Just listen to both and share...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sonusman
  • Start date Start date
Kindofmood2 is about 3 seconds longer! :D

What did I win, what did I win?
 
Seriously, I have no idea what the difference is...soundwise. I've listened on speakers and on headphones. First time listening, version 1 seemed warmer. After that, they sounded the same.
 
The differences to my ears...

KingofMood1 sounds more "bright" and "harsh" than KingsofMood2. My humble ears & monitors give me more detail in KingofMood1.

I believe the original was recorded at 96KHz sample rate. You encode it to mp3 -using Franhouver instead of Lame- to KingofMood1.

KingofMood2 is converted version of the original to 44KHz, then you encode to mp3 using the same method.

Am I close ? :)
 
James Argo said:
The differences to my ears...

KingofMood1 sounds more "bright" and "harsh" than KingsofMood2. My humble ears & monitors give me more detail in KingofMood1.

I believe the original was recorded at 96KHz sample rate. You encode it to mp3 -using Franhouver instead of Lame- to KingofMood1.

KingofMood2 is converted version of the original to 44KHz, then you encode to mp3 using the same method.

Am I close ? :)
Click to expand...

Errrrrrrrrr...no. :)

One was encoded with Lame and the other Fraunhofer. The original was all 48KHz SR.

Ed
 
Ok, deaf guy commenting, tinnitus and just over 6k highs max, but here is what I hear. for what its worth

How about # 2 seems crisper clearer and has more snap and punch. why, I dont know maybe some kind of dynamic expansion. or #1 is compressed. I like 2 better. sax has more depth and fullness in #2 with nice punchy percussion and cymbals.

Both are certainly Fantastic works! This is better than most pro stuff, certainly better than most blue note recordings!!!

BTW got any more like that, Id like to put some together for the ride:D :D

Peace
Bill
 
sonusman said:




Any differences?

Ed
Click to expand...

#1 has over accentuated highs that are unfriendly to the ears....it also sounds a little harsh at louder volumes during the high energy passages=Lame

#2 is a lot warmer and easier on the ears....the whole mix sounds a little tighter especially in the low end.=Fraunhofer

I guess I will take your advice and start encoding with Fraunhofer.:eek:


Who's playing on this tune?It's excellent.
 
They both have artifacts.

#1 the artifacts are lower in freq, and more pronounced.

#2 the artifacts are higher and more subtle.

I think #2 sounds better on my system. It seems more real on the brushes, reverb tails, and especially the organ & horn parts.
 
I would say 75% of the artifacts actually happened during the rip from the CD. I should have used the original .wavs but was too lazy to find them. I ripped using Wavelab's ripper at 4X speed.

I like all the guessing. Keep it coming guys. I want to see more guess's before I say which was which.

I will say that both of course were encoded at 192kbs in "high quality" mode. Wavelab with the Lame codec was used for one of them, and Audioactive Production Studio with the Fraunhofer codec was used on the other.

The band is Porterhouse, the song, well duh!!!, Kind of Mood, off of their Thumbs Up Little Buddy CD I mixed/mastered about 4 years ago or so.

If you just HAVE to buy their CD, here is a link to the label they signed with: http://www.lauan.com

Ed
 
Oh, and the "artifact" during the B3 solo was on the tracks. The tracking engineer goofed a little on levels, but thought the take was so good that he didn't want to chance another.

This was all recorded in a basement using Black Face ADAT's, ART and Mackie pre's, and mostly SM-57's, AT 4033's, and AKG C-1000. Oh, and a EV RE-27 for kick and sax. Mixed on a Soundcraft Ghost console, with 2X Behringer Composers, 2X Alesis 3630's, 1 Behringer AutoCom, 1X 4 channel Behringer gate, a Lexicon LXP-1, and a Alesis Quadraverb 2. Mixed to the computer via a ART between the console and Lynx One soundcard. Mastered using Wavelab with Waves L1 and Steinberg QMetric.

This is about as "home recording" as you can get guys! ;)

Ed
 
There are definitely differences in the two files, but without hearing the original, it's hard to tell which one is representing it most accurately. Just for fun, I decided to do some analysis on the files to see what the technical differences might be. I ran both files through the Waves PAZ, and took screenshots on each analysis, and also saved the frequency data (as text). Here are the results.

----

File 1

encoder1.jpg


FRQ (Hz): Stereo Energy (dB):

22 -12.6
65 -7.8
108 -2.2
151 -4.9
194 -10.1
236 -9.5
281 -6.5
323 -7.0
387 -5.0
472 -8.8
561 -8.7
646 -5.2
731 -11.7
820 -5.6
906 -10.0
992 -9.2
1122 -9.8
1291 -6.6
1462 -2.7
1641 -2.3
1811 -2.7
1983 -3.0
2154 -5.8
2320 -9.0
2499 -11.7
2670 -14.2
2923 -8.7
3281 -9.4
3623 -15.8
3967 -10.8
4308 -12.5
4640 -16.6
4998 -15.9
5339 -14.6
5704 -13.8
6043 -15.5
6349 -15.2
6727 -12.8
7246 -10.6
7934 -9.8
8617 -12.2
9281 -13.3
9996 -13.4
10679 -13.8
11693 -9.4
13125 -10.3
14492 -14.2
15868 -14.4
17233 -11.4
18562 -14.9
19993 -33.6
21357 -41.5

File 2

encoder2.jpg


FRQ (Hz): Stereo Energy (dB):

22 -13.8
65 -7.7
108 -2.1
151 -4.2
194 -10.1
236 -10.2
281 -5.8
323 -8.3
387 -6.1
472 -10.4
561 -9.8
646 -5.7
731 -12.2
820 -4.2
906 -9.3
992 -9.0
1122 -9.4
1291 -6.0
1462 -4.8
1641 -3.4
1811 -2.9
1983 -2.1
2154 -6.2
2320 -10.2
2499 -14.1
2670 -15.1
2923 -9.0
3281 -10.0
3623 -17.2
3967 -10.3
4308 -12.0
4640 -17.0
4998 -16.6
5339 -14.6
5704 -15.5
6043 -16.8
6349 -15.2
6727 -13.4
7246 -10.8
7934 -10.2
8617 -12.5
9281 -14.0
9996 -13.1
10679 -13.8
11693 -9.7
13125 -10.5
14492 -15.1
15868 -14.3
17233 -14.9
18562 -17.6
19993 -25.5
21357 -47.4
----
As you can see, there are definite differences in frequency response, stereo separation, phasing, and overall energy.

Which is which? Search me!
:confused:

So, take this info with a grain of salt, because it doesn't really matter what it technically looks like...it matters what it sounds like. Only by listening to the original will we know which is a better codec.

Cheers.
:)
 
Errrrrrrrrr...Looney Tunez, did you even LISTEN to the file?

If I follow your thought process, I would be led to believe that an encoder could possibly IMPROVE the sound!

Think about it, and let us know which you thought actually SOUNDED better to YOUR ears. ;)

Ed
 
2 was better to my ears. More high end clarity on the cymbals, more clarity in the mids and lows. Just more of a variety of clear frequencies.

What do I know, I'm partially deaf in one ear.
 
Errrrrrrrrr...Looney Tunez, did you even LISTEN to the file?

If I follow your thought process, I would be led to believe that an encoder could possibly IMPROVE the sound!

Think about it, and let us know which you thought actually SOUNDED better to YOUR ears.
Click to expand...

Ed,

I listened to both several times, comparing back and forth, and the only conclusion I can come to, is that they are different. I'm assuming you posted these two files to demonstrate which encoder is better, but without the original, then I'm just comparing two flawed files. ;) :D

But if you want my opinion, then I'll give a thumbs up to the second one. :cool: But, just because I like that one better doesn't make it the better encoder. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Maybe I'm missing your point, Ed, and you aren't comparing the encoders at all...if that's the case, then I just prefer the sound of the second one.
:)
 
sonusman said:
Oh, and the "artifact" during the B3 solo was on the tracks. The tracking engineer goofed a little on levels, but thought the take was so good that he didn't want to chance another.

This was all recorded in a basement using Black Face ADAT's, ART and Mackie pre's, and mostly SM-57's, AT 4033's, and AKG C-1000. Oh, and a EV RE-27 for kick and sax. Mixed on a Soundcraft Ghost console, with 2X Behringer Composers, 2X Alesis 3630's, 1 Behringer AutoCom, 1X 4 channel Behringer gate, a Lexicon LXP-1, and a Alesis Quadraverb 2. Mixed to the computer via a ART between the console and Lynx One soundcard. Mastered using Wavelab with Waves L1 and Steinberg QMetric.

This is about as "home recording" as you can get guys! ;)

Ed
Click to expand...

I noticed the "hot" tracking on the B3, but there are artifacts in other places as well.

As for the gear used, my home recording setup is way cheaper than that!:eek:

:D
 
sonusman said:
soundcard. Mastered using Wavelab with Waves L1 .........
Click to expand...

and how many times did you "run" thru the L1? Yowza!!!
 
Me personally? I don't care! I just listened to the first one, and its great. If Pedullist couldn't hear any difference , I doubt that I'd be able to either. All I can say is, so much for the digital is bad BS. Great performance+experienced engineering=something worth listening to. Very nice work on your part. The performance is king!
 
Let's talk about the song...ok, it's short....but pure genius!

:D
 
yeah...very, very nice... and really friggin loud!!! yowza!! (again)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top