Lossy sources on big 2009 hits
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5619
Printed Date: 07 June 2025 at 4:25am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Lossy sources on big 2009 hits
Posted By: aaronk
Subject: Lossy sources on big 2009 hits
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 4:58pm
|
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. |
Replies:
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 6:59pm
| 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? |
Posted By: eric_a
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 8:33pm
| 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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 7:41am
|
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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 7:57am
|
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: http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo244/kanno1ae/mp3%20screen%20shots/wavfile.jpg - 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: http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo244/kanno1ae/mp3%20screen%20shots/256kmp3-fullsong.jpg - 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: http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo244/kanno1ae/mp3%20screen%20shots/256kmp3-6secview.jpg - 256k mp3 - 6 second view http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo244/kanno1ae/mp3%20screen%20shots/128kmp3-6secview.jpg - 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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 9:02am
|
Here's my best attempt at trying to demonstrate what's "missing" and what's been added when compressing to mp3:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ji3ugw4qyw5 - 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. |
Posted By: eric_a
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 9:50am
|
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! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 10:56am
| 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. |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 12:16pm
| 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. |
Posted By: Santi Paradoa
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 12:59pm
|
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 |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 1:10pm
| 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. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 1:33pm
|
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.
|
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 2:57pm
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.
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. |
Santi Paradoa wrote:Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 5:38am
|
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? |
Posted By: eric_a
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 6:43am
And to reply to my own post, I noticed that the http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?src=me&ref=homepage - NY Times yesterday had a story about this very topic! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 7:33am
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. |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 12:36pm
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. |
Posted By: Santi Paradoa
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 7:06pm
------------- Santi Paradoa Miami, Florida |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 16 May 2010 at 8:25pm
|
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. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 17 May 2010 at 1:38am
Wow. Unbelievable. You should write a letter, and CC the president of the company. How did you determine they were lossy sources? Spectral analysis? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 17 May 2010 at 11:36am
|
Brian, I used the spectral analysis on all of the tracks, and it was obvious on "Lovegame" and "You Belong With Me." What was interesting is that "Best I Ever Had" and "Whatcha Say" looked okay on the spectral view, showing frequencies all the way to 24kHz. My ears were telling me different, though.
To confirm they were lossy sources, I used the "vocal cut" and I could hear all kinds of compression artifacts. I compared them with versions I had on Promo Only and Prime Cuts discs, and I could not detect any compression artifacts on those copies. The logical conclusion is that those two particular tracks were not from mp3s, but rather they were compressed using some other file type. As Nick stated above, AAC files still keep all of the frequencies. But as you are probably well aware, Brian, if the bitrate is 256k, yet all of the frequencies are in tact, something else has been thrown away to keep the file size that small. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 17 May 2010 at 1:00pm
|
I'm sure you're correct; however, I do own some old CDs that peak out at around 20,000hz. My 1988 import CD single of "Hands to Heaven" by Breathe, for example, just cuts off everyting above 21,000hz.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11717403@N02/4615976061/sizes/l/ - Hands to Heaven spectral view |
Posted By: eric_a
Date Posted: 17 May 2010 at 1:35pm
That doesn't surprise me -- digital audio is capped at half the sampling rate. In other words, audio from a CD (44.1 kHz) would be limited to ~22 kHz. In fact, if I rip a CD, Adobe Audition limits the spectral view to exactly 22050 Hz. But I think it's slightly more complicated in practice. I seem to remember learning in school about the Nyquist principles, that the audio frequency limit is *slightly lower* than half of the sampling rate. So 44.1 kHz was chosen because it was slightly more than double 20 kHz, the maximum audio frequency, at least at the time. Maybe as technology has improved, audio has crept up from 20k. This has a good, brief explanation: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 18 May 2010 at 7:12am
|
Brian, I've seen several cases that look exactly like the picture you've posted, and they are not lossy sources. Thanks for bringing up a good point!
I won't claim to be an all-knowing guru of how this stuff works. (Eric, it looks like you probably know more than I do.) My earlier demonstration was how to spot an mp3 source visually. I haven't tested this with every lossy file type, but obviously there are some that span the full spectrum of frequencies but are still lossy. I do know that many songs on CD don't cut off at 22kHz, as can be seen with "Run This Town" in the earlier example. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 7:09am
|
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I received my Now 31 disc in the mail.
"Boom Boom Pow" (lossy) "Right Round" (lossy) "I Know You Want Me" (lossy) "Blame It" (lossy) "Day 'N' Nite" (lossy) "Kiss Me Through The Phone" (lossy) "Mad" (lossy) "My Life Would Suck Without You" (lossy) "That's Not My Name" (lossy) "You Found Me" (lossy) "If Today Was Your Last Day" (lossy) More than half of the disc was mastered from mp3s or other lossy sources! I'm ticked... |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 9:44am
|
Hmm, I wonder if the single edit of "Chicken Fried" on the Grammy Nominees 2010 comp is from a lossy source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11717403@N02/4624738526/sizes/l/ - Chicken Fried Spectral I did run the whole disc through the Tau Analyzer, freeware that analyzes whether a CD is from a lossy source, and it did find that every track was from a lossless soure. But it doesn't claim to be 100% accurate. I've found it to be maybe 50% accurate, track by track, though I don't think it's ever said that a track that I knew was lossless was from a lossy source. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 1:11pm
| Brian, that is definitely a lossy source, although the quality is probably pretty good. Did you try doing a "Vocal Cut" preview? That will often confirm if what you see is also what you hear. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 20 May 2010 at 9:41pm
I bought both the Now 31 and Now 32 discs, so I'm really ticked off to learn this too, Aaron! The main reason I still buy CDs is to get music in the best available lossless sound quality. Geez, the major record labels keep finding new ways to self-destruct that it's no wonder why they're completely going down the tubes! It's bad enough that the industry too often packages new CD releases in cheap, flimsy, "green-friendly", cardboard packaging, but if they're now resorting to issuing new audio CDs with inferior lossy sound quality, then I'm done with buying current music on disc. I'd be no worse off just purchasing mp3s of each individual track on I-Tunes (although the Now discs contain many radio edits that unfortunately are not readily available on commercial CD releases). |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 12:24pm
| From my limited experience dealing with A&R people, a lot of them send songs to DJs as MP3 from 192 - 320 Kbps and WAV through sites like You Send It or their own E-cards. This might be what they send to the Now people as well. So the person downloading the tracks might choose MP3 to save download bandwidth or they just don't know what the difference really is. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 2:54pm
|
Nick, based on your educated guess, the process would go something like this:
A&R Guy: "Hey, I just downloaded all the new popular songs off LimeWire and burned them on CD. Wanna hear it?" Mastering Engineer: "Naw, just write 'Now 31 - Master Copy' on it with a Sharpie and leave it at my work station. I'll send it out this afternoon to have copies made." |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 9:09am
|
LOL That's funny, Aaron, but sadly probably not far from the truth.
I sometimes wonder if in the future record labels (assuming any still even exist) will call upon a highly reputable audio engineer like Steve Hoffman or Dennis Drake to remaster hits from the past 15 years in audiophile quality with no compression or frequency loss and a normal dynamic range? No, I'm not holding my breath. |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 12:15pm
Back in 2008 I asked Island for a promo to Janet's "Rock With U" and they sent a CD-R labeled with a Sharpie. I e-mailed back and said I want the final pressed CD. Like they didn't have any laying around or something. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 2:17pm
|
As disturbing as this is, I will somewhat defend the AAC format. I'm certainly not defending its use on factory-pressed CDs, but for a lossy format, it is very impressive.
