In article .com, Dave
writes
On 23 Jun, 06:44, "Colin B." wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Dave wrote:

I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.

Unless these are pirated copies, the answer is most likely not. That's
too much pointless effort for commercial studios to go through.

The answer is much more mundane: Most recording sucks.
Maybe I should retrain when I get to 50 because by then all younger
sound engineers will have grown up with MP3s and not have a clue what
decent audio sounds like.


Sadly.. Never a truer word written in jest....
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article .com, Dave
writes
On 23 Jun, 06:44, "Colin B." wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Dave wrote:

I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.

Unless these are pirated copies, the answer is most likely not. That's
too much pointless effort for commercial studios to go through.

The answer is much more mundane: Most recording sucks.
Maybe I should retrain when I get to 50 because by then all younger
sound engineers will have grown up with MP3s and not have a clue what
decent audio sounds like.


Sadly.. Never a truer word written in jest....

Former Beatle, George Harrison said that every generation has its own
"sound", depending on the kind of mixers they used (he probably meant more
than mixers, but I think he referred to mixers specifically). He made some
mention of the sound of Hoagy Charmichael recordings. But engineering
techniques will exploit and/or compensate for the technology at hand. CDs
made from masters originally targeting vinyl sometimes didn't sound as good
as CDs made from masters targeting CDs. Engineers recording to analog tape
at times deliberately overloaded the tape for specific effects (sometimes
providing the illusion of dynamic range that wasn't actually there). Each
generation had its supporters and detractors, and each cited "solid,
factual" evidence to support their opinions. Audio recording was, and still
is, more of an art than a science.

On Jun 22, 2007, Dave commented:

I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

If they're major-label CDs, I'd be floored if they were making CDs from
data-compressed files like MP3s. There's just no reason to do it.

There have been cases where pirated recordings or shared files have been
"up-rezzed" from lossy files, and radio stations have sometimes used lossy
files on air (particularly commercials). I found this on the net:

For some odd reason, there are people who foolishly convert MP3 files to FLAC
(or APE), perhaps in the mistaken belief that it will make the signal "sound"
better. This is the sonic equivalent of taking a 1" square photograph and
blowing it up to 10", believing it will look as good as an original 10"
photograph.

"A shareware Windows program called "AudioChecker" can analyze various kinds
of FLAC, APE, and other lossless files and then intelligently make a guess as
to whether the files are legit or just "uprezed" from an MP3 file, based on
technical factors like frequency response. AudioChecker is available from:

http://www.dester.hu


I haven't used the program, so I can't say for a fact that it works, but MP3
artifacts are very noticeable if you know what to listen for. I don't doubt
you're hearing something bad, but it's possible you may be hearing some other
kinds of distortion in the track.

--MFW

"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.

To get a good measure I'd expect some Fourier transforms and signal
analysis to be done, so this should be relevant to sci.physics.


Dave,

You can, to some extent, find out what the mp3 process does to the audio for yourself. You
could get an audio editor, like Cool Edit (now in Adobe's Audition), and do some recording
yourself. Save the piece as mp3, with different bitrates, reopen it, and you'll get an idea
of what artifacts the lossy compression introduces. Years ago, when mp3 codecs were newer,
the lower bit rates, like 64K, produced a watery sound. I know that's not terribly
descriptive, but it's the best way I can describe it. They seem to be better now. The
low-data-rate streaming internet radio stations have that watery sound. You'll also notice
high-frequency loss at the lower rates. As the bit rate goes up, all that diminishes. Just
for grins, I once took a very clean-sounding piece, and compared an mp3 of it (128K, I think
it was) to the original wav, subtracting one from the other. The result was a very watery
glub-glub sound, though relatively low in amplitude compared to the original.

Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud

In article Kxffi.2684$XH5.1402@trndny02,
Karl Uppiano wrote:
Former Beatle, George Harrison said that every generation has its own
"sound", depending on the kind of mixers they used (he probably meant
more than mixers, but I think he referred to mixers specifically). He
made some mention of the sound of Hoagy Charmichael recordings. But
engineering techniques will exploit and/or compensate for the
technology at hand. CDs made from masters originally targeting vinyl
sometimes didn't sound as good as CDs made from masters targeting CDs.

I've got pretty well every Beatles LP and CD, the CDs bought as they came
out, same as the LPs, and in every case (IMHO) the CD sounds miles better
than the LP. Many of which weren't the best of pressings anyway. EMI
weren't *that* careful with their pop stuff. Perhaps the most instant
comparison I could make if you have both is 'Michelle', the last track on
side one of Rubber Soul. On every combination of pressing and playing
equipment I've heard it is quite heavily distorted - but not so on the CD.
I've not had the opportunity to compare the single.

Engineers recording to analog tape at times deliberately overloaded the
tape for specific effects (sometimes providing the illusion of dynamic
range that wasn't actually there). Each generation had its supporters
and detractors, and each cited "solid, factual" evidence to support
their opinions. Audio recording was, and still is, more of an art than
a science.

It was fairly common to overload analogue tape with brass and similar
instruments to give some 'edge' on other than classical recordings.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:42:57 -0400, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

Not so well when they play MP3 versus CD cuts. Locally, the oldies station
WZBA has enough crunch on their MP3s that I can't really crank a CCR tune
as
loud as I want in the car because the distortion stops me. That's just a
buzz
kill. (could be another problem in their audio chain, but I don't think
so.)

Regards,

Ty Forf

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

Maybe we should be grateful that here in the UK, the BBC and our larger
commercial stations won't allow the use of MP2/3 or MiniDisc source material
except in unusual circumstances. As far as I know, GCap (GWR and Capital
Groups) and the BBC's hard-disc playout systems are all linear, as are the
studio-transmitter links. Whilst they do have very heavy audio compression in

the transmission processor, the FM signal stays linear from CD through to FM
transmitter. The reason for this is that the same signal is used for the DSat

and DAB feeds, and they found that multiple codings gave unacceptable results

on DAB, especially at the low bit rates currently used.

Yes, Serge, I think you should.

I wish there was a law that MADE radio stations here in the US have higher
encoding standards.

Then there's the multiple encode/decodes of XM and Sirius. Do we have any
comments from audiophile XM/Sirius listeners?

Herb Squire(s) did a show and tell at the NY AES a number of years ago
demonstrating the results of multiple, serial compression schemes.

Although compression technology has changed (improved) since then, it's
amazing the see the rabid followers of the HDV video format defend their 384
kbps stereo audio.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:18:52 -0400, Markus Mietling wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote in :

On the indie market, it's also because the recording talent too frequently
can't tell the difference between "Ouch" and "Nice."

Funny you should say that ...

I now shoot and edit video for a part of my living.

Gotta' nice handheld piece shot last week

This isn't what I'd call "nice," really not. I didn't sit through the
whole piece though, because your swaying all over the place was too
annoying to watch.

So, yeah, some people obviously can't tell the difference between "Ouch"
and "Nice."

m

Horses and Courses. The client liked it. You must never have seen MTV, or
Homicide- Life On The Street.

Ah! Are you in the UK?

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:27:06 -0400, Dave Plowman (News) wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Ty Ford wrote:
Gotta' nice handheld piece shot last week for singer/songwriter friend
Randall Williams. He saw mine and wanted something up on YouTube.

You can see/hear it at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDjKgmMydF4

'Nice' hand held? To me, hand held means slight movement to simulate what
the eye sees. Yours appears to be moving the camera for the sake of it. I
was taught any camera moves that grab the eye are bad moves - it suggests
the subject material is too boring on its own. Of course such techniques
are all too common these days and obviously loved by meja types who have
no interest in presenting a subject intelligently.



"All too common" , I'll take that from anyone in the UK.

Thanks,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:39:06 -0400, Karl Uppiano wrote
(in article Kxffi.2684$XH5.1402@trndny02):

Former Beatle, George Harrison said that every generation has its own
"sound",

George left the Beatles? Ah, another euphemism for "dead."

Fascinating. I'm collecting them.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:04:17 -0400, Earl Kiosterud wrote
(in article BPnfi.1319$s%.148@trnddc02):
Dave,

You can, to some extent, find out what the mp3 process does to the audio for
yourself. You
could get an audio editor, like Cool Edit (now in Adobe's Audition), and do
some recording
yourself. Save the piece as mp3, with different bitrates, reopen it, and
you'll get an idea
of what artifacts the lossy compression introduces. Years ago, when mp3
codecs were newer,
the lower bit rates, like 64K, produced a watery sound. I know that's not
terribly
descriptive, but it's the best way I can describe it. They seem to be better

now. The
low-data-rate streaming internet radio stations have that watery sound.
You'll also notice
high-frequency loss at the lower rates. As the bit rate goes up, all that
diminishes. Just
for grins, I once took a very clean-sounding piece, and compared an mp3 of it

(128K, I think
it was) to the original wav, subtracting one from the other. The result was
a very watery
glub-glub sound, though relatively low in amplitude compared to the original.

Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud


No, Earl, that's quite a good description. I hear it first in the cymbals and
other HF info, especially if that info has a lot of stereo content.

I was playing around with iTunes a few years back and clicked on their
"stereo enhance" button before importing CSNY's "Carry On" as an mp3. The
playback sounded like it was coming out of a washing machine.

Without the enhancement, the mp3 audio was better; mp3, but better. So it's
somewhat relative.

Regards,

Ty Ford





--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU