[Diesel]

I didn't realise Waves were a better quality. I've been trying to listen to the difference and I can just about hear a tiny improvement in the wav. I'll upload to soundcloud tomorrow.

[hipster_bebop_junkie]

You could encode the wav file to .flac in order to make it smaller, thus easier for you to upload. There wouldn't be no quality loss in the process. Software such as Trader's Little Helper and DBPowerAmp, to name a couple, can do that and are available for free. I don't know if Soundcloud allows or plays lossless audio files, though.

Another option would be to shove the .flac file to Sendspace or some similar website so Glice could snag it from there.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Diesel]

I think I've got Poweramp somewhere. I'll try that, if not then it's a lengthy upload and cups of tea. In fact i'd prefer to upload all my tarts in wav format then flac. The waves sounding juicy..

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I didn't realise Waves were a better quality. I've been trying to listen to the difference and I can just about hear a tiny improvement in the wav. I'll upload to soundcloud tomorrow.

You can hear differences between the different compressions in mp3s, let alone a wav file. It won't take or leave from the artistic quality of what's on offer, but it does reduce some of the impact and shows you to be kind of pompous if you have the means and time to up it in the most similar sound to what it sounded like when you first created it.

[terminal pharmacy]

A trained ear can hear the difference quite easily, even an mp3 that has been converted to wav or aiff is recognisable. mp3's and any compressing format including flac destroy some harmonic content. generally in the bottom end is most noticable. as far as harmonic content goes, every frequency affects another whether it is in our hearing range or not and this content affects all the audio within the human hearing range. i understand people not being able to hear the difference as you would be listening to the music and not the audio quality and alot of peoples experience on here with audio would be 98% in the digital realm. alot of people here would not have grown up with vinyl and tape etc as some of us oldies have...

wav and aiff generally are 10mb per minute depending on how rich the content is spectrally (ie passable bandwidth) whereas mp3/acc/any other compressed format is about 1mb per minute (depending on kbps ripped, but still not close to wav or aiff) with the exception of flac which only compresses minutely but still compresses. digital audio is still quite a long way away from the bandwidth of analogue audio.

in the end the transmission of audio is all analogue once it is converted into air movement from the speakers but you can generally hear the difference.

this compression should not be confused with the compression that is used to control dynamics.

Originally Posted by Diesel

I didn't realise Waves were a better quality. I've been trying to listen to the difference and I can just about hear a tiny improvement in the wav. I'll upload to soundcloud tomorrow.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

A trained ear can hear the difference quite easily, even an mp3 that has been converted to wav or aiff is recognisable. mp3's and any compressing format including flac destroy some harmonic content. generally in the bottom end is most noticable. as far as harmonic content goes, every frequency affects another whether it is in our hearing range or not and this content affects all the audio within the human hearing range. i understand people not being able to hear the difference as you would be listening to the music and not the audio quality and alot of peoples experience on here with audio would be 98% in the digital realm. alot of people here would not have grown up with vinyl and tape etc as some of us oldies have...

wav and aiff generally are 10mb per minute depending on how rich the content is spectrally (ie passable bandwidth) whereas mp3/acc/any other compressed format is about 1mb per minute (depending on kbps ripped, but still not close to wav or aiff) with the exception of flac which only compresses minutely but still compresses. digital audio is still quite a long way away from the bandwidth of analogue audio.

in the end the transmission of audio is all analogue once it is converted into air movement from the speakers but you can generally hear the difference.

this compression should not be confused with the compression that is used to control dynamics.

I agree with everything but the idea in bold. Sure higher frequencies (even ones we cannot hear) affect the audio we DO hear. But where do we draw the line? Most people can't hear much passed 18K; With sample rates commonly found at 24/96 these days that puts the highest frequency reproduced at 48K. Are you really going to argue that the frequencies above 48K are affecting things? What next, light waves affecting what we hear? And even if all those juicy frequencies are contained on (say) vinyl, 99.9% of audio systems in the world can't reproduce such high frequencies anyway (your point is completely moot).

No, what you love about analog is the surface noise which is now available via a plug in by UA. The debate about analog vs. digital is all but over at this point. (but I thought that was the case about global warming too and BOY was I wrong).

