|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,342
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,342 |
Is there an significant audible difference in the WAV-files in the audiophile pak opposed to the WMA-files in the other paks. Provided the fact that I use BiaB to create (some) Realtracks, export them to either PTPA or Cubase (mix and fiddle with them) and then create MP3-files. Would one (average person who doesn't own a stereo that costs the price of a house) hear the difference?
If the answer is yes, is it possible to upgrade from 2009 everythingpak to the 2009 audiophile everythingpak? Not that I would want to do that right away, but I may have a good use for it in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 193
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 193 |
I think the audiophile files are unprocessed, so that you can add your own reverberation and effects and mix all your tracks in the "same room".
Sergino
Bandinabox 2024 standard (2020 Audiophile)
VST3 plugins on Studio One Pro 6.1
Windows 11(SSD) - AMD Radeon R9 5950X - 32GB RAM
MOTU: 2408 MkIII - 24i - Traveler - MIDI Express XT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
The wma files that I have checked in the realtrack folders are 128kbs files. I think if you are doing for sale CD's, the higher quality files would be a must. Now that I used BIAB for a couple of weeks and it is definitely a keeper, I wish I had gone for the audiophile version. However, I just didn't want to risk the additional dollars. I had an early BIAB for windows 95 and BIAB 2007 and I never really made use of them. That has all changed with the 2009 version.
Short answer: I am assuming that you will be able to hear the difference in the files AND if they are "unprocessed" then that is even better.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,616
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,616 |
The stereo RTs I checked are compressed to 160 kbps. You can read all over the web about listening tests and comparisions. There are those that claim to be able to hear the difference between the 160s and the originals. I'm no fan of Microsoft WMA, preferring MP3, but will say that the quality of a 160 WMA is excellent. I believe it would be hard to consistantly distinquish from the original masters. I can't answer for the reverb issue in the audiophile version as I don't have access to them.
Rachael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
I checked a few more and the banjo (which one?) was 128kbs, the acoustic guitar fingerpicking even 65 was 160kbs, acoustic guitar fingerpick even 120 was 128kbs and the fiddle soloist train 130 was 48kbs (huh?).
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 881
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 881 |
Quote:
I checked a few more and the banjo (which one?) was 128kbs, the acoustic guitar fingerpicking even 65 was 160kbs, acoustic guitar fingerpick even 120 was 128kbs and the fiddle soloist train 130 was 48kbs (huh?).
Kevin
Maybe they were done at a Variable Bit Rate?  
i5 3.20GHz, 32gb RAM, 1tb SSD OS, 12tb HDD, 4gb gForce vid card, 32" monitor, Audient id44, Win10 x64, BiaB/RB 2023, Reaper 6,IK Multimedia Total Studio 3.5 MAX, Waves 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,875
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,875 |
Hi Mike. I bought the audiophile ultra-pak on a 500 GB USB hard drive. Since you have "everything" the only files you would be concerned with for audiophile versions would be the Real Tracks; you already have everything else as good as it gets, I think.
Can you hear a difference? Yes, I certainly can. However, it's pretty subtle. The main difference is clarity - the lack of those little artifacts of compression. My home studio equipment is pretty good, and that helps; on a boombox or in a car, you would probably never hear a difference.
In at least two other threads last month, several of us commented on how these audiophile versions work in a mix. Mac said it best, I think, when he mentioned that noise is additive in a mix. If you are serious about selling a mix made with Real Tracks, I think the audiophile version is worthwhile.
About the comment that the audiophile files are unprocessed in the sense of no reverb, in my opinion this is not true. The audiophile files are simply the same sound as what was then compressed into the WMA files for the non-audiophile version.
BIAB 2024 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 6.5 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6; Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus Studio 192, Presonus Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 888
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 888 |
I would be most interested if we could some how get a couple of samples of files done with the Audio file version and the processed file version and posted as mp3 to the web. It might be fun and educational to have a couple of set posted as
Jazz 1 and Jazz 2
country 1 and country 2
Blues 1 and Blues 2
And then a votine pole where listeners could Identify which is better version 1 or 2. And when the pole is finished reveal how much difference it made if they were produced from compressed or un-compressed files.
I am not sure how we would or could set it up, or how much work it would be, but it would be interesting and might answer the question better.
The pole might also asked what your musical background is. My assumption is that some one who has been trained and spent a life time mostly working in and around music might have a better ear than the average listener.
And so we might get a double blind assesment of how much difference the Audiophile files make, over all and to specific groups.
For a long time I made wine. It cost me about $1.00 a bottle to make. I typically served it to friends and often with a bottle of store bought. Both decanted and so served without the consumers knowing which was which or what they were. Funny, but almost always my friends showed a preference for my home made wine when compared to $12 to $20 bottles picked up at the store.
Someone pointed out that perhaps my friends were not very knowledgeable about wine and so this test did not suggest that my wine was truly better. I noted that that was true, but also noted that I was only interested in my friends enjoying a meal and a glass of wine, and if their tastes were "wrong", I did not care as long as they enjoyed it. If it saved $11 to $19, that was okay, Perhaps I could put some of the cash aside, and if I had a wine expert I could buy a really good bottle with some of the money I saved.
I would be interested in know if after the mix down can the average person tell that the song was produced for audiofile version or compressed version.
PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
Most of the music being listened to by the average user are MP3. The average user obviously can't tell the difference. The question then becomes "what happens to compressed WMA files when use mix them and then compress again to MP3?" If your market is CDs then probably the compressed WMA version will suffice. If your market is to sell MP3s you'd better start with the best you can get as it all goes downhill from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Quote:
I would be most interested if we could some how get a couple of samples of files done with the Audio file version and the processed file version and posted as mp3 to the web.
Posting as mp3 would "taint" the results more than .wma would!
Two .wav files, identical, one done with .wma RealTracks and one done with .wav RealTracks would be the way to do this one.
And if PGMusic would do them DOUBLE BLIND, it would be even more interesting. In other words don't tell which is which until a couple of weeks has passed...
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,900
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,900 |
Mike, considering you want to turn the end product into mp3, I don't think there would be any noticeable difference at all, particularly for the 'general public'. I'm not a techie, per se, but I think converting the finished tracks into mp3 would not affect the music in any way whatsoever. However, I would be interested to hear Mac's 'double blind' test
All the best
BTW, the tracks of mine you heard were mp3 made from mp3 backing tracks. Did you realise that?
Follow That Dream Sam Karaoke King -------------------- Turning that corner again - I have to keep following that dream, no matter what
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,616
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,616 |
Quote:
Posting as mp3 would "taint" the results more than .wma would!
Mac is correct. The issue here would be transcoding - taking a compressed WMA, uncompressing to WAV, and then compressing again. In theory, compressing takes out 'stuff' that it thinks you can't hear. Once it is compressed, some things are lost forever . Uncompressing and the re-compressing, especially using a different codec (mp3), is not a good idea. You are basically taking more 'stuff' out of audio that already has had 'stuff' removed. There are lossless codecs out there (WMA Lossless, FLAC, etc.) where you can compress without losing anything but this is not the issue here.
I have not tried this with RTs but have heard audio music files that have been transcoded. The result is usually pretty bad.
I have a feeling that if the blind test is done, the results will be all over the place.
R
Last edited by Rachael; 01/17/09 08:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 194
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 194 |
I've been dealing with the same issues. Should I have purchased the more expensive set to get the best sound. Then I realized, I am playing through a sound system anyway, and I take real tracks to add to MIDI tracks, so what's the point of having wav files? No one would really notice. Probably not even me, after the sound gets chewed up. So why waste the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,487
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,487 |
Trumpet 091 wav
Trumpet 091 wma 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
musocity is showing you the 16KHz brickwall ceiling of compressed digital audio.
wma or mp3 would be the same as far as that brickwall at 16 goes.
For some reason, that software shows it to be at 13KHz. That may be because the particular RealTrack chosen was done at a lower kbps rate to save space as some of them are. Even so, 16KHz is the absolute maximum achievable with digital compression as we have it right now (160kbps should be about where you'd see the "full" 16 with an mp3, I believe wma uses different nemerical figures.)
But still, very few ears are going to hear the loss.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,875
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,875 |
MusoCity, I assume your point here is that the .MP3 filters out frequencies above about 13,000 Hz. I can hear 13,000, but I can't hear above 15,000 anymore.
The .WAV version you used - is that from uncompressing the .MP3 (I doubt it), or is that from the audiophile version?
BIAB 2024 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 6.5 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6; Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus Studio 192, Presonus Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,487
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,487 |
Ok, Trumpet 091 is 48kbps wma and the wave is Audiophile.
Most of the wma tracks seem to be @48kbps then 128 then 160.
I had the 80gig wma and was very impressed with RealTracks and want to put
them on cd so i got the 500gig Audiophile version.
Here is a Guitar wav & wma @160kbps
EG0021-1.wav Audiophile
EG0021-1.wma @160kbps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 55 |
I think everyone would be able to hear the difference if they paid attention to it. How many average listeners do?
Fivehands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,875
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 25,875 |
Perhaps, but I think you can only hear the difference if your equipment and environment is good enough to reproduce the high frequencies.
In an "average" environment such as in a moving car or through "typical" computer speakers or a boombox, I don't think you could hear the difference.
BIAB 2024 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 6.5 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6; Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus Studio 192, Presonus Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
A double-blindfold A-B shootout would sort it out.
I think I already know what the results will be.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Video: Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box®
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 German for Windows is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 für Windows Deutsch ist verfügbar!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 und mehr!
Paket | Was ist Neu
Update Your PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 Today!
The Newest RealBand 2024 Update is Here!
The newest RealBand 2024 Build 5 update is now available!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
This free update is available to all RealBand 2024 users. To learn more about this update and download it, head to www.pgmusic.com/support.realband.htm#20245
The Band-in-a-Box® Flash Drive Backup Option
Today (April 5) is National Flash Drive Day!
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows® Today!
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows for free with build 1111!
With this update, there's more control when saving images from the Print Preview window, we've added defaults to the MultiPicker for sorting and font size, updated printing options, updated RealTracks and other content, and addressed user-reported issues with the StylePicker, MIDI Soloists, key signature changes, and more!
Learn more about this free update for Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows at www.pgmusic.com/support_windowsupdates.htm#1111
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 Review: 4.75 out of 5 Stars!
If you're looking for a in-depth review of the newest Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows version, you'll definitely find it with Sound-Guy's latest review, Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows Review: Incredible new capabilities to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs.
A few excerpts:
"The Tracks view is possibly the single most powerful addition in 2024 and opens up a new way to edit and generate accompaniments. Combined with the new MultiPicker Library Window, it makes BIAB nearly perfect as an 'intelligent' composer/arranger program."
"MIDI SuperTracks partial generation showing six variations – each time the section is generated it can be instantly auditioned, re-generated or backed out to a previous generation – and you can do this with any track type. This is MAJOR! This takes musical experimentation and honing an arrangement to a new level, and faster than ever."
"Band in a Box continues to be an expansive musical tool-set for both novice and experienced musicians to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs, as well as an extensive educational resource. It is huge, with hundreds of functions, more than any one person is likely to ever use. Yet, so is any DAW that I have used. BIAB can do some things that no DAW does, and this year BIAB has more DAW-like functions than ever."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums66
Topics81,658
Posts735,503
Members38,527
| |
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean