| Author |
Message |
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 2723
Location: Western Oz
|
 Posted:
Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:15 pm (No subject) |
  |
« ambientlive » wrote:
Really, DVD better quality than VHS ?
With 480 lines for horizontal resolution vs. 250 for a VHS tape, I'd say YES without getting into any other technical detail.
« ambientlive » wrote:
Anyway, guys please remember WAV / CD IS NOT LOSSLESS
Lossless enough for what we discuss here, like mp3, good line though for a 1st of April post 
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
   |
|
BruecknerAmbient
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 43
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 2054
Location: Mainz
|
|
Posted:
Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:39 pm (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
« ambientlive » wrote:
Anyway, guys please remember WAV / CD IS NOT LOSSLESS
Lossless enough for what we discuss here, like mp3, good line though for a 1st of April post
Well, now that someone mentions it:
While I personally can't tell the sound of a mp3 320 from a Wave-file (I swear - in any swearwords You like...  ) I hear quite a striking difference between a track played from Cubase (as a multichannel mix, I mean) and the same track rendered into an AIF- or Wave stereo file. The tracks seem to "shrink" and definitely lose transparency.
If someone would care about that difference, I would immediately subscribe to it - I'm not really shure, but just guess it's due to Cubase working with 24 bit resolution...ehm...depth. Whatever...
But as for the down-dithered formats, I personally don't care too much about the difference... Just bought two digital albums today, both as mp3 320 from BandCamp, so obviously I had FLAC as choice, still the mp3s are just more convenient, need less disc space, download is quicker, I don't have to switch to another player etc.
_________________
M I C H A E L B R Ü C K N E R
http://michaelbrueckner.bandcamp.com
|
|
 |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 2723
Location: Western Oz
|
|
Posted:
Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:59 pm (No subject) |
|
« BruecknerAmbient » wrote:
While I personally can't tell the sound of a mp3 320 from a Wave-file (I swear - in any swearwords You like... Wink) I hear quite a striking difference between a track played from Cubase (as a multichannel mix, I mean) and the same track rendered into an AIF- or Wave stereo file. The tracks seem to "shrink" and definitely lose transparency.
If someone would care about that difference, I would immediately subscribe to it - I'm not really shure, but just guess it's due to Cubase working with 24 bit resolution...ehm...depth. Whatever...
You are a bit of a paradox  , a wav mixdown sounds worse than a multitrack but a 320kb/s mp3 of that wav is ok, so what does an mp3 sound like compared to the Cubase multi track, surely that must blow you over into the lossless camp
Cubase renders audio as well as any other applications and if you mixdown to wav as 24 bit/96kHz there should be no difference if played on the same system.
The CD was never perfect with 16bits/44.1kHz but that was the best that could be done around 1982. With 24bits/96kHz I think audio quality is surpassing the human ear's capabilities.
You can imagine the difference those in a studio knew about say in the 70's, taking a high speed analog recording and dulling the audio (dynamics in particular) so it could be cut to disc/vinyl...
And when the CD came about, most of those "subdued" mixdowns were simply converted to digital and then put on a CD.
Occasionally true re-mastering was done just like Vangelis did with China, you'll read it on that Nemo Studio website.
He pulled the China multi track out and remastered it to stereo with full dynamic range.
One more thing, all these 16 or 24 bits files on computers are pretty meaningless till the final conversion is done as all computers work in 32 or 64 bits anyway...
I for one, I found the CD to be adequate for all my needs and looked forward to the SACD format, but with that gone and the CD coming under attack from lousy lossy formats masqueraded as high quality gets my blood rushing.
But once again, the topic is discussed now and then and facts come and go but it is not my intention to convince anybody, I just want the better option available.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
BruecknerAmbient
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 43
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 2054
Location: Mainz
|
|
Posted:
Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:36 pm (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
You are a bit of a paradox
Well, definitely! Any time a day...! 
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
a wav mixdown sounds worse than a multitrack but a 320kb/s mp3 of that wav is ok, so what does an mp3 sound like compared to the Cubase multi track, surely that must blow you over into the lossless camp
Since to my ears the difference between Wave and a 320kb/s mp3 borders to inaudible, compared to the multi track, both lose equally...
which is not so paradox in the end
Then again - as a musician/producer, I do care much more about the sound quality I offer, than as a listener to what I consume. Which doesn't mean I don't care at all about sound quality when listening to music - but I'm kinda more relaxed and flexible (as long as the sound is not so poor that it hurts...).
