Getting better sound in your dj sets (Tony Andrews interview)

I kindly disagree. I have played over very large PA systems and in fact they do compromise as their sole purpose is to get the music loud enough to the people no matter where they are in the venue. Now in arenas with 60k people (largest scale I was yet allowed to play – yes I was the afternoon warmup unknown guy and prolly only half the people were there…) this can be a HUGE challenge.
The most common system used today in large scale PA is line arrays. Now a line array in itself has a pretty good production of low to mid frequencies (especially if coupled with subwoofer arrays under the stage), but they cannot produce enough high frequencies. Thus you usually have inside the line array coupled compression driver horns that produce a lot more intereference with the other speakers in the line than the low and mid frequencies. Even as the name says the compression driver horn is made to not waste much energy and push the high frequencies towards the audience and not waste it around, but has to live with inate compression of high frequency dynamics. Many of which even start to cut out at 18kHz and above flatten down. So even a single speaker in the line array has much compromise in it, depending on the rigging style (half angled being the current most used style) they have at least some interference. A good sound crew can rig it to reach some sort of optimum but they cannot bend the laws of physics.
Just look at L-Acoustics (a high end vendor of line arrays) usually we have 40Hz-20kHz and a 134db rating (SPL). While this boxes are as flat as it gets EQ wise, they are nowhere near as compression free as a flat response monitor in a near field application. Now one of those line speakers alone, driven only at 50% and you in a perfect angle to it, might give you a near as good experience, but having 40 such speakers hanging in the line, the basic interference alone will degrade the sound more than any file format (above a certain point) can ever do and any sound engineer I ask totally agrees.

I however give you, that I also have files in 320k mp3 that sound totally horrific, this is hugely due to the fact that if you play with the encoder settings, even your good music can become crap, no matter the bitrate. And I agree that files below a certain level will always sound crap.

Yes you could call it any test you want but in real life going back to the original master and fix issues that show up in MP3 files is for me a real life example where lossy codecs are not so transparent as some people naively believe.

Kent Sandvik, post: 30794, member: 3967 wrote: Yes you could call it any test you want but in real life going back to the original master and fix issues that show up in MP3 files is for me a real life example where lossy codecs are not so transparent as some people naively believe.

That’s totally not the point i’m trying to make. What i’m talking about is to first verify in an objective way that these issues exist in the first place and if lossy audio compression is really so flawed as you (to qoute your own words) so “naively believe”. Because that’s what you do. You say, “I’ve listened to both, mp3 sounds like crap, just believe me because i’m a professional.”
And i say “first do a real and proper blind listening test, beacuse that’s the only way to verify that a state of the art mp3 codec (which usually means lame with at least vbr setting –v2, i’m not talking about low-bitrate files of course) really introduces the problems say you are hearing”. This isn’t about me defending lossy audio compression at any cost. It’s about bringing some objectivity into the discussion. And when you’ve done that test and reached a conclusive result (a positive test result means a significantly bigger success rate than 50% at a high enough number of test passes, 16 times is standard practice), i promise i’ll believe you, whatever the conclusion might be. Accept the challenge?

Maximlee, post: 30822, member: 2165 wrote: It surpirises me that almost everyone is defending mp3s compared to WAV.

I don’t. I’m voicing my concern about the way people voice their opinions pro or contra lossy audio formats without a proper foundation. Most people tend to believe whatever they’ve heard first about such a thing. My own experience (based on my own blind listening tests i’ve done some years ago) is that i can’t tell any difference between an uncompressed cd-quality wav or flac file and a high bitrate lame mp3. But… don’t jump to any conclusions from that. Those tests i did only prove that my humble self can’t hear any difference. There sure are people around with younger, better trained ears and with better playback equipment. They might hear things that my ears aren’t quite able to pick up. That’s why i say you should try it out for yourself in an objective and scientific way, to be sure what you’re talking about. As i already said, our brain can trick us when we know we’re listening to a lossy or a lossless file.

Terry_42, post: 30840, member: 1843 wrote: (…) as their CDs sound worse and more compressed than most of my mp3s…

Whow, you’re confusing lossy data reduction (mp3, etc.) with dynamics processing here. Two different subjects. But i agree, those albums are unlistenable.

Groschi, post: 30843, member: 3845 wrote: Whow, you’re confusing lossy data reduction (mp3, etc.) with dynamics processing here. Two different subjects. But i agree, those albums are unlistenable.

It was just my point of saying: Even if it is a CD, it can still sound bad if done badly… not ment to compare the 2, sorry if that was indicated…

Well said Will, meaning that in the real world it doesnt make much difference because a lot of other parameters come into play…club, how full it is, pa system, , setup of the pa, eq setup, sound card, program etc etc.

BUT, if you had the perfect setup of all the above, then a cd would be the superior. or a wav. The difference to a “good” mp3, meaning that it was ripped with the “right” settings, with a “good”program @320 would be small but there would be a difference. noticeable or not noticeable and how noticeable it doesn’t matter because it is unarguably true.

HOWEVER, assuming that our energy and funds are limited. is it better to focus our energy on that perfect mix, right eq, music knowledge, software setup etc etc or finding that song in a wav file?

Same with the money, better pa/lights/controller/cables etc? or get that wav? though i never purchased wavs apart from real cds of course. is there much difference? i dont know

Hee Won Jung, post: 31008, member: 948 wrote: In the day where everyone listens to their favorite tracks wearing shitty ipod headphones…99.9% of them dont really even know all the subtle nuances that a lot of producers put into their tracks.

*sarcasm warning*
Oh, you’ve got that one wrong. Those are fashion accessories. We don’t wear them for their sound but for their looks. Or just so everyone can see that we can afford the newest lifestyle product the crapple corporation forces us to buy if we want to be taken seriously by other incredibly hip people. Of what use is the greatest sound quality if you’re not looking super cool while wearing it? What? Skullcandys sound like crap you say? But look at those flashy colors!