Am I maximising sound quality ?

PG Music Home

I use BIAB to make jazz numbers, using the (wonderful) jazz bass & piano Real Tracks and Real Drums. (I don't use midi at all).

I make the BIAB SGU files on a good recent Dell Latitude; render the SGUs to WAV files (with the maximum allowable +30db volume increase), then convert the WAV files to MP3's at 192bps.

The quality of the resulting MP3 tracks is pretty good. My first question is: is there anything I can do to make the quality even better ?

My second question is: I spend a lot of time mixing - ie getting the volume balance between the three instruments right. Is there any benefit in doing that in Real Band, rather than BIAB ? Are there any other clever tricks for mixing I should know about ?

Many Thanks for your help.

Since you are using RealTracks and RealDrums, you didn't indicate whether you used the audiophile versions (true WAV files) or the standard version (WMA files, which can be converted to WAV, but are still lossy audio from the original audiophile WAV's).

If using the WMA files, then by creating MP3's, you are re-compressing the files and losing additional fidelity from files that had already lost some fidelity when they were originally converted to WMA. So my recommendation would be to use either the WAV files themselves (which is the best you'll get), or convert to higher rate (256 or 320). While 192 makes pretty good MP3's, there is still an audible difference between that and the higher rates (do a side-by-side comparison and you'll hear it). Of course, your audience may never know or care.

Secondly, I find it easier to mix the balance using RealBand rather than in BIAB. You have a lot more control and can use additional effects on a track-by-track basis, as well as the overall mix.

+1

Each time you run a conversion you will lose quality. The tracks are shipped compressed to 160bps in a WMA format. Theoretically, you'll never get better quality than 160. If you have the space, convert your song to WAV and leave it there.

Converting WMA to WAV to MP3, according to some audiophiles, is a big No-No. This is known as transcoding and some strange sounds can result. The one I've heard most is a a 'swirling, swishing' sound, especially with the cymbals. This will be less noticeable in performance than if making a CD. But as John said...

Quote:

Of course, your audience may never know or care.

Also +1 on RealBand.

Hi,

I do have some experience in this area and I'd like to pass on some info that may help you>

1. Before worrying about sampling rates, etc, it is far more important to worry about the encoder used for the conversion. A good and free way to go is to download Audacity. Also download the LAME encoder!!! This is very important. Make sure that encoder is installed in the Audacity folder in your Program files. When you export your WAV files in Audacity, LAME will be used automatically.

2. Bit and Sample rate are important, as well as choosing variable bit rate (VBR) You can do an experiment yourself, try converting to MP3 and make 2 files, 1 with VBR, the other without. Next, choose at least 160 for the first file, and 256 for the second. You will hear a big difference! Also you should notice that the 256 VBR file has much smoother and realistic dynamics.

I use BIAB everyday in making new tracks for my iPod, as I play many gigs with this setup. I am always on the lookout for a better way to do the above procedure. Maybe other posters have some great tips I don't know about, but this should get you pointed in the right direction.

Ed

Andy,
In answer to your second question, I think you should move the file to Real Band, and do your mixing there. In addition to the mixing, you can also add effects on a per track basis, as well as effects to the overall sound

Also, the panning and sound staging is a little easier in Real Band.

I would recommend using BIAB as the starting point, and finishing up in Real Band.

Gary

Endorsed - both Gay and Edward.

Sound advice

John, Rachael, Gary, Ed and Sam -

Many thanks indeed for your time and wise advice.

- It sounds like the best bet is to use the WMA RT files, as downloaded, and to look at the encoding.

- I use iTunes-8 to convert the WAV files to MP3s. I've tended to assume that's a decent converter ? What do you think ?

- I've now tried increasing the bit rate from 192 to 256 and 320, with and without VBR (in iTunes), but I can't really hear the difference. I'm listening through a decent Hi Fi set-up (NAD plus B&W speakers) - but i can't even hear the difference between the 192kbps MP3's and the original WAV files !! Maybe I'm just not listening for the right things....?

(- I've yet to get to grips with RB... That's the next project....)

Thanks again for your generous help. Best - Andy

I don't use iTunes but what I read is that the MP3 encoder is not any good. The blogs say the reason is that Apple wants you to use (for obvious reasons) their AAC format and not MP3. My opinion is that the best MP3 encoder out there is the LAME. It's free, open-source, and is available at

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=55

Best thing is to make your WAV file in BIAB and leave it as such. If space is a limitation, investigate lossless formats such as FLAC, WMA lossless, etc. which will compress the WAV by roughly half keeping all of the audio fidelity. Nothing is lost. You will have the best possible sound given that your original RT was WMA 160. If you must convert, there are plenty of conversion front-end GUIs are out there. Avoid using the BIAB built-in MP3 conversion as you are restricted to what codecs you have installed in Windows.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, you won't get any better quality than the original 160 WMA files no matter what you convert them to. You should try to minimize your conversions to avoid the transcoding issues.

Rachael

Thanks again Rachael,

I'm now comparing the rendered WAV files with files made with different MP3 compression settings in ITunes 8. I'm still finding it hard to hear any difference from 192kbps upwards tho....

Best - Andy

Trust your ears

I wasn't aware of the audiophile difference or I may have gone that route. No one's fault but mine.
However, the sound of the tracks I now have are mighty good, I can't say that I percieve any lack of quality. I think WMAs are pretty lossless anyway, aren't they?

If they is any difference it will not stop me from making cd's and demos. If I get a big record deal I will buy the audiophiles and redo them.

That is my thinking on the subject, also, gmanbat.

--Mac

.

>>>...The quality of the resulting MP3 tracks is pretty good. My first question is: is there anything I can do to make the quality even better ?...>>>

At the risk of flogging the obvious, I recommend playing back through the best speakers you can get. I use and recommend Logitech 3-piece computer speakers. I have them in every room in the house and i use them for gigs. Many pros of my acquiantance also use them for gigs.

They are no good for monitoring mixes though...they process the sound too much.

>>>...Are there any other clever tricks for mixing I should know about ?...>>>

Studio monitors do not have to be expensive. I use Radio Shack Miniumus-7 powered by a very good but old Kenwood stereo amp from a flea market. The Kenwood has lots of tone-shaping capability. The key is that it can be set to FLAT when I need it to be flat.