You are here

MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby Anonymous » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:24 pm

Hello, I'm just wondering (checking really) if MP3 encoding affects hi-fi more than lo-fi recordings in any way.

I don't know why this would be the case, but I remember FirstSounds, who released the first known phonautograph recording of a human voice, answered a request for [.wav] file versions by stating that it would not offer any improvement in audio quality than the [.MP3] download on their site.

Is this (objectively) the case or merely a subjective claim based on what they'd expect most people to notice? I mean, if someone wanted to try to 'restore' or bring certain elements of the recording out, wouldn't they be better off using a high def [.wav] file?
Anonymous

Re: MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby narcoman » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:38 pm

they were fobbing you off!!!
narcoman
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3439
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 11:00 pm
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby Guest » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:41 pm

It wasn't me who asked, it was either a comment or a FAQ, can't remember.
Guest

Re: MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby Guest » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:44 pm

Found it...

http://firstsounds.org/faq/

Q. Can I get uncompressed versions of your recordings without losses due to mp3 encoding?

A. Our experiments have shown that the 128 kbps mp3 files available on FirstSounds.org are more than sufficient to convey all audio information in the original phonautograms.
Guest

Re: MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:57 pm

Our experiments have shown that the 128 kbps mp3 files available on FirstSounds.org are more than sufficient to convey all audio information in the original phonautograms.

Technically, this is inaccurate. Lossy audio codecs inherently throw away some audio information.

However, the information thrown away may well be inaudible and irrelevant given the inherently poor quality (in relative terms) of the source -- ie. the stuff thrown away might well just be noise elements.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 17512
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK

Technical Editor, Sound On Sound


Re: MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby Guest » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:26 pm

Thanks for that. It's quite interesting too.

Is it possible to determine if those elements thrown away are pure noise? I don't suppose it's possible to separate noise (using a noise reduction tool?) and apply compression to those elements more than 'wanted' sound...?
Guest

Re: MP3 Format for Lo-Fi (vs Hi-Fi) Source Material

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:58 pm

Josif A. Soterίou wrote:Is it possible to determine if those elements thrown away are pure noise?

Yes, but only by comparing the mp3 file with a full resolution wav file, in a null test.

Hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 17512
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK

Technical Editor, Sound On Sound



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cavalier1970, Tim Gillett and 9 guests