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
YCubase renders audio as well as any other applications and if you mixdown to wav as 24 bit/96kHz there should be no difference if played on the same system.
Of course - however, I render it for (You guess it!) CD (r, in my humble case...). Even if noone is ever ordering one. I'm not shure though in my case, if it would make much difference (in respect of orders, I mean...) if I offered my stuff as 24 bit/96kHz files. And honestly speaking, in regard to the sheer mass of my output, storing files in a higher resolution than CD quality would be a challenge I'm technically not up to...or rather, financially, that is...
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
One more thing, all these 16 or 24 bits files on computers are pretty meaningless till the final conversion is done as all computers work in 32 or 64 bits anyway...
Oh yes...? Hm, I'm pretty shure that my old Cubase version works in 24 bit - it's already a few years old, as my old Mac, ten years by now, I guess.. Then again, I might have remembered it wrong, I'll have a glance in the manual at home...
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
But once again, the topic is discussed now and then and facts come and go but it is not my intention to convince anybody, I just want the better option available.
Fine! In case of need (or interest), I can always offer You my music in better formats than mp3. If not right away, just ask...
_________________
M I C H A E L B R Ü C K N E R
http://michaelbrueckner.bandcamp.com
|
|
| |
|
ech3
Very Cool Member
Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 243
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
|
|
Posted:
Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:59 pm (No subject) |
|
> and looked forward to the SACD format, but with that gone
SACD is not gone.
It's a niche market, mostly in the classical and jazz genres, but many labels are committed to it and new titles are being released frequently.
|
|
| |
|
ambientlive
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 966
Location: Boston/Swindon UK
|
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:52 am (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
« ambientlive » wrote:
Anyway, guys please remember WAV / CD IS NOT LOSSLESS
Lossless enough for what we discuss here, like mp3, good line though for a 1st of April post
I don't get it. Stuff is either lossless or not lossless.
What is lossless enough, is it partially lossless, or almost lossless (haha)
All digital audio is quantised samples.
Therefore lossy. End of.
I'm not saying it's bad or good.
That's up to the individual.
Amen.
I just didn't want people going around saying that CD is lossless. It isn't.
_________________
Ambientlive
|
|
| |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 2723
Location: Western Oz
|
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:00 am (No subject) |
|
« BruecknerAmbient » wrote:
I'm pretty shure that my old Cubase version works in 24 bit - it's already a few years old, as my old Mac, ten years by now, I guess.. Then again, I might have remembered it wrong, I'll have a glance in the manual at home...
32/64 bits (integer/floating point) is what happens inside the computer even though your application will display other rates, the real world stops at 24bits. No need for more as that's already 120db dynamic range which is our ears pain threshold, plus technically not easy to achieve. This territory is rather academic even for a "pragmatic purist" like me.
CD quality is more than fine for our kind of music
« ech3 » wrote:
> and looked forward to the SACD format, but with that gone
SACD is not gone.
It's a niche market, mostly in the classical and jazz genres, but many labels are committed to it and new titles are being released frequently.
I am with you, I wished for it to become the "final" audio standard.
SACD is dead in the sense that it did not catch up replacing the CD, there was an initial wave of hope when it was released with record labels remastering good selections.
Now SACD's niche future is seriously threatened by high production costs, low volumes, limited selection, but the real killer will be the lack of players for them.
In fact the ultimate "good for all" disc format is the Bluray supporting audio up to 24bits/192kHz, basically similar specs to SACD's 120db dynamic range and 20Hz - 50kHz frequency response, well beyond any human ear.
This has been in use for a while, I got the new Mike Oldfield reissues and the Punk Floyd Immersion sets, finally the perfect disc all new players will play.
But Bluray as a video format is also threatened by video on demand services, downloads again...
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
redphil
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1770
Location: Manchester, UK.
|
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:28 pm (No subject) |
|
|
| |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 2723
Location: Western Oz
|
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:50 pm (No subject) |
|
Thanks for the link, interesting overview  I'll digest it over the weekend, might learn something new
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
