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.
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".
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
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
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
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? 
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
Trumpet 091 wav
Trumpet 091 wma 
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
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?
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
I think everyone would be able to hear the difference if they paid attention to it. How many average listeners do?
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.
A double-blindfold A-B shootout would sort it out.
I think I already know what the results will be.
--Mac