Top 40 Music on Compact Disc: List of MP3 sources on CD

Active Topics

Memberlist

Help

Chat Board
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board

Topic: List of MP3 sources on CD

Author

Message

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Fetta
MusicFan

Joined: 26 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 389

Posted: 09 July 2012 at 8:28pm \| IP Logged

I get most of my new music from Promo Only....Does anyone know if
they use lossy files?

MMathews
MusicFan

Joined: 18 August 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 978

Posted: 10 July 2012 at 6:56pm \| IP Logged

Hi all,

This is really just an FYI, as i never usually enter
these kids of debates (and still don't plan to) but just
to add some info, as The Hits Man pointed out, there are
other reasons a source may *sound* lossy to a listener.

This does mean necessarily it was sourced from a
compressed medium. Additionally, spectral analysis is
not the instant answer about a source.
There has been an extended discussion on the topic -
with input from other engineers as well - both on the
Hoffman boards and on BSN. I know a few folks here
frequent both of those boards. Check them out if you have
time.

A master tape source of limited freq. range recording can
be easily processed to read a false-positive on a
spectral screen.
Conversely, i know of several ways to take an good mp3
source and have it pass a spectral test easily to fool
it.

So, point is there is no special one-sized fits all
method to determining a lossy source. These results can
be inaccurate or misleading.
The best tool is still your ears.
MM

Brian W.
MusicFan

Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507

Posted: 10 July 2012 at 11:04pm \| IP Logged

MMathews wrote:

A master tape source of limited freq. range recording can
be easily processed to read a false-positive on a
spectral screen.
Conversely, i know of several ways to take an good mp3
source and have it pass a spectral test easily to fool
it.

So, point is there is no special one-sized fits all
method to determining a lossy source. These results can
be inaccurate or misleading.
The best tool is still your ears.
MM

I respect your opinion, Mark, but these are mostly tracks
where we have found lossless sources for the identical
songs and they look totally different under spectral
analysis than the apparent lossy sources. "Crank That,"
which I mentioned above, is one of those -- it is
lossless on the Souljaboytellem.com album, but on both
the promo and the import, if you zoom in closely enough
to the spectral waveform, you will see whole chunks of
data that have literally been cut out of the waveform,
like someone took a mini cookie cutter and cut thousands
of holes in it. Your explanation is possible, but it's
just as likely that the record companies don't care and
just send out whatever files, or lose track of which is
which. I also would argue against the "using your ears"
method, because very, very few tracks can be easily A/B'd
at 320kb, and anyone who tells me they can do it the
majority of the time has never done it in a blind
listening test, in my opinion.

eric_a
MusicFan

Joined: 29 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 442

Posted: 11 July 2012 at 1:52pm \| IP Logged

Fetta wrote:

I get most of my new music from Promo
Only....Does anyone know if
they use lossy files?

I asked P.O. the same question after receiving a
particularly grungy-sounding track on a disc some years
back. They said they did not accept compressed files from
the labels, but sometimes it was out of their control,
i.e., if someone at the label submitted a WAV file that had
been converted from MP3.

Jody Thornton
MusicFan

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 462

Posted: 12 July 2012 at 4:50am \| IP Logged

This should be something that allows for action to be taken against record labels. Because that means these lossy sources will be used for LPs and 12" singles too. And the labels aren't making a good case in trying stop downloads of MP3s. Why would I now buy a compact disc instead downloading an MP3?

__________________
Cheers,
Jody Thornton
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)

Hykker
MusicFan

Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386

Posted: 12 July 2012 at 6:17pm \| IP Logged

Jody Thornton wrote:

And the labels aren't making a good case in trying stop downloads of MP3s. Why would I now buy a compact disc instead downloading an MP3?

I very much get the impression that the labels want to get out of the CD business. Their costs remain the same whether a given song sells a million copies or 15, likewise no production bottlenecks in the event of a left-field hit. It doesn't seem that audio quality is a selling point these days...not many audiophiles left.

Edited by Hykker on 12 July 2012 at 6:18pm

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513

Posted: 13 July 2012 at 9:45am \| IP Logged

Latest SoundScan stats: "CD sales represented 61% of all album sales through midyear, down from 66% at this time last year. Digital album sales accounted for 38% of all album purchases during the first half of the year."

At least for full-length albums, CDs are still outselling digital downloads (93 million units vs 57 million units, year-to-date). Year-to-date singles sales are at 698 million units.

When you think about the history of recorded music, though, a high quality mp3 far exceeds the sound quality that most consumers have had in years past. Vinly only sounds better than mp3 when you have expensive equipment and a copy that is in great condition. Cassettes have never sounded amazing, even when played on a good deck. Furthermore, most people can't tell the difference between an mp3 and a lossless CD.

That's not to excuse the carelessness of putting a lossy file on a factory-pressed CD, but as Brian points out, it's very, very difficult to hear a difference at 320kbps. Unless it was a glaring quality issue, the mastering engineer may not have noticed.

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

KentT
MusicFan

Joined: 25 May 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 650

Posted: 15 July 2012 at 3:27pm \| IP Logged

I can hear the difference on Bill Doggett/Honky Tonk Pt 1 and Pt. 2. Why do you think I play my old 45 most of the time I want to hear it?

__________________
I turn up the good and turn down the bad!

The Hits Man
MusicFan

Joined: 04 February 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 665

Posted: 16 July 2012 at 1:05pm \| IP Logged

aaronk wrote:

Vinly only sounds better than mp3 when you have expensive
equipment and a copy that is in great condition.

I take great issue with that.

__________________

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513

Posted: 16 July 2012 at 3:13pm \| IP Logged

The Hits Man wrote:

I take great issue with that.

My 320kbps mp3s are WAY better sounding than any 45 I listened to as a
kid, which were all played back on a cheap turntable. I never had a great
sounding turntable until I invested $600+ as an adult. By contrast, I can
hook up a $40 iPod shuffle and play 320 mp3s on my nice stereo receiver,
and they sound excellent.

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

The Hits Man
MusicFan

Joined: 04 February 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 665

Posted: 16 July 2012 at 4:57pm \| IP Logged

aaronk wrote:

The Hits Man wrote:

I take great issue
with that.

My 320kbps mp3s are WAY better sounding than any 45 I
listened to as a
kid, which were all played back on a cheap turntable. I
never had a great
sounding turntable until I invested $600+ as an adult.
By contrast, I can
hook up a $40 iPod shuffle and play 320 mp3s on my nice
stereo receiver,
and they sound excellent.

I can hear the difference between a record and an mp3.

__________________

NightAire
MusicFan

Joined: 20 February 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 998

Posted: 16 July 2012 at 6:12pm \| IP Logged

...On a cheap record player?

__________________
Gene Savage
http://www.BlackLightRadio.com
http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage
Owasso, Oklahoma USA

Jody Thornton
MusicFan

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 462

Posted: 16 July 2012 at 7:13pm \| IP Logged

See this is what I find odd since the LP started making a modest return back in 2007. And keep in mind, I love vinyl and traditionally hate digital. Having said that, I find that a top flight "uncompressed" compact disc and an equal quality LP will likely sound more similar than different on top end gear.

I find that in the 80s (and keep in mind that not all of us had terrible equipment back then), that audiophiles were more honest about the limitations of the LP, even on good equipment (wow and flutter, sibilance, mistracking, end of side distortion, surface noise and wear). Now in the 2000s, since the LPs' Comeback, we all seem to accept that LPs are better than CDs (when in fact, single play audiophile CD Players have improved immensely from second-generation players in the 80s).

And new turntables aren't what mid-priced stuff was then. Back in the mid-80s, wow and flutter never rose much beyond 0.05% WRMS, whereas now, Pro-Jects, Music Halls and Regas typically spec around 0.1% or higher - specs I would expect to find on an idler-wheel Dual 1019 model from 1971.

So if the analog equipment wasn't what it was in the 80s, yet CD Players (good ones I mean) are better, where do we get off saying vinyl is clearly better than CD? I mentioned this on the AudioKarma forum some time back, and I was flamed beyond belief for stirring up hate towards vinyl. Hmmmm...let's see, I have a handful of rare CD singles, but I have 5,000 analog discs - I don't think I hate vinyl.

But it seems that analog's revival is creating a "bandwagon" effect. When in truth, there are great and horrible LP pressings, and great and horrible digital discs. And modern day LPs are being made on many occasions from the same compressed masterings that are being used for CDs. So where's the benefit.

