[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenf I don't think that this is true for all musical genres; most of my Reggae/Dub stuff - especially from the 70's - is crudely recorded but I still encode it @ 320 - this preserves the general toe-tapping rawness and attack of the original (flawed) recording IMO.

good point, interesting angle - generalising never is a good thing...

a 'crude' recording might not equal 'bad' recording - could also be true for punk, pub or garage rock.

do you feel that with a bitrate of vbr 192 (or thereabouts) you comparatively lose some of that nice reggae rawness? that's the minimum for me, for even the worst recordings get worse still @ 160 or 128.

i'll have to try this with linton kwesi johnson sometime...

 

[Oga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riordan good point, interesting angle - generalising never is a good thing... a 'crude' recording might not equal 'bad' recording - could also be true for punk, pub or garage rock. do you feel that with a bitrate of vbr 192 (or thereabouts) you comparatively lose some of that nice reggae rawness? that's the minimum for me, for even the worst recordings get worse still @ 160 or 128. i'll have to try this with linton kwesi johnson sometime...

LKJ's music is really more about the words - and the music is not the focus. Its a backdrop and intentionally designed not to interfere with the flow - or even the frequencies - of the vocals. LKJ and Dennis Bovel have themselves said this at before. Even with some of the more musical stuff on "More Time" album for example, its still focus on the words. So you'll lose something there, but not much becuase its pretty much getting into spoken word territory.

Also there is a lot of reggae that isn't "raw" in construction or intent eg things heavy on the heavy on the harmonies or melody (eg Horace Andy, Abbisynians, Third World. You're not doing yourself any favors at 192, let alone below that.)

Even for the more raw feeling stuff, if they have a a lot of layers and depth (Eg a lot of Lee Perry Stuff), you'll also be losing some of that thickness and funk at already at 192. Lower bit rate, its just gonna get fuzzier and fuzzier (and not in a good way either).

 

[TooNice]

Going a bit OT... Is there any "prefered" lossless compression format?

Looks like LAME is all that people nowadays.. But I remember there were a few more (Blade, Frau-can't-spell-the-rest and probably others) when it came to MP3 encoders.

When it came to archiving my ripped audio, I've been using Moneky Audio. Seemed reasonable to me (pretty fast, but without lacking compression ratio).

Unfortunately, it doesn't work on any MP3 player that I know of... Am I better off using FLAC?

Edit: Its kinda funny though... wasn't 128 bitrate MP3 hailed as "near CD quality"?

 

[ILikeMusic]

LAME seems to be the preferred MP3 encoder by most, or at least in the last few years. There are many other compressed formats too, of course, and naturally people have their preferences based on personal requirements. Some formats seem to be better than MP3 if you need to encode at low bitrates for example, although once you get above 192 or so they all get to be pretty close to transparent for all but the most critical listening. For that reason I go with MP3 (LAME -APS or -APE) because of the virtually universal support for this format among playback systems.

Edit: Ooops, sorry, I guess I didn't read you post carefully and missed that you were asking about lossless formats... sorry

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice Edit: Its kinda funny though... wasn't 128 bitrate MP3 hailed as "near CD quality"?

And now we have satellite radio, which is 'near 128kb MP3 quality'...

Things definitely don't seem to be going in the right direction...

 

[allenf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riordan good point, interesting angle - generalising never is a good thing... a 'crude' recording might not equal 'bad' recording - could also be true for punk, pub or garage rock. i'll have to try this with linton kwesi johnson sometime...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oga LKJ's music is really more about the words - and the music is not the focus. Its a backdrop and intentionally designed not to interfere with the flow - or even the frequencies - of the vocals. LKJ and Dennis Bovel have themselves said this at before. Even with some of the more musical stuff on "More Time" album for example, its still focus on the words. So you'll lose something there, but not much becuase its pretty much getting into spoken word territory. Also there is a lot of reggae that isn't "raw" in construction or intent eg things heavy on the heavy on the harmonies or melody (eg Horace Andy, Abbisynians, Third World. You're not doing yourself any favors at 192, let alone below that.) Even for the more raw feeling stuff, if they have a a lot of layers and depth (Eg a lot of Lee Perry Stuff), you'll also be losing some of that thickness and funk at already at 192. Lower bit rate, its just gonna get fuzzier and fuzzier (and not in a good way either).