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by hevusa

I agree with everything but the idea in bold. Sure higher frequencies (even ones we cannot hear) affect the audio we DO hear. But where do we draw the line? Most people can't hear much passed 18K; With sample rates commonly found at 24/96 these days that puts the highest frequency reproduced at 48K. Are you really going to argue that the frequencies above 48K are affecting things? What next, light waves affecting what we hear? And even if all those juicy frequencies are contained on (say) vinyl, 99.9% of audio systems in the world can't reproduce such high frequencies anyway (your point is completely moot).

No, what you love about analog is the surface noise which is now available via a plug in by UA. The debate about analog vs. digital is all but over at this point. (but I thought that was the case about global warming too and BOY was I wrong).

The idea is not bold, the idea is firmly set in reality. I am going to argue that frequencies above 48khz and below 20hz are affecting things as third order harmonics do indeed make a difference in the real world. Just because we can't hear them does not mean they do not affect what we hear. If we are going to discount third order harmonics we may as well discount the whole concept of audio. This is something that is very much dealt with in the real world and is by no means bold. You feel free to discount it though Hev. I wasn't trying to explain anything to an apparent audio boffin like yourself I was trying to explain to people who may not know the difference between and mp3 and an uncompressed format. And by the way 24/96 was common four years ago, the times my friend are a changin'...

And as far as light waves affecting what we hear, to a point they do, particularly the ones that affect rising temperatures or cooler temperatures, as does wind, so these ideas aren't just ideas they have been scientifically proven and taken on board by PA manufacturers for years. It actually becomes quite tedious when setting up big PA's in vastly different temperatures because of this and the PA needs to be mapped not just for different venues but for different weather conditions.

Also just because 99.9% of audio systems can't produce the frequency responses above or below 20hz/20khz does not mean that the audio is not affected by the third order harmonics, reproducing the upper and lower harmonics is not the key, allowing the harmonics to affect the ones within our hearing range does however have an affect.

This is not an invitation to start a flame war, just a response.

As for me liking surface noise, I'll just let that one slide into the ether...

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

The idea is not bold, the idea is firmly set in reality. I am going to argue that frequencies above 48khz and below 20hz are affecting things as third order harmonics do indeed make a difference in the real world. Just because we can't hear them does not mean they do not affect what we hear. If we are going to discount third order harmonics we may as well discount the whole concept of audio. This is something that is very much dealt with in the real world and is by no means bold. You feel free to discount it though Hev. I wasn't trying to explain anything to an apparent audio boffin like yourself I was trying to explain to people who may not know the difference between and mp3 and an uncompressed format. And by the way 24/96 was common four years ago, the times my friend are a changin'...

And as far as light waves affecting what we hear, to a point they do, particularly the ones that affect rising temperatures or cooler temperatures, as does wind, so these ideas aren't just ideas they have been scientifically proven and taken on board by PA manufacturers for years. It actually becomes quite tedious when setting up big PA's in vastly different temperatures because of this and the PA needs to be mapped not just for different venues but for different weather conditions.

Also just because 99.9% of audio systems can't produce the frequency responses above or below 20hz/20khz does not mean that the audio is not affected by the third order harmonics, reproducing the upper and lower harmonics is not the key, allowing the harmonics to affect the ones within our hearing range does however have an affect.

This is not an invitation to start a flame war, just a response.

As for me liking surface noise, I'll just let that one slide into the ether...

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your insight. As a studio guy it is cool to think about the challenges of live audio with conditions like wind and temperature affecting things (not to mention time compensation between speaker sets). Just to be clear I literally put a sentence of your post in bold in my reply. I know it was easy to miss.

At current sample rates the frequencies below 20Hz and above 20K are going to be represented equally in both digital and analog recordings... only the digital recording won't have any friction noise that is inherent in analog (both during recording and on playback). The surface noise does give things a sense of "warmth" I guess and a little tape compression never hurt either. But sorry "mate", you must be one of those blokes above 40 years old. You clearly know your shit but you older guys tend to hang on to analog a little more.

Professional analog recording won't exist in 20 years (probably sooner).

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by hevusa

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your insight. As a studio guy it is cool to think about the challenges of live audio with conditions like wind and temperature affecting things (not to mention time compensation between speaker sets). Just to be clear I literally put a sentence of your post in bold in my reply. I know it was easy to miss.

At current sample rates the frequencies below 20Hz and above 20K are going to be represented equally in both digital and analog recordings... only the digital recording won't have any friction noise that is inherent in analog (both during recording and on playback). The surface noise does give things a sense of "warmth" I guess and a little tape compression never hurt either. But sorry "mate", you must be one of those blokes above 40 years old. You clearly know your shit but you older guys tend to hang on to analog a little more.

Professional analog recording won't exist in 20 years (probably sooner).

No I'm not above 40 but close. PA time alignment is kids stuff, it is the frequency alignment that is the difficult stuff when working with line arrays.

I work on digital consoles more than analogue ones but none of them sound as good as the good analogue boards and this is still shown in the price difference. The digital consoles can save a lot of time when touring though and does minimize the amount of outboard gear you need but can also be a lot slower if and when any problems arise.

To be honest, studio bores the crap out of me, you can't do multiple takes live and if you fuck up when mixing a show for a few thousand people you will know about from the punters very very quickly. Also a lot of the time you only get a few minutes to get the mix right rather than a few days or weeks in the studio.

As well as the fact that studio has next to no touring options and you are stuck in a little room a lot of the time.

[rappard]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

[snip]
mp3's and any compressing format including flac destroy some harmonic content.
[snip]
wav and aiff generally are 10mb per minute depending on how rich the content is spectrally (ie passable bandwidth) whereas mp3/acc/any other compressed format is about 1mb per minute (depending on kbps ripped, but still not close to wav or aiff) with the exception of flac which only compresses minutely but still compresses.
[snip]

Both statement are nonsense:
- FLAC does not destroy harmonic content, as can be easily proven.
- "Compress minutely"? I wouldn't call lossless compression ratios of 30-50% (depending on the type of music) "minutely".

You might have valid points (I'm not a studio wiz and I have cloth ears anyway ;-)), but they're really called into question if your post contains such egregious mistakes as the above two.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by rappard

Both statement are nonsense:
- FLAC does not destroy harmonic content, as can be easily proven.
- "Compress minutely"? I wouldn't call lossless compression ratios of 30-50% (depending on the type of music) "minutely".

You might have valid points (I'm not a studio wiz and I have cloth ears anyway ;-)), but they're really called into question if your post contains such egregious mistakes as the above two.

No mistakes here, my ears tell the truth and I know when my mixes sound shit and what effects my digital audio work.

Anything that compresses to shrink file sizes cannot do so without affecting harmonic content, and this is true as my non cloth ears have heard and tested on concert PA's with my own ears (I'm not talking home stereos, I'm talking PA's to cover between 5000 and 15000 people. They may claim to do such a thing but this is not the case particularly when working with multichannel audio files over 5.1 and above. If flac was such the magic bullet pro audio programs would offer it as an input record option, however this is not the case. File compression is handy but it is destructive. Even the best audio programs can be destructive on uncompressed audio after so much editing. If you run a .flac and a .wav or .aiff through a hardware spectrograph the compressed file of the flac will have different readings to the .wav and .aiff. This is fact as I have seen it to be true with my own eyes and ears. The only good compression is dynamic compression and not file compression. And I don't care what the hash tags say either, their is loss in 'lossless' formats.


In the end, if you want to use compressed file formats I don't care as long as I don't have to listen to it.

[rappard]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

Anything that compresses to shrink file sizes cannot do so without affecting harmonic content

So even zipping and then unzipping a wave file would affect content?

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

multichannel audio files over 5.1 and above.

OK, here's my challenge: provide a proper 5.1 wave file (24/96 if you have one), and prove that it suffers from encoding and decoding to FLAC.

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

If flac was such the magic bullet pro audio programs would offer it as an input record option, however this is not the case.

Sound Devices recorders are not "professional equipment"?
http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/re...c-limitations/

Also:
http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/di...m.asp?id=34188

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

If you run a .flac and a .wav or .aiff through a hardware spectrograph the compressed file of the flac will have different readings to the .wav and .aiff. This is fact as I have seen it to be true with my own eyes and ears.

OK. So post the wave file (or a snippet thereof) here.

In the end, if you want to blabber nonsense about compressed file formats without supplying proof I don't care as long as I don't have to listen to it.

[kinn]

boobies are not trap

[Diesel]

I take it this comp isn't going on CD then.

