| Author |
|
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 09 May 2010 at 4:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Since many of us are very picky about sound quality, I wanted to post my findings on some 2009's big hits. I went through every song that hit the top 15 on the CHR MediaBase chart, and I reviewed the copies I have on both TM Studio's PrimeCuts and Promo Only's Mainstream Radio series. A handful of them were "lossy" on Promo Only but non-compressed on TM Studios, and vice versa. There were six songs that were lossy on every copy I had:
Flo Rida "Right Round"
Jesse McCartney "How Do You Sleep" (Radio Edit) (as I mentioned in another thread, my promo CD single uses a lossy source)
Black Eyed Peas "Boom Boom Pow" (Radio Edit)
Pitbull "I Know You Want Me" (More English Edit)
Ting Tings "That's Not My Name" (Radio Edit, which is also in mono)
Taylor Swift "You Belong With Me" (Pop Mix)
I have ordered the Now 31 & 32 discs, which contain 5 of the above 6 songs/versions. I will report back if these discs have the same problem or if they are lossless sources.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 09 May 2010 at 6:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Are you saying these use mp3s as their source instead of a CD source? And either way, how can a person determine for certain if they are listening to something that used a WAV for its source or an mp3 as its source?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eric_a
MusicFan
Joined: 29 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 442
|
| Posted: 09 May 2010 at 8:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
A couple years ago, after listening to one particularly grungy-sounding track, I asked one of the Promo Only producers about it. He said that they didn't accept any compressed formats (e.g. MP3) from labels. He acknowledged, though, that labels occasionally supplied some rough-sounding audio. One cut that comes to mind is the acoustic version of Hinder's "Lips Of An Angel," which sounded like a lowbit MP3 and sounded equally bad on the label's promo single.
Edited by eric_a on 10 May 2010 at 7:10am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 7:41am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eric, "Lips Of An Angel" has some real problems on the "Chris Lord Alge Edit," too, which is on Promo Only's Mainstream Aug. 2006 issue. It also sounds like a low bitrate mp3. My friend at TM has told me that sometimes labels will try to disguise a lossy source by converting it to a wav before submitting it.
EdisonLite, that's exactly what I'm saying. Most of the time, I can pick up on this just by listening, but I'll post some screen shots of how you can tell visually.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 7:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
OK, using Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition (and perhaps other software has this feature, too), you can use the View menu to see what the frequencies of the track look like visually. In that program, choose Spectral View. I have captured four screen shots, all of the same song: "Run This Town" by Jay-Z.
Here's the frequency view for the uncompressed wav format:
Wav file, uncompressed - full song view
Notice that the colors span from the top to the bottom. The frequency range is labeled on the right side, with 24,000 Hz at the top of each channel and 0 Hz at the bottom.
Now, the human ear, in general, cannot hear frequencies above 16,000 Hz, which is why a typical mp3 just dumps all of those frequencies. Here is a picture of a 256kbps mp3:
256k mp3 - full song view
You might be asking yourself, if my ear can't hear those frequencies, what difference does it make if they are gone? Well, there's more to it. Let's take a closer look at the following two screen shots:
256k mp3 - 6 second view
128k mp3 - 6 second view
These shots are zoomed in to show only six seconds of audio. If you compare the two, you'll notice that the cutoff point is still 16,000 Hz, but there is more black area showing on the 128k file. Not only has it dumped the upper range, but it's now getting rid of frequencies below 16,000 Hz.
It's more than just frequencies, though! I don't claim to have some sort of superhuman hearing; I just know what to listen for. When an mp3 is encoded, not only is it dumping frequencies, but it's also leaving behind artifacts than can be heard. In my next post, I'll post some audio samples that demonstrate what those artifacts sound like.
Edited by aaronk on 10 May 2010 at 8:00am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 9:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's my best attempt at trying to demonstrate what's "missing" and what's been added when compressing to mp3:
Audio samples - 12MB ZIP folder
There are 7 wav files for you to listen to; all are about 15 seconds of "Already Gone" (no pun intended) by Kelly Clarkson. You should try to listen on good speakers or good headphones to really hear what I'm talking about.
How It Works
You're probably familiar with phase cancellation problems on tracks like "Walk A Mile In My Shoes." When you "mono" the stereo version, the vocals disappear! I'm using the same concept in this demonstration.
For the "missing audio" files, you'll technically be hearing what's missing and also what's been left behind by the mp3 encoder. (I don't have a way to isolate the two.) The main point of these files, though, is to understand what the mp3 encoder is throwing away!
To understand what artifacts are being left behind, I'm using a preset called "Vocal Cut" under the Amplification screen. What this does is inverts one of the channels and then sums them both to mono. Anything that is the same in both channels will cancel out (mainly the vocals, but also some of the percussion cancels, too). Since the song is stereo, the artifacts left behind by the encoder will be different in each channel, and therefore should not cancel out.
Keep in mind that the one labeled "vocal cut - wav.wav" is how it's supposed to sound---with no mp3 compression artifacts left behind. As you listen to the mp3 versions, more and more "artifacts" have been left behind. By the time you get to the 96k file, it sounds like a bad, swishy tape.
If you have a really good ear for picking up on those artifacts, you will likely be able to distinguish (on a good stereo or set of headphones) when a source has been taken from a lossy file. As the source gets above 128k, it gets harder to tell, but I'm usually able to pick up on it even at 256k.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eric_a
MusicFan
Joined: 29 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 442
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 9:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I should add that the ability to "hear"
those artifacts is a blessing and a curse.
I'm usually the only one in a crowd to
notice bad audio and no one else seems
to care or, frankly, be sympathetic. Sad
that despite the great potential of
improved sound the industry has taken
such a bold step backward.
And thanks, Aaron, for the analysis!
Edited by eric_a on 10 May 2010 at 10:15am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 10:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
You're welcome, Eric! I agree with you 100% that at the very least, the industry should care about the quality of the product they are putting out. Ten years ago, it was necessary to use compressed files, since disk space and Internet bandwidth had to be taken into consideration. But there's no excuse for using poor quality sources as the "master" version released to radio and the public, especially today.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Nick2341
MusicFan
Joined: 07 December 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 12:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Great post. You have no idea how many times I had to try and explain this to people and they still don't get it haha. Anyway, I'd like to add that Janet's "Make Me" is lossy sourced on all releases.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Santi Paradoa
MusicFan
Joined: 17 February 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1117
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 12:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So if many of us are loading the track(s) on to our iPods using store bought disc(s) what is the recommendation when converting? This for us non-technical users (I'm including myself) that use iTunes but instead of downloading the song(s) from their store actually purchase the physical CD.
__________________
Santi Paradoa
Miami, Florida
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Nick2341
MusicFan
Joined: 07 December 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 1:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I use AAC 256 Kbps VBR, the iTunes Plus setting which keeps all the frequencies, uses QuickTime's "best" encoder setting, and also prevents (most) clipping. Using this setting even for songs from a lossy source doesn't degrade much and the difference is negligible.
Edited by Nick2341 on 10 May 2010 at 1:11pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 1:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was going to start a thread about this very thing a few weeks ago, Aaron. I got a few discs from Nu Music Traxx at a sale for a buck each, and couldnt believe it -- most of the songs on there are from MP3s, and "Right Round" was one of them. I got about eight or ten Universal A&R monthly samplers from 2008-2010, but I haven't analyzed them yet.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 10 May 2010 at 2:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Santi Paradoa wrote:
| So if many of us are loading the track(s) on to our iPods using store bought disc(s) what is the recommendation when converting? This for us non-technical users (I'm including myself) that use iTunes but instead of downloading the song(s) from their store actually purchase the physical CD. |
|
|
Well, there's always Apple Lossless, which makes the file about 1/3 smaller than the full .wav. Lately I've been using iTunes 320kb VBR, which is Quicktime VBR . Very high bit rate, peaking out over 400kb for almost all stereo files, some nearly 470kb.
Alternately, you can use Nero's AAC encoder that's bundled in Foobar, which can go as high 512kb. They also have a variable bitrate option, which, if you choose "100%," encodes at roughly 400kb, with the VBR also going up, on average, around 460-470 for stereo files, much, around 220kb, less for mono files.
Nick2341 wrote:
| I use AAC 256 Kbps VBR, the iTunes Plus setting which keeps all the frequencies, uses QuickTime's "best" encoder setting, and also prevents (most) clipping. |
|
|
Actually, Nick, only iTunes plus uses the "best" setting. (Now "highest" in the latest Quicktime version, I think.) If you select 256 VBR on iTunes instead of iTunes plus, you get the same thing only at the "medium" quality setting. I'm sure you could probably never near the differce -- I think it's more of a speed thing than anything else. Comparisons show the average and peak bitrates are only a couple kilobits off.
Edited by Brian W. on 10 May 2010 at 3:00pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1385
|
| Posted: 11 May 2010 at 5:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have a semi-related question for you sound editing gurus. A co-worker of mine has a mobile dj business and uses mp3 files on a laptop PC for his audio. He has a bunch of files that came from a friend of a friend, and they could use a little "tweaking" (ie-levels, some are a bit loose at the beginning, etc).