Thinking about this, maybe the older,rawer or "more vital" stuff benefits more from high bit-rates than some of the brand-new poppy electronic stuff.
Edit: Anything recorded to analogue...
The Jamaican studios were producing remarkable sounding music with the equipment at their disposal - and it still sounds mighty today

Once one gets used to hearing music at higher bit-rates the more compressed files sound queasy IMO - and if I like the music I can't help listening "critically" in both the analytical and emotional senses!

Cheers.

 

[IstariAsuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice Going a bit OT... Is there any "prefered" lossless compression format? Unfortunately, it doesn't work on any MP3 player that I know of... Am I better off using FLAC?

Well, I would consider FLAC to be the preferred lossless codec, mainly because there is greater support for it on the computer software side, and because it is supported in a couple portable devices, and is much more likely to receive future support there.

I seem to recall that monkey's audio lossless is far too computationally intensive to decode in, say, an mp3 player.

 

[TooNice]

Ah, so thats its weakness (or at least one of).. Unfortunate.
Since I play my ape files on PC (winamp with plug-in), I didn't notice this issue. And their comparison chart didn't exactly point that out either

 

[IstariAsuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice Ah, so thats its weakness (or at least one of).. Unfortunate. Since I play my ape files on PC (winamp with plug-in), I didn't notice this issue. And their comparison chart didn't exactly point that out either

Don't take my word for gospel, but that's what I seem to recall. It shouldn't be that hard to find out, if you poke around.

Anyways, it's not that hard to convert from one lossless to another.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riordan yes, if not even broader: i also like bavarian yodeling, swiss alphorns and the sound of music

Could you recommend some really good yodeling CDs? I have been looking for years for really good examples, and I've found a few LPs and 78s with great yodelers, but all of the recently recorded CDs I've heard are total crap. Where do you find them? Through searching, I've found Amazon has nothing.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riordan do you feel that with a bitrate of vbr 192 (or thereabouts) you comparatively lose some of that nice reggae rawness? that's the minimum for me, for even the worst recordings get worse still @ 160 or 128.

I listen to a lot of 78s, and the natural randomness of the surface noise in older recordings completely confuses most codecs. AAC is the best at preserving the naturalness of the sound (making it easier for the ear to tune out). MP3s tend to artifact all over the place, even at 192, making it sound like a gurgling aquarium.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenf The Jamaican studios were producing remarkable sounding music with the equipment at their disposal - and it still sounds mighty today

That's because they were recording simply and directly, with a minimum of mikes and very little overdubbing. Sound quality is not dependent on the quality of the equipment. Even 1950s era analogue equipment from the dawn of stereo can sound as good as the most modern equipment. (The best sounding recording I've ever heard was made in 1952.) The thing that really makes the difference is the production and mixing strategies. It's a lot easier to capture a natural presence, than it is to manufacture a realistic simulation in a mix.

See ya
Steve

 

[TooNice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IstariAsuka Don't take my word for gospel, but that's what I seem to recall. It shouldn't be that hard to find out, if you poke around. Anyways, it's not that hard to convert from one lossless to another.

Maybe not hard, but possibly time consuming I imagine.. Especially *if* I need to convert back to Wav in the process.

But yea, according to whats written on FLAC@sourceforge, FLAC is designed to be easy to decode. And being open source, I can see it become the lossless standard. Still, if there is a way to easily convert Monkey audio (on insane setting for backup purposes) to FLAC, I might consider doing that. Otherwise, FLAC it is...

 

[allenf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot That's because they were recording simply and directly, with a minimum of mikes and very little overdubbing. See ya Steve

Even the tape drop-outs sound musical

 

[imported_Matt_Carter]

Whats this with everyone recommending EAC cuz it SO CALLED extracts the exact wav from the cd. Well I have a 20bit hdcd here and it still converted it to 44100hrz @ 16bit.

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt_Carter Whats this with everyone recommending EAC cuz it SO CALLED extracts the exact wav from the cd. Well I have a 24bit hdcd here and it still converted it to 44100hrz @ 16bit.

HDCDs have 16bit 44100Hz data on them. It is encoded differently to achieve "20bit resolution" as claimed by marketing, but you need an HDCD decoder to get the benefit.