The difference in formats isn't all that. We're not producing fucking mozart here. regardless, i've upped wav...took 10 pompous minutes in the end ;-)

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

I work on digital consoles more than analogue ones but none of them sound as good as the good analogue boards and this is still shown in the price difference. The digital consoles can save a lot of time when touring though and does minimize the amount of outboard gear you need but can also be a lot slower if and when any problems arise.

Yet analog mixers are rarely used anymore by touring acts. Why?? Because the sound quality is excellent on the digital boards AND you get a long list of other benefits (total recall, onboard FX, simple routing, easy recording of show, etc). Analog is dead. In a few years the live digital boards will sound the same as the best analog ones (studio ones already do). But this doesn't really speak of the surface noise a Studer 24 track reel to reel machine or a needle on a record imparts (pure destruction).

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

To be honest, studio bores the crap out of me

I find it thrilling to capture musical ideas as they are being created. Less STDs too.

[hevusa]

Originally Posted by rappard

So even zipping and then unzipping a wave file would affect content?

Data compression and audio compression are not the same. Zipping and unzipping would not affect the quality of the audio.

Originally Posted by rappard

OK, here's my challenge: provide a proper 5.1 wave file (24/96 if you have one), and prove that it suffers from encoding and decoding to FLAC.

Of course it suffers but the cool thing about FLAC is not that much. WAV is uncompressed and it can't get any better. There is no way to reduce file size without affecting the content. I believe FLAC takes away half of the sample points that form the wave forms to reduce file size or something.

[terminal pharmacy]

I wouldn't call 60% of the time analogue rarely. When I'm working as system engineer the most popular console that comes through on touring specs is the Heritage (analogue) followed by Profile (digital). The Amek Langley Recall is an analogue board with recall function, semi on board dynamic effects. Recording a show has always been easy. As far as routing goes on digital it is far more complex than on analogue, particularly if you want to do things like parallel compression. I hope in a few years digital boards sound as good but that is up to the manufacturers not cheaping out on the consoles. Midas have made an exceptional digital console but no one is buying them because they are half a million dollars, which is about $250, 000 more than the Heritage 3000 which simply is the most beautiful sounding console around.

Originally Posted by hevusa

Yet analog mixers are rarely used anymore by touring acts. Why?? Because the sound quality is excellent on the digital boards AND you get a long list of other benefits (total recall, onboard FX, simple routing, easy recording of show, etc). Analog is dead. In a few years the live digital boards will sound the same as the best analog ones (studio ones already do). But this doesn't really speak of the surface noise a Studer 24 track reel to reel machine or a needle on a record imparts (pure destruction).



I find it thrilling to capture musical ideas as they are being created. Less STDs too.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by rappard

So even zipping and then unzipping a wave file would affect content?


OK, here's my challenge: provide a proper 5.1 wave file (24/96 if you have one), and prove that it suffers from encoding and decoding to FLAC.


Sound Devices recorders are not "professional equipment"?
http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/re...c-limitations/

Also:
http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/di...m.asp?id=34188


OK. So post the wave file (or a snippet thereof) here.

In the end, if you want to blabber nonsense about compressed file formats without supplying proof I don't care as long as I don't have to listen to it.

I'm not going to go into one of my work places and set up a complete test station and photograph it all while it is running the different file formats through the spectographs and the oscilloscopes just to prove an argument that I really don't care that much about. I know it's not nonsense, but if you want to believe compressing a file is completely non destructive then go ahead. I used to use flac a alot to send audio to clients until I started hearing artefacts in the mid range frequency bands. Digital is not infallible just like analogue is not infallible. So if you wish to worship the lossless compression codecs go ahead. I just know that lossless does not mean lossless it is just a title. Flac are best used for archival purposes and that is all.

I'm sure Hevusa would tell you he has heard digital artefacts during the recording process on occasion and this is working with uncompressed formats.

As for the sound devices stuff, I have never seen one in the field on any of the films or tv programs I have worked on, this however does not mean they aren't professional. However a professional audio guy would no use flac for the first instance recording. And when I said professional recording devices I meant studios running Protools HD et al. not boring $4000 two channel field recorders.

[nicfit]

Originally Posted by hevusa

Data compression and audio compression are not the same. Zipping and unzipping would not affect the quality of the audio.

That's the point (excluding the fact that audio on a pc/hd is data, bits are bits no matter what the file "becomes" once "opened") .
Mp3s compress stuff, and the stuff stays compressed.there's data loss, no way to restore it etc etc...
Flac codecs work like zippin' things, the compressed file is actually decompressed by the cpu-software when you listen to it.All the information is there.
And the fully decompressed file is a bit per bit copy of the original.
Bits are the smallest existing "bit" (ahahha) of digital information, it's either 0 or 1.
A file which is bit per bit compatible with the source is exactly like the source, as there are no things as "this bit is similar to 1, but not quite exactly like 1", either it is, or it isn't, no inbetweens.
There's nothing more sure than that in "computer science".
And the definition of lossless in the "digital realm" is that no info/data is lost, and the only way to prove that is a bit per bit comparison...


I know people say they can hear differences between flacs and wavs, but the only "reasonable reason" (assuming "computer science" is not bullshit at its very fondamentals) is that something in the chain between the encoded flac and the decoded output (wether its run through spectographs, oscilloscopes, a PA, etc) is not working how it's supposed to.

What it may be, I dunno (software not developed correctly, some undetectable playback issue due to the cpu cycles used for decompressing flacs, wathever), but thinking that a bit per bit copy of a file is different from the source is like doubting that a wav file you listen to twice is different the second time around because "something somehow changed in it" for no apparent nor proven reason.
Which would make the work of a lot of people pointless, coz they could never be sure that the thing they are working on is the same they just listened to.

Bottom line: you can say you hear differences between wavs and flacs, and it can be true somehow, but you can't say it's "flac's fault".

That said, everyone is entitled to their opinions..this thread is a big mess already...I don't mean to start flames, and this post is not "aimed" at anyone in particular, but I do have a question for TP:

how can you be sure the wavs you send to your clients are "the same" you actually worked on?

p.s. remember english is not my mother tongue and it's late and I drank a bit, if there are awfully formulated sentences, please, forgive me and try to understand what I meant.

[terminal pharmacy]

My ears are my truth when it comes to audio and nothing more and when i'm sending files they are thoroughly checked by near and mid field monitors before sending. If I hear any artefacts at all I will bounce the file down again and recheck. The only time I used compressed file formats is for sending demos for clients, once they approve the demo then I send the high fidelity version of the file.

I'll try and find some old tracks with digital artefacts on them so people can know what they sound like.

Doesn't matter if the thread is a mess. Everything here is more than valid discussion.

Originally Posted by nicfit

That's the point (excluding the fact that audio on a pc/hd is data, bits are bits no matter what the file "becomes" once "opened") .
Mp3s compress stuff, and the stuff stays compressed.there's data loss, no way to restore it etc etc...
Flac codecs work like zippin' things, the compressed file is actually decompressed by the cpu-software when you listen to it.All the information is there.
And the fully decompressed file is a bit per bit copy of the original.
Bits are the smallest existing "bit" (ahahha) of digital information, it's either 0 or 1.
A file which is bit per bit compatible with the source is exactly like the source, as there are no things as "this bit is similar to 1, but not quite exactly like 1", either it is, or it isn't, no inbetweens.
There's nothing more sure than that in "computer science".
And the definition of lossless in the "digital realm" is that no info/data is lost, and the only way to prove that is a bit per bit comparison...


I know people say they can hear differences between flacs and wavs, but the only "reasonable reason" (assuming "computer science" is not bullshit at its very fondamentals) is that something in the chain between the encoded flac and the decoded output (wether its run through spectographs, oscilloscopes, a PA, etc) is not working how it's supposed to.

What it may be, I dunno (software not developed correctly, some undetectable playback issue due to the cpu cycles used for decompressing flacs, wathever), but thinking that a bit per bit copy of a file is different from the source is like doubting that a wav file you listen to twice is different the second time around because "something somehow changed in it" for no apparent nor proven reason.
Which would make the work of a lot of people pointless, coz they could never be sure that the thing they are working on is the same they just listened to.

Bottom line: you can say you hear differences between wavs and flacs, and it can be true somehow, but you can't say it's "flac's fault".

That said, everyone is entitled to their opinions..this thread is a big mess already...I don't mean to start flames, and this post is not "aimed" at anyone in particular, but I do have a question for TP:

how can you be sure the wavs you send to your clients are "the same" you actually worked on?

p.s. remember english is not my mother tongue and it's late and I drank a bit, if there are awfully formulated sentences, please, forgive me and try to understand what I meant.