Now these files play just fine in whatever software he uses to sequence music at his gigs, they also play in Winamp & Windows media player. BUT...you can't open them in Adobe Audition (at least 1.5 or older...the newest version I have access to)...if you do it shows an empty (mono) file the length it's supposed to be. If you try to burn them to a CD you get the same thing...an empty audio file. I don't see anything unusual in the properties of these files.
I'm guessing there's some sort of protection on them, but I have no clue what it may be. Any ideas?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eric_a
MusicFan
Joined: 29 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 442
|
| Posted: 11 May 2010 at 6:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
eric_a wrote:
I should add that the ability to "hear"
those artifacts is a blessing and a curse.
I'm usually the only one in a crowd to
notice bad audio and no one else seems
to care or, frankly, be sympathetic. Sad
that despite the great potential of
improved sound the industry has taken
such a bold step backward.
|
|
|
And to reply to my own post, I noticed that the
NY Times yesterday had a story about this very topic!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 11 May 2010 at 7:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
...they could use a little "tweaking" (ie-levels, some are a bit loose at the beginning, etc).
...I'm guessing there's some sort of protection on them, but I have no clue what it may be. Any ideas?
|
|
|
In regards to the "tweaking," this is exactly why I don't keep any of my "master" file copies as mp3s. The minute you do any "tweaking" and re-save the file, you've just re-encoded an already-lossy file, thus adding another layer of audio grime. Don't do it! If those songs are extremely key to his business, tell him to go spend $50 and buy higher quality copies that have proper levels and aren't "loose" at the beginning.
As to why they won't open in Audition, I have no idea. MP3s cannot be "protected" in the way that iTunes files used to be. Perhaps the files are not really mp3s, even though the extension says they are.
Many people are not aware of this, but you can actually take an mp3, change the extension to "wav," and it will still properly play in most media players. The extension is just telling Windows which program to use to open it. If the media player is capable of playing multiple file types (aac, mp3, wav, etc.), it might not matter what the extension is.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Nick2341
MusicFan
Joined: 07 December 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: 11 May 2010 at 12:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Brian W. wrote:
Nick2341 wrote:
| I use AAC 256 Kbps VBR, the iTunes Plus setting which keeps all the frequencies, uses QuickTime's "best" encoder setting, and also prevents (most) clipping. |
|
|
Actually, Nick, only iTunes plus uses the "best" setting. (Now "highest" in the latest Quicktime version, I think.) If you select 256 VBR on iTunes instead of iTunes plus, you get the same thing only at the "medium" quality setting. I'm sure you could probably never near the differce -- I think it's more of a speed thing than anything else. Comparisons show the average and peak bitrates are only a couple kilobits off. |
|
|
Right, I said I use the iTunes Plus preset there. I see how it can be read as just the regular 256 Kbps VBR, though, which as you said is not the same.
Edited by Nick2341 on 11 May 2010 at 12:37pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Santi Paradoa
MusicFan
Joined: 17 February 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1117
|
| Posted: 11 May 2010 at 7:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Nick2341 wrote:
| I use AAC 256 Kbps VBR, the iTunes Plus setting which keeps all the frequencies, uses QuickTime's "best" encoder setting, and also prevents (most) clipping. Using this setting even for songs from a lossy source doesn't degrade much and the difference is negligible. |
|
|
Turns out I've been doing the same all this time by accident as it's my default.
__________________
Santi Paradoa
Miami, Florida
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 16 May 2010 at 8:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I just received the Now 32 compilation, and I'll report any differences than what is currently listed in the database and/or sound quality issues.
"Lovegame" is taken from a lossy source. This is just the album version, so there is no excuse for a poor source. The full-length album doesn't have any quality issues.
"Best I Ever Had" is taken from a lossy source.
"Obsessed" by Mariah Carey is the "Super Clean" edit, which needs to be added to the database.
"Whatcha Say" is taken from a lossy source.
"Knock You Down" to be discussed in another thread.
"You Belong With Me" (Pop Mix) is the same lossy source used on the promo services. Shame on Sony!
Overall, this is one of the most disappointing compilation CDs I've ever purchased, only because of the inexcusable poor sources uses to master the album. I feel like writing a letter to Sony to express my disgust.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 17 May 2010 at 1:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
aaronk wrote:
"Lovegame" is taken from a lossy source.
"Best I Ever Had" is taken from a lossy source.
"Whatcha Say" is taken from a lossy source.
"You Belong With Me" (Pop Mix) is the same lossy source used on the promo services. Shame on Sony!
Overall, this is one of the most disappointing compilation CDs I've ever purchased, only because of the inexcusable poor sources uses to master the album. I feel like writing a letter to Sony to express my disgust. |
|
|
Wow. Unbelievable. You should write a letter, and CC the president of the company.
How did you determine they were lossy sources? Spectral analysis?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Lossy sources on big 2009 hits