The variable bitrate option in Quicktime AAC (which is what iTunes uses) is quite amazing. I recnetly ripped George Michael's song "Faith" in iTunes Plus format (which, as covered earlier in the thread, is Quicktime AAC Constrained Variable Bitrate with a target bitrate of 256kb, at Quicktime's "Highest Quality" setting). I was very surprised to see that, though the average bitrate was in the mid-200s, Foobar shows the PEAK bitrate during the opening guitar notes to be in the UPPER 400s. It's a fast running counter of the current bitrate, so I couldn't quickly seek out the peak bitrate of the song, but by pausing I was able to catch the bitrate up to 486kb at one point. Those acoustic guitar strums must be very complex to encode, as the bitrate didn't go that high anywhere else in the song. There is a free encoder you can use with both Foobar and Exact Audio Copy (both freeware as well) called Quicktime AAC Encoder. http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/ - http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/qtaacenc/ It allows you to use the full features of Quicktime's AAC encoder (WITHOUT upgrading to Quicktime Pro). With it, you can use the "True Variable Bitrate" and "Average Bitrate" settings of Quicktime's encoder, something iTunes does not give you the option to use. (Also, you can specify any bitrate at "highest" quality. Itunes does everything except iTunes Plus at "medium" quality.) |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 6:34pm
| Is there a way to tell if any of the lossy tracks on the recent Now CDs were AAC encoded? |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 9:41pm
| Well, if the bitrate never goes above 19,000hz, then it wasn't MP3. But there are other lossy codecs besides AAC. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 10:19am
Sadly, this seems nearly impossible. The labels would need to have a 2-track stereo master that is UNMASTERED, and therefore, not compressed to death, lying around somewhere. Without that, the only other real option (to have a file that was never compressed to death in the first place) would be to take the multi-track and mix it again and simply never compress. But the new mix will most likely not be exactly the same (unless they saved the automation and settings involved for that mix). And no one really wants a new mix that's not quite what we heard on the radio. Luckily, when recordings are compressed so drastically that my ears would bleed, I use a function on Wavelab software called "Uncompress". This would be the best option to do if you wanted a normal sounding (less compressed) WAV file. And still, we'll never really know if the new result is exactly what the song would sound like if it was never compressed in the first place. But still, I think it's a better option than having someone go in and do a brand new mix that does not match up to the old mix in every exact way. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 10:23am
| BTW, I've been meaning to add that the messages in this "Lossy Sources" post have been fascinating to read. Aaron, those graphs you included that showed the difference between mp3s and WAVs (and the close-ups of those difference) were very enlightening. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 12:39pm
| Thanks, EdisonLite! That means it was worth my time to post the info and screen shots :) |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 12:41pm
If it helps, I can hear the compression artifacts on almost all of the tracks. I've not yet had time to test out the AAC encoder to see how much better it sounds. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 7:11pm
I'll second that... Excellent work on your tutorial, Aaron! |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 24 May 2010 at 7:35am
What I find interesting is that AAC has less noticeable artifacts vs. MP3 when playing normally, but when you cancel the left or right channel over each other it has more of a "watery" sound. I'm no expert on how the encoding schemes work, but I wonder if the residual noise is fed through an FFT filter of sorts to help it stay out of the way of the main frequencies. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 24 May 2010 at 7:59am
|
Nick, the Now tracks leave behind a very "watery" artifact when canceling the channels with each other, but they do sound better than an mp3 when playing normally. I would have to guess they came from an AAC based on your description.
Not all of the AAC files are guilty of leaving behind heavy artifacts, though. I mentioned in another thread that I purchased "Sharp Dressed Man" (single version) on iTunes, and surprisingly, there are very few artifacts at all. |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 24 May 2010 at 9:10am
| That's my experience with most lossy sourced tracks on CDs. Most of them seem to be from AAC files. I guess some people just really love iTunes and hit "Import CD" as soon as the CD is popped in haha. |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 06 July 2010 at 8:13pm
|
And they are shooting themselves in the foot with radio stations. MP3 doesn't like extra conversions in the audio chain. And when broadcasters take that lossy pile of junk and run it through their digital Optimod and their digital STL there is two conversions already. Guaranteed artifacts in the station audio ensuring crappy FM and AM listening. AAC is better about multiple generations but broadcast audio should be delivered uncompressed as BWF files or as CD Audio resolutions. And we should get the audio with minimal/no dynamic compression as well so we can process it better. Rantmode off! ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: Nick2341
Date Posted: 07 July 2010 at 12:36pm
That's one thing I haven't understood. Songs are mastered loud (sometimes excessively) for CDs, but once that file gets played on the radio the extra compression is so much more obvious. I've been noticing a trend lately of more and more 24 bit FLAC files. Maybe it's a sign of something to come. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 18 July 2021 at 2:18pm
The good news is that if you throw this particular NOW cd in the garbage and just get the promos/regular CD versions they happen to be available in lossless elsewhere. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |