DSPplug LU EBU 2016 meter (more accurate than Youlean)

[tulamide]

I experimented with making MP3s at the highest possible quality (for e-mailing) of one of my on-location live classical concert recordings, and the difference was unacceptable to me. This may be more audible with high dynamic range classical music than pop/rock I don't know, but I never went near MP3 again, especially since storage space is so much less an issue now.

I would rather assume you had a bad encoder. MP3 and its successor AAC have an even higher dynamic range than pcm files.
A quote from the article I link below:

Some interesting facts:

Dynamic range is independent from bitrate.
LAME (and most MP3 encoders) leaves the original dynamic range of a 16 or 24 bit PCM source untouched.
The maximum available dynamic range with 32 bit fixed-point encoders and decoders is approx. 150 dB.
The maximum available dynamic range of 32 bit floating-point encoders and decoders is approx. 200 dB.

http://www.tonestack.net/articles/digital-audio-compression/mp3-aac-dynamic-range.html

[k brown]

I wasn't claiming they had limited dynamic range - just that with high dynamic range recordings of purely acoustic music the effect of the data compression was quite audible.

[Spogg]

I once did a comparison on headphones between a wav and MP3 of the same commercial track. I noticed that the reverb tails were not quite right on the MP3 at lower bitrates, but above 192 I couldn’t discern a difference. But it was a Beatles track as I recall, not classical. It seems likely that the source material will determine the quality of results combined with expert versus casual listening.

And I agree with tulamide. It is a bit like mayonnaise. I can tell the difference between regular and low fat out of the jar, but not so much in a sandwich.

[tulamide]

And I agree with tulamide. It is a bit like mayonnaise. I can tell the difference between regular and low fat out of the jar, but not so much in a sandwich.

You, sir, are a genius at making off-topic on-topic again!

[pshannon]

As the original statement I said for MP3, 192+ bitrate is solid for common use. I wonder if K brown used VBR instead CBR settings, some bad software or did he record in MP3? I only use CBR and I will not allow an algorithm to change the quality up and down during encoding.
I listen to classical too that came out just fine in an MP3 format, however it was already processed and pressed to a CD as my source. Live RAW recordings I can only assume might be different, as spog stated, consider the source.

[k brown]

VBR, CBR - even CPR - no dice for me; and especially not for my clients, who at the time of the recording I was using to test, included the San Francisco Opera. 'Fine' is, indeed, 'fine', but 'fine' is not 'best'.

I also noticed that the difference is considerably less audible on commercial classical recordings that were done with lots of mics, lots of tracks, pan-potted spots, etc. With those done with minimal micing (Tony Faulkner, Simon Eadon, Early Telarc, classic Mercury, etc.), the difference is much more apparent. My own were almost always a simple pair for chamber, and four mics, plus a spot or two for full orchestra.

But even for my own listening pleasure, I couldn't see the point - just to reduce file size? - when we all have drives the size of Manhattan now? The only time I ever use it is for stuffing my iPod for long plane trips; even then it's mostly pop music, as I find classical difficult to enjoy with airplane BG noise - even with noise-cancel headphones. Lots of mayo does help.

[deraudrl]

But even for my own listening pleasure, I couldn't see the point - just to reduce file size? - when we all have drives the size of Manhattan now?

Key word being "now". At the time I did my mass-rip, "big" drives topped at in the 500GB range, and that was only in desktop form factors. Given that I needed something I could connect to (or install in) a laptop, I really needed compression.

As it turned out, a minimal Win7 install would leave just enough space on a 160GB laptop drive to fit 800 or so CDs as 320Kbps MP3. (I'm not even sure they had VBR at the time, or at least it wasn't an option using WMP to do the rip.) Since then, laptop drive sizes have kept up with the growth of my collection until recently, when I moved everything to an NAS.

If I really had it to do over again, I might consider an uncompressed format, but the thought of feeding 1400+ disks to the ripper again, not to mention all the post-rip tag fiddling, puts that exercise on the "not gonna happen" list.

[k brown]

No, I wouldn't think so !

[pshannon]

I could not resist image attachment. I get what @k brown is saying about sending a recording to a customer and I would want perfection. The same goes for weddings and jpg, why do they send you the jpg and not the raw?
I have seen plenty of DJ's use MP3 and when you store as many songs as they do, I think wav would get out of hand. Just my humble opinion and I think we beat this horse to death now. I will let it go.

sound joke.jpg (53.28 KiB) Viewed 15361 times

[k brown]

I don't get the joke - looks like a great rig to me!