I do think the difference maybe would only really apply on the most expensive systems out there...

.

My main point was, addressing compression is fine, but you have to also address these terrible modern compression techniques that strip the music of so much life and joy... listen to Sign o The Times vinyl master vs CD master and the difference is night and day. anyway, i've been trying to avoid listening to digital music as much as possible when at home, you know? 24 bit or whatever... i just love the sound of the current vinyl setup i have right now so much it's extremely gratifying... it's the best way to enjoy prince's tunes.

scratch said:

hey everyone, has anyone seen this documentary?

.

it's been talked up by prince fans recently on twitter and on youtube because, apparently, prince told some of his fans to watch it at a recent plectrum electrum listening party. it's called 'the distortion of sound', you can find it on youtube.

.

and, as i began to watch this video, i was extremely excited. finally, a well-produced documentary featuring popular musicians and producers talking about what has really been ruining much of modern musical audio quality-- the loudness wars, modern mixing and mastering techniques which strip music of its dynamic range in order to 'pop' more when played, for instance, on a car radio or over an intercom at a grocery store.

.

instead, they didn't mention the loudness wars once.

.

they focused the entire documentary on mp3 compression and how 'terrible' it is, how it strips the music of its sound quality. they played clips of songs at maybe 98kbps compared to the "uncompressed audio" (which was, of course, compressed by youtube, as all audio uploaded to youtube is) which, of course, sounded much better.

.

the problem is, in pretty much every instance 320kbps mp3 is indistinguishable from a high-quality format! i've done MANY double-blind tests, and i have a very nice hi-fi setup. the difference is negligible, and only able to be perceived on the best of the best systems.

.

metallica's 'death magnetic' won't sound good, no matter what bitrate it's played at! bitrate isn't the problem! the problem is that the album was compressed and flattened in its incredibly loud mastering. listen to nine inch nails last album, 'hesitation marks', in its 'audiophile version.' it was mastered to avoid the loudness wars and dynamic range compression common in modern digital mastering. then, listen to the original. listen to both of them at 320kbps mp3. the difference is CLEAR. much more clear than when comparing lossless audio to 320. bitrate is NOT the problem.

.

so why produce such a dishonest documentary in the first place? well... toward the end of the video, they keep saying 'we need a new way to distribute music that's artist driven.' and then, at the end, you realize the entire documentary was made by harmon kardon. i have NO doubt that harmon will be introducing a new lossless audio service soon, and this sort of stealth PR is shameful.

.

the only thing that will make music sound better in 2014 is combatting the loudness wars. this documentary left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

I haven't seen the doc (and now I won't), but, your assessment of the real problem is 100% spot on!!

TheEnglishGent said:

I watched it yesterday and couldn't make it to the end. It was so completely retarded it made me angry. Prince has been releasing 'lossless' downloads recently but they've been mastered so badly it defeats the object. As soon as those waveforms start being clipped you're doing more damage to the sound than converting it to mp3.

Loudness war sucks.

ufoclub said:

Actually, there is no way to debate this because the reality exists that you can test it for yourself...

You could get a disc where the recording exists in both compressed format like MP3 (like a dolby digital recording), a lossless CD quality, and a higher 24 bit rate 96 hz, etc.

[Edited 7/19/14 13:20pm]

Not exactly.

Few people have near field monitors, or a balanced stereo.

Few people have balanced ear drums.

Most stereos are built to optimize certain things.

None of this replicates an engineers scope, or other tools.

And even then it's subjective to the listeners own sensibilities.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

Actually, there is no way to debate this because the reality exists that you can test it for yourself...

You could get a disc where the recording exists in both compressed format like MP3 (like a dolby digital recording), a lossless CD quality, and a higher 24 bit rate 96 hz, etc.

[Edited 7/19/14 13:20pm]

Not exactly.

Few people have near field monitors, or a balanced stereo.

Few people have balanced ear drums.

Most stereos are built to optimize certain things.

None of this replicates an engineers scope, or other tools.

And even then it's subjective to the listeners own sensibilities.

Yet, all those are easily translated and are true for vision and displays as well in terms of monitor quality, yet you can check to see if you yourself perceive the difference between SD, 720p, 1080p, or 4K.

Get it?

If you look at a visual representation of the soundwave (any sound editing program) of a regular uncompressed, fairly decent music recording compared to the same thing heavily compressed, it is night and day. The compression level used by many producers today pretty much destroys the dynamics of the music.. just one look and your jaw would drop. And yes, this includes some of P's recent recordings as well. Way too compressed to be dynamic.

ufoclub said:

Yet, all those are easily translated and are true for vision and displays as well in terms of monitor quality, yet you can check to see if you yourself perceive the difference between SD, 720p, 1080p, or 4K.

Get it?

Not as a rule. 720p to 1080p? The average eye when when the image isn't side to side? No, you can't.

Anyway, you cannot compare visual resolution to audio resolution. Why take this off topic deliberately?

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

Yet, all those are easily translated and are true for vision and displays as well in terms of monitor quality, yet you can check to see if you yourself perceive the difference between SD, 720p, 1080p, or 4K.

Get it?

Not as a rule. 720p to 1080p? The average eye when when the image isn't side to side? No, you can't.

Anyway, you cannot compare visual resolution to audio resolution. Why take this off topic deliberately?

I'm trying to illustrate why four of the things you wrote are clouding the focus and going off topic. They can be transposed to a visual arena of consideration and are easily seen as not valuable in comparison to putting value in an individual testing their own perception themselves under a controlled monitoring method they themselves prefer personally.

•Field monitors/balanced stereo = Professional studio video monitor (you can test image quality on whatever monitor you have, and assuming that you are the type of person who would test these things, you must care enough to have something decent even if it's not a $10K monitor. The same applies to a sound system.

•Balanced eardrums = Most people don't have perfect vision. (Does that mean the trying to personally distinguish image or sound quality is a wasted effort?)

•Stereo are built to optimize things = TV's have built in image optimizing that vary brand to brand. Does this mean you can't test image quality on your own TV system?

•Engineer's Scope = Engineers video scope. This is irrelevant to you using your own TV to see if you can tell the different between different resolutions and compression of video. You can still perceive this for yourself which is what is important.

The fifth thing you wrote is relevant. And it is exactly my point.

You ended with this:

"it's subjective to the listeners own sensibilities."

Exactly. And that's what I mean you should do. Test it yourself. Play the same master on the same system in different formats.

PS, in the case of the Beatles "Love" disc, I was not a victim of a plecebo effect of expectations. In fact it was the opposite. When I first got the disc, I played the what I thought was the 24 bit master and thought it sounded no better then the 5.1 Dolby Digital track. No better then the CD quality track (even thougjh it had more channels that were coming out of all the speakera). I thought, well I guess I can't tell any difference. What a rip off.

•

It was only after I read that 24 bit 96Hz audio could not even be transmitted digitally (this was pre-HDMI) that I rewired my receiver to the disc player with seperate analog audio cables for every channel.

•

Then all of a sudden it sounded different. More live. Like the musician was sitting in a chair and singing in the room.

•

I think Songs in the Key of Life should reach me tomorrow. I can't wait to test it. Of course then I would have to make sure that the playstation 3 can transmit that kind of audio without downconverting it through an HDMI. And also make sure my receiver displays that it is getting the correct signal.

ufoclub said:

I'm trying to illustrate why four of the things you wrote are clouding the focus and going off topic.

At this point, it's pretty clear you just need go back to a real school on your own time to get your confusion about visual resolution versus audio clarity sorted out. It's not my problem.

.

You seem to be arguing that one format is more live, or bright, or cleaner, or whatever the case, and that it should be naturally apparent to the average Prince fan on comparison. In truth, the differences might be negligent, as everyone is listening through pre-amplification, and most equipment on the market modifies the sound no matter what format is being played. It's also why some of the audio on your website is full of distortion, clicks, pops and clipping, but you probably thought it was perfect when you uploaded it.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

I'm trying to illustrate why four of the things you wrote are clouding the focus and going off topic.

At this point, it's pretty clear you just need go back to a real school on your own time to get your confusion about visual resolution versus audio clarity sorted out. It's not my problem.

.

You seem to be arguing that one format is more live, or bright, or cleaner, or whatever the case, and that it should be naturally apparent to the average Prince fan on comparison. In truth, the differences might be negligent, as everyone is listening through pre-amplification, and most equipment on the market modifies the sound no matter what format is being played. It's also why some of the audio on your website is full of distortion, clicks, pops and clipping, but you probably thought it was perfect when you uploaded it.

Getting angry and crazy again? Calm down, 'cause you're defocussing even more, and starting to lash out emotionally. I guess understanding metaphoric comparisons out is too far out there for you?

•

I produce most of my personal music organically, spontanously and NEVER in a professional studio environment. Imperfections suggest an emotional intensity and are part of the concept of the sound that I intentionally go for. I don't want it to sound sterile. I want to pick up texture like the hiss of air, defects of a mic, or rattle of handling an instrument. I'm not bothered to go in and crossfade all the edit points, and would much rather have a wilder, raw mix over a conservative perfectly engineered one. It's all the influence of me normally liking outtakes and demos more (of which I have collect many of Prince and The Beatles). I even mix in clashing sounds, frequencies, and textures on purpose in my sound, just like I add imperfections like grain or blurring to my video work. This is especially true for something that is supposed to sound horror shaded.

•

But where do you think you heard clipping? I have a feeling you are mistaking intentional elements as mistakes. In fact, I don't know what you are even hearing based on this post of yours in the other thread:

•

treehouse said: "A lot of horny talk on here lately. It's got me thinking about the horns in Darling Nikki and how those could possibly be synth horns. Seems impossible, but I've never heard of them using a session guy for that."

•

What???

ufoclub said:

•

I produce most of my personal music organically, spontanously and NEVER in a professional studio environment.

Your music? Who cares. It's your "video work" that gives you away.

treehouse said:

ufoclub said:

•

I produce most of my personal music organically, spontanously and NEVER in a professional studio environment.

Your music? Who cares. It's your "video work" that gives you away.

What's something "that gives you away"? Can you elaborate?

That's okay, but there's no need to keep posing as an audiophile or professional on a Prince forum.

treehouse said:

That's okay, but there's no need to keep posing as an audiophile or professional on a Prince forum.

You're consistent.

Let's see if you are worth even a grain of credibility:

What did you mean by this statement: "A lot of horny talk on here lately. It's got me thinking about the horns in Darling Nikki and how those could possibly be synth horns. Seems impossible, but I've never heard of them using a session guy for that."

___________________

Okay, I see you explained in the other thread, you meant: a session guy to serve as a model for emulating horn phrases. That's a relief to read. I'll give you credit on that, that's a good theory.

•

I never labeled myself as an "audiophile" I just have a compulsion to buy and use equipment like the Sennheiser 800 headphones and want to actively listen to albums in 24K 96 khz and compare them to 16 bit 44.1 khz renditions.

_

I never labeled myself as a professional, I simply making a living exclusively by directing video and animation that gets broadcast, distributed, commissioned and exhibited at major institutions, film festivals, or events.

[Edited 7/21/14 10:27am]

ufoclub said:

_

I never labeled myself as a professional, I simply making a living exclusively by directing video and animation that gets broadcast, distributed, commissioned and exhibited at major institutions, film festivals, or events.

[Edited 7/21/14 10:27am]

Dude. Your resume and work samples are online. You link to it after every post. Who are you kidding?

.

The $1,400 headphones you bragged about are known to brighten flat audio, favoring the treble.

I don't know if I would consider "steath PR" as shameful.. I don't see any blatant falsehoods. A good part of capitalist innovation is making consumers see getting consumers to see wants/desires that they previously did not know they could satisfy. Nearly everything in most people's lifestyles that many consider things they'd prefer not to live without were introduced in the same way. Anyone who's lived with 1080p HD Resolutions on their tv suddenly notices the different when they see poorer quality resolutions on older TV's, but those who only have those poorer resolutions don't see that they're missing anything. The same is true with sound quality.