|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 19,811
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 19,811 |
Bud,
That was a really interesting exercise!
It turns out that, for the most part, I can't hear the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and a wav. When I listened to the samples, the best that I could do was to narrow it down to the two best sounding ones. Then I couldn't choose between those two. The final decision was nothing more than a coin toss. Interestingly, out of the 6 times, I only chose wav once and the rest were 320 kbps mp3s.
That doesn't surprise me because I already know that I can't hear too much above around 13,000 Hz. I also know that one of the ways to increase overall mp3 quality is to filter out the high frequencies so that data bits are not needlessly used up in recording information that many people won't even hear. If my understanding is correct, this would mean that a 320 kbps mp3 that has been set to compress only those frequencies less than (say) 15,000Hz will probably sound the same to me as a wav since the bits of data in the mp3 have been used to maximise storing my 'listenable' frequencies of music.
Thanks for sharing the link.
Noel
MY SONGS...Audiophile BIAB 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,218
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,218 |
Guys I am one step short of deaf. I have hearing aids, but I lost one at the barber shop so I only ware one in my right ear. When I mix, its a mess since I can't hear a broad range of frequencies... but I got 4 out of six right for the uncompressed wave.  I can hear it. It is cleaner and clearer.
BIAB – 2025, Reaper (current), i7-12700F Processor, 32GB DDR4-3200MHz RAM, 1TB WD Black NVMe SSD, 2TB WDC Blue SSD, 1TB WD Blue, 2 TB SK NVMe, 6 TB External, Motu Audio Express 6x6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 15,342
Veteran
|
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 15,342 |
I have zip hearing above 8k. And a severe loss from 2k on. Beyond 8k mixing for me is a visual exercise. Thank you Izotope!
Bud
.
Our albums and singles are on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, Pandora and more. If interested search on Janice Merritt. Thanks! Our Videos are here on our website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,586
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,586 |
3 out of 6. I'm gradually losing high frequencies - probably genetic.
Windows 10 Home 20H2 Build 19042.487
BIAB 2021 (Build 818)
Intel(R) Core(TM), i3-4160, CPU @3.60 GHz RAM 16 GB, 64 Bit X64-based processor
Zoom UAC-2 (USB 3 interface-built in midi)
VoiceLive 3 Extreme, Sputnik Valve Condenser Mic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,931
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,931 |
I have zip hearing above 8k. And a severe loss from 2k on. Beyond 8k mixing for me is a visual exercise. Thank you Izotope!
Bud
. This is funny! I recently submitted something for a songtradr opportunity that made final selection that I didn’t even listen to! I was in a public place and had forgotten to bring my headphones! It just “looked” right. Lol!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,414
PG Music Staff
|
|
PG Music Staff
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,414 |
This is a really neat exercise! I managed to pull a 5/6, getting Coldplay wrong. I still swear the claimed high quality audio sounds a bit muddy, but maybe that's just how it was mixed - or my headphones need replaced. Or my ears :P.
Thanks for sharing !
Cheers,
Deryk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,144
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,144 |
At 72 years young I picked 1 wav file while all the rest were 320 MP3s. After playing in bands for years, many standing next to a Leslie, I think that is pretty good.
Whenever I get something stuck in the back of my throat, I dislodge it by drinking a beer.
It's called the Heineken Maneuver.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,296
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,296 |
I tend to be a very methodical person. The first time, I took the test I got 3 wav, 2@320, and 1@128. The next time, I did not. What I got would be irrelevant to the fact that I got a different answer. The third time, again, a different answer. In all honesty, for the most part, it felt like I was guessing. I was trying, and felt I was hearing various things...but then felt like a "shot in the dark." So, I can't hear quality that well. lol That was what I suspected.  Thanks Bud!
Chad (Hope that makes it easier)
TEMPO TANTRUM: What a lead singer has when they can't stay in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,083
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,083 |
That was fun! I did it once last night. Got the first four and missed the last two. I was confident in the first three, four was a little tougher but I could hear the difference and the last two I felt like I was guessing. I was really pleased with that since I was listening through cheap $4 mini headphones on my little android tablet in the living room while my husband was watching TV and the noisy a/c in there was on. I was like alright! Maybe the secret is cheap headphones. I've had mild high freq hearing loss in my right ear since a blow to the side of my head when I was a kid. What bothers me most is when tinnitus flares up in that ear. It's really obnoxious noise to mix through. It's been so bad at times that I seriously thought about quitting music. After lots of googling, I discovered quite a few suffer from it and continue making their music by learning to work around it. So I've learned to get ear rest among other things. At times it's still hard to deal with if I have a nasty flare. It's like the more you focus on it the worse it gets and ignoring it isn't easy. I have to encourage myself to keep on keeping on. And discipline myself to take breaks when I'm mixing something and my ears are tired - easier said that done. The good days are great when it's not there or so low I don't notice it. The bad days suck. I'm still hanging in there. Maybe someday I'll figure out how to do it by sight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,987
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,987 |
I've spent too many years in high ambient noise jobs (paper mill and construction) and refused to wear hearing protection so I have lost most of my high-end hearing. When working with audio, I EQ to compensate. I often rely on BIAB's default settings and they have been very good. If I want to pull the soloist or particular instrument out front more, I just guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,658
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,658 |
Well, I was feeling quite discouraged when I first took the test, I wasn't hearing much difference whatsoever!
I'm in my mid 60s so some high end loss due to age, plus I played in a band for many years which didn't help.
Then I read the post from Josie so instead of listening through my studio headphones I listened through a really cheap set of phones and could get most of them. I think maybe because the cheap set really brings out the high end where the mp3 artifacts live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913 |
Bud,
That was a really interesting exercise!
It turns out that, for the most part, I can't hear the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and a wav. When I listened to the samples, the best that I could do was to narrow it down to the two best sounding ones. Then I couldn't choose between those two. The final decision was nothing more than a coin toss. Interestingly, out of the 6 times, I only chose wav once and the rest were 320 kbps mp3s.
That doesn't surprise me because I already know that I can't hear too much above around 13,000 Hz. I also know that one of the ways to increase overall mp3 quality is to filter out the high frequencies so that data bits are not needlessly used up in recording information that many people won't even hear. If my understanding is correct, this would mean that a 320 kbps mp3 that has been set to compress only those frequencies less than (say) 15,000Hz will probably sound the same to me as a wav since the bits of data in the mp3 have been used to maximise storing my 'listenable' frequencies of music.
Thanks for sharing the link.
Noel
Noel, can you post a link about this? I don't know if most mp3 codecs are smart enough to neclect coding data above 15kHz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,954
PG Music Staff
|
|
PG Music Staff
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,954 |
I got 4/6. I felt the one that was the hardest was the acapella one. It was easier for me to identify the ones that had a busier sound to the song.
Cheers,
Ember
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 22,158
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 22,158 |
I seem to recall a brick ceiling for MP3 at 16k .. let me do some digging. Be right back That brick ceiling seems to have been at the 128-192k conversion rates. 320 gets a bit higher. https://thesession.org/discussions/19642
Last edited by rharv; 07/10/18 01:36 PM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,693
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,693 |
Funny how we're all different Ember. It was exactly the opposite for me. I couldn't hear any difference at all with Neil Young and Coldplay. The 128K Mp3 sounded just as good as the wav to me. But then I got the girl singer, Katy Perry, Jay Z and the classical piano one because they're cleaner, simpler mixes. I was listening for overall presence not specific freq's. The ones I got were obvious to me. I played these through my fairly high end stereo system with a pair of Altec Model 14's, not cans. I never mix with cans I only use them as a test later.
What this really shows is unless you're all set up in a good listening room, no distractions and using good equipment you would never hear any difference at all. This required silence and concentration and who really listens that way? Unless I'm playing mixing engineer I don't listen critically, I'm listening for relaxation and enjoyment and I'm actually surprised that I would be perfectly happy with the 128K Mp3's for that.
It's millennials who could really tell the differences if they actually cared. Sadly I doubt many would. Back in my day me and all my friends were all into high end and expensive stereo equipment. We could tell the differences between turntable cartridges, mid range speakers and high end ones, running tape at 15ips vs 7.5 and all that stuff.
Bob
Biab/RB latest build, Win 11 Pro, Ryzen 5 5600 G, 512 Gig SSD, 16 Gigs Ram, Steinberg UR22 MkII, Roland Sonic Cell, Kurzweil PC3, Hammond SK1, Korg PA3XPro, Garritan JABB, Hypercanvas, Sampletank 3, more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,362
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,362 |
What this really shows is unless you're all set up in a good listening room, no distractions and using good equipment you would never hear any difference at all. This required silence and concentration and who really listens that way? Unless I'm playing mixing engineer I don't listen critically, I'm listening for relaxation and enjoyment and I'm actually surprised that I would be perfectly happy with the 128K Mp3's for that.
It's millennials who could really tell the differences if they actually cared. Sadly I doubt many would. Back in my day me and all my friends were all into high end and expensive stereo equipment. We could tell the differences between turntable cartridges, mid range speakers and high end ones, running tape at 15ips vs 7.5 and all that stuff.
Bob
Bob, I pretty much agree with you on this. For the most part, to the degree possible for each person, musicians have trained ears - generally know what to listen for. Most audience members do not and really don't care. They just want you to play their favorite song - technical stuff totally irrelevant. And yes, about the listening and recording gear back in the '70s, into the early '80s. There was always the discussion of what was better: Sansui, Pioneer, Fischer, etc. I had a complete Marantz system - 7 or 8 pieces. Even had a nice Gerard turntable at one point. Alan
BIAB 2024 Ultra Plus-all StylePaks*Win11*32GB DDR5*Rhyzen 9745x*AT 2035 Mic*Peavey Nashville 112 Amp*Ibanez ART120* Acoustic/Electric/Washburn D200S Acoustic*Stromberg Monterey Jazz Guitar Loops: https://aldavidmusic.wixsite.com/bestmusicloops
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,327
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,327 |
Hmmmmm. Not so sure this test is all that valid since the samples are streaming.
It should say "how well can you tell audio quality once it has been crapped out by streaming."
I can say that in a non streaming format I can tell a huge difference between a .wav and an MP3 and a large difference between a 256K MP3 once it has been posted to soundcloud and a 320K MP3.
Once a 256k has been posted to soundcloud it sounds "watery" to me. A 320K is better but still leaves a lot to be desired, but again, that is when it is streaming, not so much if it is playing off your computer or another medium.
For some reason I cannot stand .wmv files and am in the process of re-ripping a whole bunch of CDS I accidentally ripped as wmvs a while back. I can't stand to listen to them. I find them quite worthless as a matter of fact, and I am not sure why. They just don't sound right to me. Very thin.
I got most of these right, but again, I don't think "testing" audio quality from a streaming application makes a whole lot of sense.
It's like saying:
Lick these two apples wrapped in cellophane and tin foil and tell me which one is rotten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 15,342
Veteran
|
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 15,342 |
Sure they are “streaming.” But they are being buffered so that they can play at a given quality w/o being downloaded. Note that the wav file takes longer to buffer and begin playing as one would expect from a larger file. And that’s a way to cheat on the test by noting that difference! I would not think NPR engineers would add any compression nor would your computer. You should be playing them exactly as if you downloaded them. FWIW!
Our albums and singles are on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, Pandora and more. If interested search on Janice Merritt. Thanks! Our Videos are here on our website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,327
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,327 |
Ummmmm, I am not so sure man. I don't know the exact science of it dude, but the .wav files I hear when I play them on my computer or home audio do not sound anything at all remotely like the .wav files I hear streaming from NPR in this scenario. They are 1000 times richer and more dynamic. I have no idea why but they just are. The important part for me is not what I hear on an NPR site "test"--it is what I hear in my own studio, and I know for a fact that I would not even think about posting a 128K MP3 anywhere because even here it sounds horrible, and once it is streaming it is not listenable. Learned that immediately. Anyway, not worth a rumpus of any sort, just doesn't sound remotely like anything but a streaming watered down file to me, all of them. I know what I hear is all. But I think everybody should just listen to what they want to listen to with the ears they have and say whatever they want to say because all of this is so subjective--in the end, there is no real absolute truth in this zone, just perceptions and opinions. Moving right along!! Peace and joy to all ears!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®: VST3 Plugin Support
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® now includes support for VST3 plugins, alongside VST and AU. Use them with MIDI or audio tracks for even more creative possibilities in your music production.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Macs®: VST3 Plugin Support
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®: Using VST3 Plugins
Join the conversation on our forum.
Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Mac Videos
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll also keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
From overviews of new features and walkthroughs of the 202 new RealTracks, to highlights of XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAKs 18, the 2025 49-PAK, and in-depth tutorials — you’ll find everything you need to explore what’s new in Band-in-a-Box® 2025.
Reference this forum post for One-Stop Shopping of our Band-in-a-Box® 2025 Mac Videos — we’ll be adding more videos as they’re released!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Mac is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac is here, packed with major new features and an incredible collection of available new content! This includes 202 RealTracks (in Sets 449-467), plus 20 bonus Unreleased RealTracks in the 2025 49-PAK. There are new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 4, two new sets of “RealDrums Stems,” XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAK 19, and more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac with savings of up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special—available until July 31, 2025! Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all the purchase options available.
2025 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
We've packed our Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK with some incredible Add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is automatically included with most Band-in-a-Box® for Mac 2025 packages, but for even more Add-ons (including 20 Unreleased RealTracks!) upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for only $49. You can see the full lists of items in each package, and listen to demos here.
If you have any questions, feel free to connect with us directly—we’re here to help!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 Italian Version is Here!
Cari amici
È stata aggerate la versione in Italiano del programma più amato dagli appassionati di musica, il nostro Band-in-a-Box.
Questo è il link alla nuova versione 2025.
Di seguito i link per scaricare il pacchetti di lingua italiana aggiornati per Band-in-a-Box e RealBand, anche per chi avesse già comprato la nuova versione in inglese.
Band-in-a-Box 2025 - Italiano
RealBand 2025 - Italiano
Band-in-a-Box 2025 French Version is Here!
Bonjour à tous,
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 pour Windows est disponible en Français.
Le téléchargement se fait à partir du site PG Music
Pour ceux qui auraient déjà acheté la version 2025 de Band-in-a-Box (et qui donc ont une version anglaise), il est possible de "franciser" cette version avec les patchs suivants:
BIAB 2025 - francisation
RealBand 2025 - francisation
Voilà, enjoy!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 German Version is Here!
Update Your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 to Build 1128 for Windows Today!
Already using Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Windows®? Download Build 1128 now from our Support Page to enjoy the latest enhancements and improvements from our team.
Stay up to date—get the latest update now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums58
Topics84,204
Posts776,320
Members39,594
| |
Most Online25,754
Jan 24th, 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean