Sound quality – evaluations, bit rates …, page 2

hehe, no bullshit, it is called "spatial audio coding" and here is the reason why:

with your two ears you can know exactly from where a noise comes, behind you, in front of you and you also know roughly the distance from where a noise comes. Now consider a stereo recording: you need two microphones (so it is similar to you having two ears) and the recorded signal is saved. This stereo signal contains all the "spatial" info you would need to hear from where a noise actually comes! Unfortunately, the playback also uses two channels and here it is where your ears can't follow anymore - the spatial signal is lost. The mp3SX converter now extracts the original spatial info from the two channels and reroutes them to five speakers - now your ears can extract the spatial info again! That is what the mp3SX converter does, not more, not less.  

ok, thats right, the point is that stream does not brings us what is the original quality, does it?

but it is a stereo stream and there is no difference between a stereo stream and a stereo file...

But anyway, to let the "hot air" out of the discussion, EDM is in general artifical music and so are most EDM recordings -  all stereo and spatial effects have been mixed by the computer. There is by definition nothing "real", not even the stereo effects. With other words, our discussion is simply senseless. In these cases it is simply a question of "taste". ASOT297 is one of those ASOTs that sound much "richer" with these pseudo-spatial effects from the studio mixer extracted by the mp3SX converter.

The situation is actually different for LIVE recordings where you really have two microphones and where the spatial signals are real...

that was what i thought while typed "bullshit" in my 1st post

sry to say this but i get tired when i read all this definitions and numbers and this kind of thing all i can say that di.fm streams in 96 kbps but not like any 96 kbps i hear in any other radio 96kbps of di.fm sound really good.. i didnt read wht u said guys but wht i can say why do u want Ojay higher quality for ASOT its superb like this

the normal 192kbps DI.fm is really good - the 96kbps mp3 isn't but it is up to the listener - I can hear lots of differences while my brother doesn't hear any difference between 96kbps & 192kbps...



I usually add 32kbps MP3SX to the 192kbps sets, it is up to the listener to switch to 5.1 mode to listen to the 5.1 sound (in 224kbps), everyone else gets the original 192kbps stereo and the 32kbps 5.1 content isn't read from the MP3. I like it because it adds some value to the sets (whether or not you use the "added value" is up to you)...

your brother should be 12-14 like our great uploader arnani is

between 96 and 192 the difference is the quality, between 192 and 224 is the filesize. thats all for me here

Thanks for information about this Fraunhofer IIS MP3 Surround result.
I really appreciate the knowledge, the efforts to do more and better. Thanks to the uploader lostwraith for his work.
As to me, I would say:
• The info about the torrent named “Armin van Buuren - A State of Trance 296 .DI.fm. - 12-Apr-2007” should have included these information also, not only because the file contains more than the original DI.fm stream.
• I was talking about “the sound container (the file)” couldn’t “be a satisfactory evaluation of the sound quality” as long as the “(new) upload page requires that the sound quality be evaluated by the bit rate of an mp3 file, which is supposed to contain the music”. In others words, bit rate means sound quality , in the context of the torrent’s description on the Tribal Mixes page.
• Then, is the quality of the “Armin van Buuren - A State of Trance 296 .DI.fm. - 12-Apr-2007” file an mp3@224 kbps? No, it is not that quality having a spectrum bandwidth of about 19 kHz. I am not saying this quality is good or bad. I am saying “Putting a band limited music in a container that can hold wider bandwidth signal makes no sense” with the meaning of sound quality. Or in other words (again) putting meaningful (surround information) or meaningless information can not recover the information already lost during the lossy encoding or during transmission through a band limited communication channel.

Bit rates or sound quality never deter me from d/l my favorite dj's.I even like live sets with all the crowd noise.Makes me feel like i'm there.LOL

Sound quality of the “Tiesto - Club Nouveau (Radio538)” and “Tiesto at Club Nouveau on XM81" sets.

As it is already known, the sound quality of our sets depend on the sound source (the producer), broadcasting channel, encoder used to compress the data.
If  I assume the quality of the source is a perfect audio CD quality then:
• My evaluation (using the Spectral Analysis of the sound signal) of the Radio538 channel (and Kiss100 also) is: it broadcasts as an mp3@128 kbps stream (sound spectrum in the range 20 Hz – 16 kHz). The last TALiON’s release (004) is VBR @175kbps which entirely preserves the signal spectrum but adds nothing, of course. The set (https://www.tribalmixes.com/details.php?id=17144&viewcomm=57149) is presented as a 192 kbps.
• My evaluation (using the same technique) of the XM81 radio channel is: it broadcasts as an mp3@ more than 224 kbps stream. (sound spectrum in the range 20 Hz – 22.05 kHz but the spectrum is changed, so the sound is a not perfect audio CD quality). . The set (https://www.tribalmixes.com/details.php?id=17184&hit=1 ) is presented as a 224 kbps.
•As to me:
I have been advised: “Spas bro, you should have a 320kbps copy to warrant enough improvement to double someone’s post before you.”
First of all, my source is PCM @1,411.2 kbps and I record the broadcasts as .wav files.
Second, I tried to compress my first part of the show using neroACCenc –q 1.0 which means an m4a file format, VBR @max quality. The result was a file @avg380kbps.
Third, Do I need to post such a file?
What I have posted are files @224kbps preserving the full sound signal bandwidth: 20 Hz – 22.05 kHz which I consider enough.

Why I said the Radio538 channel  broadcast was as an mp3@128 kbps bitstream? Because when I compress a perfect audio CD rip (and @1,411.2kbps) as an mp3@128kbps the signal spectrum is in the range 20 Hz – 16 kHz and almost the same over the entire range as the original. In other words the radio channel acts as an mp3@128kbps encoder (not the same way, of course) - it cuts the spectrum range above 16 kHz.

I would say it does not mater what someone says about the bit rate of a sound file. What does matter though is the signal spectrum. It is true, objective, and independent characteristic based on formal, provable mathematical methods.

i woldnt pay attention at this advise, thats why i advise you do the same

Tanks, it is a wise advise.