Lossy sources on big 2009 hits

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   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.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
aaronk Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 157	Post Options Post Reply Quote aaronk Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Lossy sources on big 2009 hits 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.

EdisonLite Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Music Fan Joined: 18 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 169	Post Options Post Reply Quote EdisonLite Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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?

eric_a Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Music Fan Joined: 29 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote eric_a Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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. Edited by eric_a

aaronk Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 157	Post Options Post Reply Quote aaronk Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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.

aaronk Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 157	Post Options Post Reply Quote aaronk Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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: 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

aaronk Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 157	Post Options Post Reply Quote aaronk Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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: 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.

eric_a Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Music Fan Joined: 29 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote eric_a Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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! Edited by eric_a

aaronk Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 157	Post Options Post Reply Quote aaronk Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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.

Nick2341 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Music Fan Joined: 07 December 2007 Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Nick2341 Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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.

Santi Paradoa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Music Fan Joined: 17 February 2009 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 23	Post Options Post Reply Quote Santi Paradoa Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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