Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
Uncompressed / lossless audio files
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
Uncompressed / lossless audio files
|
|
|
Weeks ago I was searching the net for something technical, when I came over something on Heise, a German tech website. It is from ... uhm ... 18 years ago, so not really news, although to me it was new. If you are like me, trying to omit mp3 encoding; for instance having ripped your CD collection for a 'lossless' compression like flac format ... and on the other hand having been surprised by some files who sounded so good in spite of being mp3 ... c't made a test and invited despisers of mp3 and people with golden ears for auditioning. None of them could reliably tell files above 256 kBit/s apart from uncompressed originals in blind tests. And in fact mp3s were at times perceived as better / tidied up sounding, which was concluded to be resulting from lesser artifacts that tend to naturally occur with untreated material through effects of some frequency ranges on other sections of the frequency band (usually effects from HF on MF and LF). Hence, less of HF content seemed to subjectively appeal. Needless to say that the audiophile test persons were not really ardent about their test results, and that they after the fact tried all kind of explanation and argument , which albeit ended up rather funny sounding. Anyway, I thought it to possibly be interesting to some of you too. quote:
MP3 vs CD in the c't listening test Hanover, March 9, 2000 - At the listening test MP3 against CD of the computer magazin c't, twelve music-trained test listeners as well as a sound engineer from a record company with 256 kBit / s estimated encoded MP3 files just as often as CD-quality as the CD itself, reports c ' t in the current issue 6/00. c't had published in the issue 3/00 the results of a hearing test with various hi-fi professionals. No one could immediately identify any MP3 source above 128 kbps as such, or even discover serious errors in it. The fact that no "expert listener" could distinguish well-coded MP3 files from audio CDs surprised even the c't editors. Due to numerous skeptical reactions to this article, the c't editors decided to invite twelve critical readers to Hanover to hear the test. Using 17 music recordings of various styles, the test listeners should distinguish audio CDs and MP3 recordings on a high-quality reference system. According to the results of the c't hearing test, there is no music genre that is particularly good or particularly bad for compression - enough care in coding and a high-quality encoder provided. A data reduction of around 5: 1 is apparently possible with MP3 without audible loss. MP3 with 128 kBit / s, which corresponds to a reduction of 11: 1, the testers were able to distinguish however in the majority of cases of CD and MP3 with 256 kBit / s. On the other hand, some 128 kbit / s recordings were even better judged by the competent audience than the originals of CD, to the surprise of all those present.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 4 2018 11:28:20
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
RE: Uncompressed / lossless audio files (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
One can´t be wary enough of subjectivity. Especially in regard of the senses. Anticipation seems to be overruling just too much of sensibility. Smokers who swear by their brand, turning out incapable of proving their preference in blind test. Connoisseurs who in blindtest dumfoundedly find out that a 3-buck vine outperforms luxury specimens. Same with Italian housewives who unexpectedly find themselves preferring plain and sterile German mozzarella of cow milk over such from Italy and of precious buffalo milk. (That trend / myth led to unspeakable agony with thousands of buffalo calves left starving / alone on worn out pastures in Italy). We´ve had everyone and their gang crippling their toes in fashionable boots (and after centuries of weird standard still today wearing trendy footwear that is narrower than the feet), lofty perfumes sold as top of the shizznizz that were merely smelling like vanilla, or folks riding their bikes with the saddle higher than the handlebar etc. pp. Old hands like you, Simon, may recall the times when digital audio came out. Even though the first CDs were only AAD, the world was raving over that crushing defeat of old analog technology. And how years later only listeners of classical music started complaining about brittleness of that times converter tech, until one by one the mainstream followed. (With studios by then having thrown their analog rigs in the bin.) And how within past 10 years audio paradigm is turning around one more time, now acknowledging that DDD can be pretty awesome / lacking nothing if handled well. Same with the controversy around valves and solid state. Where the truth being simply that a good circuit is a good circuit, regardless of valve or transistors. In most of the examples of trend mankind proving lack of independence and of empirical evaluation and being all too seducible. - Like me who used to dismiss garlic or hot spicing and who now loves em. - Digital photography has by far outstripped original prognosis regarding its development and capability within predictable frame of time. No one can nail down a used camera while inspecting a good shot. To me, whose discerning abilities may not match the sharpest eyes out there, but which have been demanding enough for to appreciate FF and fine glass, there is no advantage worth keeping up with the hassles of celluloid. Including the mentioned lead with exposure latitude and possible detail of texture. No at all missing the times in the dark room with developing film and positives, but being fascinated by instant digital options of capturing and post work. Digital tech, in my opinion, has turned out allowing for outright fantastic tools. And huge investment spent on outboard audio gear might have not been my best decision, except of the microphones. (Good to have -though since years now boxed and stored anyway, as I´m not having appropriate rooms / insulation-, but meanwhile questionably worth it.)