I can admit that my love for all things analog is a sentimental one. I would like Night Aire to tell us why an analog disc played with a record changer, using a ceramic cartridge in 1980 would sound better than a 320 kbps encoded MP3 in 2012. I'm sure you can tell the difference, but would a rumble-laden playback with rolled off highs and improer RIAA EQ sound better than a high bitrate MP3?

Edited by Jody Thornton on 16 July 2012 at 7:14pm

__________________
Cheers,
Jody Thornton
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)

NightAire
MusicFan

Joined: 20 February 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 998

Posted: 17 July 2012 at 1:55am \| IP Logged

Jody, you missed my question mark, I think. I was questioning whether The Hits Man could hear a (positive) difference between vinyl on a run-of-the-mill turntable and a 320 kbps mp3.

I'm absolutely with you: vinyl is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to bring up to the fidelity of all but the smallest of mp3s. As you mentioned: bad pressings, tracking distortions, wow, flutter, rumble, surface noise, clicks, pops, cue "burn," skips, worn needles, etc. etc. etc.

I was finally, reluctantly, convinced that vinyl COULD (barely) sound better than even a 16-bit CD a few months ago, but the conditions have to be PERFECT: extremely stable, extremely low noise turntable, expensive cartridge, new or nearly-new needle, premium tube pre-amp, excellent pressing, mint vinyl, no scratches or dust...

The effort it takes to make a record sound even AS good as a CD is ridiculous.

I remember the first time I heard a CD. I couldn't believe it! The noise floor seemed bottomless!! I'd never heard such detail in my recordings. The highs were so sparkling & crisp, the bass was tight and clear... it was like taking a wet blanket off my speakers (or in this case, my headphones).

The idea that a recording medium that samples the air 44,100 times a SECOND when we can only hear up to 20,000 vibrations per second, can't capture all of the sound is insanity and quite frankly, silly.

(The differences I THINK I heard that put this ONE vinyl recording ahead, BTW, may have had to do with the 16 bit sampling rate... however unlikely it is that I could hear the difference between 16 bit [96db noise floor] & 24 bit [144db noise floor]!)

More importantly: Even with a perfect pressing & perfect equipment, EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I play that record, it MUST sound worse than the time before. There is NO way to avoid this. EVERY time you play a record, the diamond needle wears away a little more of the vinyl from the groove, increasing noise & distortion and reducing high frequency response.

I have CDs from 23 years ago, that I've played hundreds of times... and they sound exactly as sharp and as clear as the day I got them... perhaps better, because of the improvements in Digital to Analog converters!

MP3s do throw away some of the sound, yes... BUT, it is done based on what isn't missed by the human ear & more importantly, the brain. Research has consistently shown that 256 kbps is indistinguishable from linear digital audio, and 320 kbps is just one step higher in retaining more of the information.

The problems come when you encode at 128 kbps or lower, or you use an old or bad codec, or your file is encoded, then re-encoded (especially from .wma to .mp3, or some other codec). The old encoders were not as good as the latest ones, and files encoded twice don't know what it was supposed to sound like in the first place so they're more likely to throw away parts of the sound you DO need to hear.

99% of the preferences for vinyl come from equalization and personal preference. If you like the EQ of the record, you may not like the "flat" sound of the CD, even though it's more accurate to the original studio tape. If the constant low rumble is what you're used to hearing with recorded music, it sounds "wrong" without it. Same with little ticks and pops.

There was something always very satisfying about dropping a needle on a record and listening to the "lead-in" grooves... but what came after could never hold a candle to even 160 kbps mp3s today.

SUMMARY: Jody, I'm on your side. :)

__________________
Gene Savage
http://www.BlackLightRadio.com
http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage
Owasso, Oklahoma USA

Jody Thornton
MusicFan

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 462

Posted: 17 July 2012 at 7:58am \| IP Logged

Yes Night Aire - I should have pointed the question to The Hits Man. I think the working state of my brain could be summarized with a question mark.

Now I want to read your post...lol. I relate to a lot of your memories (except that my first audition of a CD in 1983 was Ho-Hum, and I think reinforced my view initially about analog "superiority".). In truth I have heard much better CDs since then.

