[purk]

go to hdtracks and download some FLAC and DSD files, it will make your CD files sound like MP3's

It is all in the mastering of such file.  I'm all for the FLAC & DSD myselfs but a well recorded CD file can sound better than an avg. quality DSD/Hi-Rez Flac.

 

[Zarniwoop76]

Nah, smartphone is a lousy source of digital transport. Don't believe all that by-pass myths from smartphone. Why don't you plug in a HDD directly and have the TA do all the job then ? Lol...see my points ?

Thanks. Point noted. I'm still learning. Baby steps

 

[XERO1]

  It is all in the mastering of such file.  I'm all for the FLAC & DSD myselfs but a well recorded CD file can sound better than an avg. quality DSD/Hi-Rez Flac.

 
This is a fundamental truth in understanding why most hi-res files sound no better than their CD-res (or even MP3) versions.
 
If a song is poorly mastered, and the hi-res version uses that same poor sounding master as its source, it will never sound any better than poor.

 

[highfidelity69]

   
This is a fundamental truth in understanding why most hi-res files sound no better than their CD-res (or even MP3) versions.
 
If a song is poorly mastered, and the hi-res version uses that same poor sounding master as its source, it will never sound any better than poor.

That is true, but I have not come across any FLAC's yet that sound worse than CD files "might be lucky here", I have come across crappy mastered CD files that is for sure.  
I use this streaming service for years now http://www.di.fm/   http://www.radiotunes.com/  http://www.jazzradio.com/  http://www.classicalradio.com/ http://www.rockradio.com/ to stream music in 128 AAC on my PC or my ZX2 and any Android ios device "I pay for the premium service which gives you 128 AAC or 320K MP3 and no commercials", they also have apps for the ios and Android app store, in regards to crappy mastering, I have come across this listening to the streaming service, it's not the service but the master of the file.

 

[nanaholic]

  That is true, but I have not come across any FLAC's yet that sound worse than CD files "might be lucky here", I have come across crappy mastered CD files that is for sure.  

 
I have - it's really not that difficult to screw up a hi-res FLAC (just like it's not really that hard to screw up a CD), just dial in enough gain and ignore the volume warnings and some heavy normalization and watch dynamic range go out the window, the results are ugly to say the least.
 
There's nothing inherently build into hi-res/lossless audio format that makes them automatically better than mp3s, as IT people would say the problem is always the thing that sits between the chair and the keyboard ie the human. Put a bad sound engineer that ignores all common sense practices (like, don't dial in so much volume that the signal clips - that should be common sense!) in the chair and all the best tools/formats won't save a poorly mixed master.

 

[TSAVJason]

I have - it's really not that difficult to screw up a hi-res FLAC (just like it's not really that hard to screw up a CD), just dial in enough gain and ignore the volume warnings and some heavy normalization and watch dynamic range go out the window, the results are ugly to say the least.

There's nothing inherently build into hi-res/lossless audio format that makes them automatically better than mp3s, as IT people would say the problem is always the thing that sits between the chair and the keyboard ie the human. Put a bad sound engineer that ignores all common sense practices (like, don't dial in so much volume that the signal clips - that should be common sense!) in the chair and all the best tools/formats won't save a poorly mixed master.

There is something inherent in MP3 that causes it to suck. It's called frequency loss.

 

[nanaholic]

There is something inherent in MP3 that causes it to suck. It's call frequency loss.

 
It's not loss if you knowingly filter it out.  It's call science and engineering.  
 
As a science and engineering person I strongly believe that the human hearing cutoff is measured accurately enough that when applied to things like high bitrate mp3 compression the difference to loosless compression is minimum or near transparent, ergo most studies seems to support that hypothesis anyway, not many (or any) studies has been able to show otherwise that I know of.
 
The so call "frequency loss" is much MUCH less destructive to sound quality than, say, signal clipping from an overlty hot mix, which are much more easily heard. Instead of the industry pointing fingers at the format which are more than good enough in 99% of the cases, I'd rather they fix their mixing practices.

 

[TSAVJason]

It's not loss if you knowingly filter it out.  It's call science and engineering.  

As a science and engineering person I strongly believe that the human hearing cutoff is measured accurately enough that when applied to things like high bitrate mp3 compression the difference to loosless compression is minimum or near transparent, ergo most studies seems to support that hypothesis anyway, not many (or any) studies has been able to show otherwise that I know of.

The so call "frequency loss" is much MUCH less destructive to sound quality than, say, signal clipping from an overlty hot mix, which are much more easily heard. Instead of the industry pointing fingers at the format which are more than good enough in 99% of the cases, I'd rather they fix their mixing practices.

Hahaha so let's see if I understand your meaning. Lossless means no loss. And MP3 has no loss because those frequencies (that are now gone in MP3) are deliberately removed, is this what you are saying?

As for a poor mix. There are different processes in which material is mixed. Which part of this are you referring to? Individual track mixing? Production mix? Mastering?

 

[XERO1]

Quote:

As for a poor mix. There are different processes in which material is mixed. Which part of this are you referring to? Individual track mixing? Production mix? Mastering?

 
Usually, the individual stems, the production mix and the final mix all are properly recorded and mixed by the recording engineers, and are what the musicians hear in the studio with all of the music's full dynamic range still intact.  The worst damage is usually done during the mastering stage, where an excessive amount of additional dynamic compression is applied to the final mix, permanently robbing the mix of the richness and power that the musicians and recording engineers originally captured and intended it to have.  This terrible trend is what is known as The Loudness War, and it has ruined countless recordings.  Although things have started to get a little better, sadly it is still a pretty common practice.
 
 

 

 

[thanatosguan]

 
Instead of the industry pointing fingers at the format which are more than good enough in 99% of the cases, I'd rather they fix their mixing practices.

It's rather hilarious to see major labels use hi-res FLACs to load their crappy remasterings. Some remastering completely destroys the record into a mess.
 
If one has live performance experience(preferably acoustic) and has tried to record with recording professionals, one will understand how important mixing is. It's very easy to mess up because of the lengthy workflow and multiple pairs of ears involved.

 

[nanaholic]

Hahaha so let's see if I understand your meaning. Lossless means no loss. And MP3 has no loss because those frequencies (that are now gone in MP3) are deliberately removed, is this what you are saying?

 
The cut-off frequency of mp3 compression is now at 23kHz (with 48kHz sampling - which is considered Hi-res sampling rate), the best human hearing is rated at about 18kHz, so in theory mp3 compression is able to capture all frequencies the human can hear with a bit more headroom.  MP3 uses algorithms to assign which frequencies in the sound it will use more data space to approximate it's volume value, so no frequency that was designed to be captured is technically lost at all - just varying in accuracy in reproduction - the proper term is irreversible compression, but since it's a mouth full people decided that the "lossy" name sticks better.  The so-call "frequency loss" you deliberately worded is not a scientific/engineering term, but rather just made up to make mp3 sound extra bad.     

 

[nanaholic]

 

 
Sadly I can say from experience the loudness war bad mixing practice sometimes rear its ugly head even in Hi-res files.  I have purchased Hi-res Flac files that was mixed even hotter than the CD counterpart. It made me so mad.  

 

[nanaholic]

  It's rather hilarious to see major labels use hi-res FLACs to load their crappy remasterings. Some remastering completely destroys the record into a mess.
 
If one has live performance experience(preferably acoustic) and has tried to record with recording professionals, one will understand how important mixing is. It's very easy to mess up because of the lengthy workflow and multiple pairs of ears involved.

 
Going by ears is most certainly one way of getting things wrong.  
 
I have a friend who works in setting up live performance equipment and its acoustics, he complains about the old but established sound engineers who does things by their ears which gets things wrong because their hearing is both getting worse due to old age as well as the continuous exposure to loud music so what their ears tells them is the "right sound" is nearly always skewed towards some awfully off sound setting, but due to their seniority nobody dares to challenge these old engineers so them more junior workers just fix the volumes behind their backs. This is the type of bad practices that often happens behind the scene which us end users have very little control over.    

 

[TSAVJason]

Going by ears is most certainly one way of getting things wrong.  

I have a friend who works in setting up live performance equipment and its acoustics, he complains about the old but established sound engineers who does things by their ears which gets things wrong because their hearing is both getting worse due to old age as well as the continuous exposure to loud music so what their ears tells them is the "right sound" is nearly always skewed towards some awfully off sound setting, but due to their seniority nobody dares to challenge these old engineers so them more junior workers just fix the volumes behind their backs. This is the type of bad practices that often happens behind the scene which us end users have very little control over.    

Sounds like you have some sort of dislike for older people. In fact some of the best trained ears have excellent hearing and have learned to hear error better than younger ears that are still learning how to pick out errors. To my point digital errors can happen in many different stages of recording. In friendly argument I would say a bad mix is due to a bad engineer having very little to do with age and more to do with the lack of skill. To Xero1's point and subsequent post the most common errors happen at the point of mastering compression as they push the limit of gain. Digital corruption at this juncture is easily avoidable. Again nothing to do with age. Digital corruption can happen at any point in recording from the individual track to the final 2 track master to the mastering compression as it becomes a completed digital file ready for playback. Your focus on the age of an engineer not only seems condescending toward older people but also very narrow in perspective. Rather than point toward age as a negative maybe respecting the talent developed with time like a fine wine. This doesn't mean a young person can't develop the talent to create a quality mix early in life, even in youth you have to learn what the wrong methods are to know what the right methods are.

 

[XERO1]

Hi Jason.
 
In defense of nanaholic's post, I don't think he meant any disrespect but was just relating an example of improper mixing.  But his example of mixing for a live event has absolutely nothing to do with the overuse of dynamic compression that is happening in the studios by experienced mastering engineers that have excellent hearing and use TOTL equipment.  And in most cases, they are fully aware that they are ruining the sound of the original mix.  But it is usually insisted that they do it by the album's clueless producers, who are the boss, and can tell the mastering engineer what to do.  And if the mastering engineer wants to stay employed, they don't have much of choice in the matter becasue if they refuse to do it, the producers will just find someone else who will.