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 4 2018 13:38:02
|
|
kitarist
Posts: 1717
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
Actually camera and lenses stuff (RE... (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Paul Magnussen And flamenco photography is mostly low-light photography (unless you’re prepared to annoy everyone with flash). Any solutions? I had faced the same issue when trying to shoot ballet. There are companies making lenses that fit any of the big 3-4 camera brands, but are cheaper than the brand equivalent. I had a Nikon camera body and a pretty limited budget, so I bought a couple high quality Sigma lenses (constant aperture F2.8 zoom lenses with optical stabilization). They were quite a bit cheaper than the Nikon versions, but basically the same quality. Sigma makes lenses fitting Nikons, Canons, and others. Another company like that is Tamron. Here is a list of "the best for 2018" - see how many Sigmas are there. https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2421983,00.asp Your camera still has to be pretty good, though. It is hard to shoot dance inside in low light at anything less than iso800 or even iso1000, even with the 2.8 aperture, so the camera has to be able to deliver a nice image at iso1000 or higher without visible artifacts. The other 'tool' is to ignore the standard exposure based on 18% gray and go with what matches what your eyes see - especially if light is focused on the dancers but the rest of the frame is very dark. So use exposure compensation to "underexpose" (referenced to whole frame 18% gray) which will give you higher shutter speed and the right exposure for the dancer under spotlight conditions.
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 18 2018 20:15:57
|
|
Escribano
Posts: 6418
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy
|
RE: Uncompressed / lossless audio files (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
quote:
And flamenco photography is mostly low-light photography (unless you’re prepared to annoy everyone with flash). Any solutions? Fast lens f2 or faster and the highest ISO you can get away with. Don't use auto, set to aperture priority and open the lens wide. Try ISO 3200-6400 on a decent digital camera, but the size of the sensor, shutter type/speed megapixel count are all factors. Lots of pixels on a small sensor means a smaller pixel density, so poorer performance in low light (look at the noise in a smart phone low light image). 16 megapixels on an APS-C sensor is fine, 24 megapixels on a full-frame, 35mm sensor is more than enough. Low shutter speeds will blur moving subjects, though and without a mirrorless camera or leaf shutter lens, you may struggle below 1/20 sec. handheld. Here are some of mine in low light. Pentax ME Super and Pentax SMC 50mm @ f/1.4 1/30 sec. handheld on Neopan 400 film Fujifilm XE-1 with 18-55mm lens (optically stabilised) @ f3.2 1/7 sec. ISO 3200 digital, handheld at midnight
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
_____________________________
Foro Flamenco founder and Admin
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 18 2018 21:14:09
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3433
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
RE: Uncompressed / lossless audio files (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
One reason smaller aperture lenses are prevalent on digital cameras is that nowadays the sensors are so much more sensitive than film. Furthermore many current lenses feature stabilization mechanisms, called by various names by different manufacturers. These compensate for camera shake when hand held. They are advertised as allowing shutter speeds up to four times slower than non-stabilized lenses. When i was shooting film, about as far as I was willing to push ASA 400 was one stop, to ASA 800. Still the added grain and washed out color was a signifcant penalty. This photo of a dancer in Bali, and more than a hundred others on this and other evenings, was taken with the stage lighting, no flash. The stage lighting was not dim, but certainly was no brighter than usual for ballet performances in America and Europe. The camera was a Nikon D800, ISO 6400 (8 times as fast as ASA 800), 1/400 second, the lens was Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. The "VR" stands for Nikon's version of image stabilization, but it was not not needed, since the shutter speed was fast enough to "freeze" camera shake for the focal length used. Although I was on the front row of chairs, the dancer was at least 15 feet away, maybe more. There were a lot of people seated on the ground in front of me. Converting the 49 megabyte Nikon raw file to the 726 kilobyte jpeg uploaded here has very noticeably reduced the dynamic range and sharpness of the original. RNJ
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Attachment (1)
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 18 2018 21:23:10
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3433
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
RE: Uncompressed / lossless audio files (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Sony and Phillips jointly developed the CD, wrote the Red Book specification, and licensed the technology to other users. They also were first on the scene with CD players. At first other manufacturers followed Sony and Phillips design practices with their players. My first CD player was a portable Sony. It was audibly different from a good vinyl rig. After a few years, two design flaws were discovered in the early players. The output of the digital-to-analog converter (DAC) is a stairstep analog waveform. It is smoothed by a reconstruction filter. The early players used a "brick wall" filter: one whose response was relatively flat up to nearly 20KHz, then fell off quite steeply. The problem with this was that such filters, implemented in the analog domain, inevitably "ring" when presented with transients, introducing distortion. In later designs this was overcome by oversampling. I won't bore you with the details, but essentially every CD player now on the market employs this approach. The second design flaw was jitter in the digital clock that sequences the digital data into (and out of) the DAC. This was caused by trying to recover the clock from the data read from the disc. The non-return-to-zero recording mode exacerbated the problem. It turns out that the distortion caused by clock jitter is particularly audible, especially on louder passages. My main CD player, more than 20 years old, generates a stable clock electronically, and uses a feedback loop to control the rotational speed of the disc mechanism. Clock jitter problem solved, but at the expense of added circuitry--another box the size of the CD player itself, 20 years ago. I have no idea how current inexpensive players generate their clock. I would think the improved quality would have motivated development of cheap integrated circuits to handle the problem. To me, my CD player sounds better than my vinyl rig: a Thorens turntable, Grace arm and Ortofon high end cartridge. Still, there are people who prefer vinyl and vacuum tubes to CDs and semiconductors. No recording sounds like the real thing. RNJ
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 18 2018 21:51:42
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
RE: Uncompressed / lossless audio files (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
With the pretty advanced bits that you have been discussing, needless to mention (other than for the interested lurker) that digital sensors can´t see colors / that colors are being determined / translated by values of grey for which again each brand has their own individual recipe. Personally, I specially like what me got to see from Canon and Panasonic (while Nikon tends to come out slightly greenish which may have to do with measure of blue). Greater than life maybe, but beautiful. Regarding hinge on color spectrum, I suppose that we can all agree on that there has never been a greater shade than with color celluloid. (If I recall that right, Agfa colors were specially flat and off.) Besides from the fact that the digital option of color management can do pure magic within a blink of an eye. Like when you have shot in colored light like under disco strobes, and on camera or in post with a touch of a button the originals colors can be retrieved so naturally as if the motifs were captured in daylight. Color perception seems like the most divergent factor of visual subjectivity. I know that my ability of distinguishing very fine shades is relatively minor. Thus, in dental labs I often used to confirm with colleagues about precise match of dentures, to make sure. On the other hand my individual sense for complementing and countering colors appears to be quite there, as I found out through checking out about my choices with corresponding applications that can be found on the internet. On a side note: At the risk of repeating myself; current generations of the young are increasingly loosing distinguishing abilities with sound and vision. A kind of paradox, as those skills could be trained most easily by means of digital trainers. The dislike against digital options, that some display, springs off from symptomatical thinking. The truth being that the world of 1s and 0s has opened mind-blowing opportunities, and we are not at its limits yet. Like always with tools, it only depends on how they will be engaged. Oh, and one more point: Keep in mind that we are not seeing the same thing, also within objective terms. Due to lacking calibration. The vast of users do not see parameters as (hopefully) originally generated on a calibrated work station. The pics they are watching tend to show graphics in deviating ways. And in lesser educated regions you might experience such even with print companies. (Imagine me ordering large positives and getting back such skewed images that for instance a bright red ["Lichtrot" in German] would return as ruby.) Not everyone might be willing to spend those ~ 250 bucks for calibration gear, but downloading test cards for free and correcting parameters of graphic cards and monitors will go a long way. More so when you just bought a TV from a show room. Manufacturers tend to exaggerate values on default in order to trick in uncritical consumers (who will be taken by overdone measures), and sales stuff likes to crank the values in show rooms one more time. Probably the public tuned the most to hinge, residing in GB and USA whose TV format used to be extremely skewed. (The British one showing very greenish, the US one very reddish.) Over here I show the balanced and brilliant screen of my old TV device to acquaintances, trying to give them an idea of how their TV-set at home could be presenting like. Only with an accurately tweaked device can the fantastic standard actually be seen that is often times aired today. Beautifully rich, in many cases looking like moving Rembrandts and Dalis.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 20 2018 10:31:58
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.140625 secs.
|