__________________
Cheers,
Jody Thornton
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 17 July 2012 at 10:08am \| IP Logged

I have to agree - I'll take a CD recording over a 45 or LP recording ANY DAY. When a CD sounds imperfect to my ears, I simply adjust the EQ (and sometimes other parameters) and voila ... I have a very warm & crisp recording that sounds amazing to my (and my friends') ears. When I hear vinyl that sounds imperfect (which is 100% of the time), I can spend hours on one song removing pops, clicks, rumble sound, the worn fuzzy sounds (that sound like a well-worn record - even if I've just unsealed the LP and played it for the first time - it amazes me how much of that sound can be there when I've just unwrapped the LP and cleaned it!), removing the light crackle sounds, trying to reduce siblance, and all sorts of other hard to remove sounds that the original engineers never put into the recording, then I also have to hope I have a copy of the 45 or LP where the hole is truly in the middle; otherwise, I get an alteration in speed and pitch that sounds really bad (another problem with vinyl that no one mentioned above.) And that's assuming there are no skips (or repeats) in the record! And if all this goes RIGHT, I still have a recording that I can detect as vinyl - because when I listen on headphones as the song fades out (and I won't fade records early when I clean them up), I can still hear a bit of that "record sound", revealing I've taken this from vinyl and not a CD/tape source. And that's assuming all the worn-out, grungy sound can be removed. Even with the best of softwares, you can only go so far with that specific aspect. And like I said, that sound is already present on sealed LPs. It's not like a pop/click which can (for the most part) be removed fairly easily.

I'd much rather hear a CD (re-EQ'd by me, if need be) than listen to an uncleaned or even well-cleaned vinyl source. I have the best softwares for cleaning vinyl (stuff that Mark M turned me on to). And still, after all that, I'll take a CD source every single time! It's so much easier to add warmth and sparkle to a CD that hasn't been mastered well and has that dull and lifeless sound.

Brian W.
MusicFan

Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507

Posted: 17 July 2012 at 10:43am \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

I have the best softwares for cleaning vinyl (stuff that Mark M turned me on to).

And what is this software, Gordon?

Jody Thornton
MusicFan

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 462

Posted: 17 July 2012 at 4:04pm \| IP Logged

Well I will admit that I have heard terrific stuff on both formats. Hey I have even heard terrific pre-recorded cassettes and normally I would not consider that format really audiophile hi-fi (let's discount Tandbergs, Nakamichis and the like - I mean a typical HX-Pro Yamaha, Teac or Onkyo deck as typical higher end cassette performance).

But I must admit that I have heard records well reproduced, though it's possible that what I preferred in the sound were actually artifacts; it's entirely possible. But albums like Jacko's "Thriller" or Steely Dan's "Gaucho" seem to belong on a turntable.

I have tended to cite CDs as sterile or almost "too perfect" sounding with no solidity. But in honest truth I have heard some GREAT compact discs. Don Henley's "End of the Innocence" and Heart's "Brigade" were poor LPs (I'm glad I have them because they were hard to find) but in 1989 or 1990, most of the LPs were being cut from dynamically compressed DAT masters, and sounded fully the equal of an FM pop station. These were INDEED better compact discs.

Edited by Jody Thornton on 17 July 2012 at 4:05pm

__________________
Cheers,
Jody Thornton
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 17 July 2012 at 8:14pm \| IP Logged

Brian, the software is WaveLab.

Brian W.
MusicFan

Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507

Posted: 24 September 2012 at 2:59pm \| IP Logged

Here's a new spectral analysis showing the difference between a lossless file and a lossy one. In this case, B.o.B's "Nothin' On You" single.

Here, I compare the domestic CD single to the iTunes Plus single that I purchased. I inaccurately said in a previous post that the CD single looked like it was taken from the iTunes file. My bad, but it is MUCH harder to tell the difference with an AAC (iTunes Plus) file than it is with an MP3. However, the below links will show the telltale signs:

Nothin' On You (iTunes Plus single)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/8021196952_3ec48d5df7_h.j pg

Note the missing spectral information in the iTunes file, indicated by the white arrows. There are "cookie cutter" black chunks missing from the middle of the file, as well as chunks missing from the upper frequencies.

Now look a the domestic CD single for the song:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8170/8021190363_61523483f1_h.j pg

The black "cookie cutter" cutouts are not present, and in the upper frequencies there's much more of a gradual fade to black, rather than the sharper edge of the iTunes Plus file.

Try opening both photos at the same time in different windows and flip between them... then the difference is really obvious.

<< Prev Page of 3 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.0625 seconds.