I've got it, finally. (Solution to all DRM)

[forrestcupp]

I dont care if you like the song or not... I just picked one that would show the dynamics best.

Here is the normal mp3:

Click here

Here is the smashed version:

Click here [/B]

Crysalis,

That was an awesome example of audio compression.

 

[Deathawk]

Are you guys seriously that discontented with quality of songs lower than 192kb/s? Maybe it's just the genres of music we listen to(me listening to music without lyrics.), since I really can't tell a difference.

I wish I had a decent pair of ears but then again ignorance is bliss.

 

[Crysalis]

Crysalis,

That was an awesome example of audio compression.

Thanks... i guess. Not really hard... simple compression concepts.

 

[Crysalis]

Are you guys seriously that discontented with quality of songs lower than 192kb/s? Maybe it's just the genres of music we listen to(me listening to music without lyrics.), since I really can't tell a difference.

I wish I had a decent pair of ears but then again ignorance is bliss.

We... well, at least i am not talking about Mp3, FLAC, WMA, etc. I'm talking about compression in terms of a compressor (a physical audio processor that includes threshold, ratio, attack, sustain, release, gain, and sometimes a gate).

 

[forrestcupp]

We... well, at least i am not talking about Mp3, FLAC, WMA, etc. I'm talking about compression in terms of a compressor (a physical audio processor that includes threshold, ratio, attack, sustain, release, gain, and sometimes a gate).

It kind of all boils down to the same thing, though. You have to compress the audio with a compressor, like you are talking about to get it to fit in the frequencies that a cd can handle. Then, a lot of times Mp3's are created from CD's, so in the end Mp3 music is compressed both ways.

I don't know if you have ever produced any music, but sometimes compression is good and necessary if done the right way. That is the key, doing things the right way. You can't just put a heavy compression over the entire record and think that will take care of everything. You have to have very different compressions for the different instruments/voices to bring them out without having bad distortion. Also compression is used for effect sometimes. Have you ever tried running an acoustic guitar through a compression pedal? It's a pretty wild effect. It all just depends on what someone is going for. So compression can be horrible, or it can be a good thing.

 

[Nubius]

Probably not a good example since that is going to sound like crap no matter what format it is in.

True

You have to compress the audio with a compressor, like you are talking about to get it to fit in the frequencies that a cd can handle. Then, a lot of times Mp3's are created from CD's, so in the end Mp3 music is compressed both ways.

Sorry man, but you clearly don't have an understanding of compression. The audio compression crysalis is talking about, is different than the compression an mp3 does. Same word, two vastly different meanings.

The compression crysalis is talking about basically turns down the volume on the high points on recordings very quickly, within a thousandth of a second on some occasions. This brings all the parts of a song that are really loud down to a level thats about the same as the volume levels of the parts where it's quiet. Then they take that whole thing, boost it all back up and then the entire song sounds "loud", if the band recorded a part where they were playing softly then built up loudly, you wouldn't hear the build up as much because of the compression. It turned down the loud built up part down to the volume of the part where it was quiet and just building up, then turns that whole thing up.

The compression in mp3s is done by removing frequencies that are "not needed" and getting rid of that extra data makes the file size smaller. Tones like 1000hz and 1001hz would be indistinguishable by our ears, so the 1001hz would be removed, etc..etc.. depending on the quality of the mp3, more frequencies, and more data is removed.

Also, neither forms of compression have anything to do with "fitting in frequencies that the CD can handle". The recordings are generally made in 16bit 44.1kHz and then goes directly to CD and the compression had nothing to do with whether or not it was going to fit on the CD.

Are you guys seriously that discontented with quality of songs lower than 192kb/s? Maybe it's just the genres of music we listen to(me listening to music without lyrics.), since I really can't tell a difference.

I listen to a wide variety of music my friend. I have quite a bit of ambient, lyric-less, type music as well as chill beats without rap to it.

Yes, it did take some ear training for me to easily recognize the sound difference because I used to be completely fine with 128kbps too. The only time I get that now is when I simply can't find any other higher quality anywhere else which happens a lot with foreign bands I try to find.

Have you ever tried running an acoustic guitar through a compression pedal? It's a pretty wild effect

If dull sounding and not dynamic is what you consider a wild effect for an acoustic guitar than I guess, otherwise no, a compressed acoustic sounds horrible.

A 12 string through a distortion pedal followed by a delay pedal.........now that had a wild effect.

 

[The General]

Yeah ... if you want a good example of the other kind of compression, just go to www.youtube.com

 

[forrestcupp]

True


Sorry man, but you clearly don't have an understanding of compression. The audio compression crysalis is talking about, is different than the compression an mp3 does. Same word, two vastly different meanings.


The compression in mp3s is done by removing frequencies that are "not needed" and getting rid of that extra data makes the file size smaller. Tones like 1000hz and 1001hz would be indistinguishable by our ears, so the 1001hz would be removed, etc..etc.. depending on the quality of the mp3, more frequencies, and more data is removed.

I understand the difference; I've worked with both. What I was trying to say is, if you make an mp3 out of a song that has been compressed, then it ends up being compressed both ways. Maybe it wasn't clear, but I was discussing both types of compression.

I understand that compression evens out the volumes throughout the song so that the quiet parts are a little louder and the loud parts are a little quieter. I also understand that a lot of times it is necessary to do this, if it's done the right way. When recording a multi-track project, you will generally use different styles of compression for each track according to what type of instrument/voice it is, and a mix-down compression for the entire project. For parts where you need the emotional build-ups, you use tracks with less or no compression. The problem comes when there is too much overall compression on the entire mix-down.

Have you ever actually tried an acoustic through a compression pedal? The result is different that what you may theorize in your head. I personally don't like it, but I have known people who have successfully used it. It's definitely not an effect that the main guitar would use.

 

[Dexaroni]

This is why DVD audio would work good.

Absolutely ZERO compression, just have 40 MB songs.

 

[The General]

This is why DVD audio would work good.

Absolutely ZERO compression, just have 40 MB songs.

Oh, you mean like CD's?