On 26 Sep 2005 at 14:29, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:05 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: > > > David W. Fenton / 2005/09/25 / 04:21 PM wrote: > > > >> http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.mp3 > >> http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA1.mp3 > > > > > > I put them in a spectragraph, averaged between 2"30' and 3"30'. > > <http://a-no-ne.com/temp/128vs192.gif> > > > > I guess I had too much free time this morning :-) > > Got to work... > > Hey, thanks! I was very interested to see the difference, or rather, > the lack of difference between the two encodings. Very surprising! A > bit more mid-register goosing in the economical encoding, and a tad > less high end at the very top (where I have all but ceased to hear > anything in any case) but not too much difference! . . .
Well, it seems to me that there are large differences from 8K up, and that's where a lot of what we hear is happening. No, many older listeners might not hear the differences above 16K, but the ones from 8K to 16K ought to still be pretty audible. The difference in sound is subtle in this case, because, I think, the source is digital, and thus, not as rich in original source spectrum as live performance. > . . . All there would be > left to do is to compare them with the original (presumably > sixteen-bit digital.) I would suppose that the maximum of about 3 dB > differences in the mid-range wouldn't be very audible. I have uploaded the source WAV here: http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.zip (the zipping did actually save 4-5 MBs, believe it or not) > And despite David F.'s apparent lack of interest in the point that > Kurt made, . . . Well, perhaps I misinterpreted Kurt's point, which seemed to me to be a matter of going off on a tangent about MIDI editing and sample quality, but I fully agree with your point that the comparison with live performance would be interesting. > . . . I would be most interested to see how the spectrographs > compared when the source material was live instruments from a > high-quality recording. I suspect that the difference between the two > encoding systems would be more pronounced in that case, but I would be > ecstatic to be proved wrong! I'm interested in this, as I am embarking on putting up a whole host of MP3s, and am really not sure what people expect. Here's two examples, one from a non-professional recording, and one from a commercial recording: 192 vs. 128: http://www.dfenton.com/Collegium/Tenebrae/01-Couperin-Magnificat.mp3 http://www.dfenton.com/Collegium/Tenebrae/Couperin-Magnificat128.mp3 On this pair, the 128K sounds more harsh, with the soprano sounding thinner and the viol more abrasive. Mozart Clarinet Quintet (Academy of Ancient Music) I edited the original performanace, which took both repeats (and had some very nice differences between the 1st and 2nd times through) to use the repeat of the exposition and the 1st time through the second half. 192 vs. 128 (all on one line, of course): http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/AAM-Mozart- ClarinetQuintet192.mp3 http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/AAM-Mozart- ClarinetQuintet128.mp3 The original source WAV file (all on one line): http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/AAM-Mozart- ClarinetQuintet.zip To me, there's an immediate obvious difference between the 192/128K versions, with the clarinet entrance being clearly much better sounding in the 192 version. The difference is here is much greater than in the soundcard output, which, I think, both you and I expected would be the case. Now I should try using iTunes to convert and seeing if *that* sounds different! -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
