Karaoke Forums

Joe, there is nothing to disagree about. You are claiming that the various MPEG standards are somehow related or that the numbers associated with the standards are "ratings" or somehow versions of a common type. They simply are not. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact. It's as if you are trying to argue that the moon is made of cheese with Neal Armstrong and when shown actual moon rocks simply say "well then Neal, we must abide in disagreement".

I work every day at a company that specializes in digital broadcast audio software. It's what I do. And when I see someone say things like MP3's are ""sampler" files designed for use on then expensive storage, over then very slow transmission devices" I go nuts because it's a complete fabrication. The MPEG1-Layer3 standard (what the public now calls MP3) was designed by Frauhofer in Germany for European digital broadcasts. THAT is what it was "meant to be", not this story you have concocted or been told by misinformed friends. I didn't make this up, search "History of MP3" and see for yourself.



I see.

I am simply offering you a chance to prove, once and for all, that you have this unique ability. That you can consistently pick out an MP3 over your OWN PA system better than random chance. Just little old me and a single CD. But for this test to be proper, it has to be YOUR gear. YOUR system. This would eliminate dozens of potential excuses such as tampering, unfamiliarity with the system, a substandard system, unfamiliar venue, things in the audio chain coloring the sound, etc. I am willing to stay until close at your venue for this short test. I will come early if you wish. If it's professionalism you are concerned with, I will come to your home or garage or office or barn. We can have a beer or two and you can wow me with your feats of superhuman ability! What have you got to lose?

perhaps "corrective firmware" was a improper term to use. However, you do need to look at "error correction" because if you believe that the data on a CD is actually laid out similar to that is of a vinyl record, cassette tape, a hard drive, or any other magnetic media then you are mistaken.

it is quite possible to "fill in the holes of missing data" as long as those holes are not too big. Error correction allows the player (or computer system) to use its "best guess" at what the following data is going to be.

Think of it this way: if you take the very last paragraph that I typed and removed all of the vowels, you have a very good chance at still determining what the paragraph says. Error correction is very similar to that except the vowels have been moved to a different area of the disk. So even if a portion of the data is removed or for some other reason blocked by a scratch, the player or computer can still fill in that portion. Otherwise even the tiniest scratch on the underside of a compact disc would cause skips, clicks and other errors every second. And I have seen some disk brought in by singers that are in absolutely terrible shape. And they still will play just fine.

Many compact discs use this error correction scheme:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

An example of this in action is when a KJ who owns a disk that happens to have small scratches or pinholes on the top side of the disc uses a silver marker to plug those holes. The laser beam still reflects off of the silver however the silver contains no data. It is the error correction implementation used in the player or computer that comes into play. of course if the pinhole or scratch is too large, even error correction won't be able to fix it.

Chip, I thought I said the same thing, but maybe you said more clearly. Thank you.

Bazza;

On this thread alone you have already been shown wrong on the existence of both error correction software and WAV +G files, both of which exist despite your saying that they didn't.

1) I stand by my statements regarding MPE groupings, and you certainly haven't "backed up" your statements any better than you claim I have. Hence, I agree to disagree even if you don't.


2) You obviously can't believe hearing is selective and subjective, and all people hear the same as you do. I'm not going to change your mind, any more than I will change the minds of the Pro SC methodology folks. The best I can do is offer another viewpoint to consider for those who are uncertain of the subject matter at hand.

The fact that you can't hear the difference in sound regarding MP3s is actually good. Consider yourself luckier than I and enjoy the music.


Chip, once again I apologize for the hijack, but you assisted in it this time...

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Superhuman powers do exist:
http://listverse.com/2008/06/28/9-extra ... abilities/
I'm a supertaster and a picky eater, unfortunately a basically useless superpower.
The video on number 2 is amazing!

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I really don't see it as a "superpower" if somewhere around 15-18 out of every hundred can hear the difference. I also don't even see a reason for argument as I have shown a way to test and prove without question electronically. I guess people do what they need to do....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Ya think?



I do not believe this and have never stated as such, thank you. I am well aware of ISO 9660, EC and the Red Book standard (as previously stated) but common CD player error correction is NOT what Joe said or was claiming.

He claimed a "REMASTERING" of the CD. IE: A return to pristine, original quality.



Is there an echo in here? I even used your very words "Best Guess" in an earlier post to Joe! And again I must point out the irony that a "corrective guess" of non-original data is just fine with Joe's golden ears...as long as it's a CD.

EC is inherent in every digital medium by necessity, as you well know. Joe's initial post was that he will shun MP3+G and continue to use his damaged CD's because his "corrective firmware" would "remaster" his discs.

Tell me you back that statement as written Chip.



You said nothing of the sort. Attempting to use Chips post to somehow prove your earlier claims is disingenuous.



Joe.



I have been "shown wrong" on nothing as I never denied the existence of CD player error correction or error correction in general. I denied only your magical "remastering" firmware.
As for WAV+G please show me a site where I can buy one from ANY karaoke manufacture (which was my point).

You are attributing failure where there is none. As Chip often says..."Nice Try".

You on the other hand have been handed your lunch regarding the MPEG standards & nomenclature, but like a child in a elementary school playground you simply put your fingers in your ears and sing louder in denial.



Fine. Allow me to do so since you refuse to educate yourself and do a little technical reading.

Joe says MP1,2,3, etc are "Groupings" showing levels of quality. ie: MP3 is better than MP2. FALSE.
There is no such thing as a "Grouping" (or "MPE" for that matter). Only MPEG1 levels as I previously explained. "MPEG1-Layer 3" is an MP3 file. Not MPEG3 which does not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Pic ... #Standards

In fact MP2 is considered better than MP3 in terms of audio quality.


Brandenburg, Karlheinz; Bosi, Marina. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 45 (1/2): 4–21. wrote:
MP2 is considered more error resilient than MP3. While MP3 is much more popular for PC and Internet applications, MP2 remains a dominant standard for audio broadcasting.



Cliff Wootton. A Practical Guide to Video and Audio Compression. p. 665. wrote:
The MPEG standards consist of different Parts. Each part covers a certain aspect of the whole specification. The standards also specify Profiles and Levels. Profiles are intended to define a set of tools that are available, and Levels define the range of appropriate values for the properties associated with them."


Joe says MPEG audio is all crap and a file from 10 years ago is the same as today. FALSE


Church, Steve, Perceptual Coding and MPEG Compression, NAB Engineering Handbook wrote:
Subjective audio testing by experts, in the most critical conditions ever implemented, has shown MP2 to offer transparent audio compression at 256 kbit/s for 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD audio using the earliest reference implementation (more recent encoders should presumably perform even better)."


Joe says MP3 were created to be ""sampler" files designed for use on then expensive storage, over then very slow transmission devices". - FALSE They were designed for euro-digitial broadcasts.


Chiariglione, Leonardo; Le Gall, Didier; Musmann, Hans-Georg; Simon, Allen (September, 1990), Press Release - Status report of ISO MPEG, ISO/IEC, retrieved 2008-04-09 wrote:
Layer III/MP3 was derived from the Adaptive Spectral Perceptual Entropy Coding (ASPEC) codec developed by Fraunhofer as part of the EUREKA 147 pan-European inter-governmental research and development initiative for the development of digital audio broadcasting.


Joe says all MP3's are the same. FALSE


Dougherty, Dale (1 March 2009). O'Reilly Radar. wrote:
Besides the bit rate of an encoded piece of audio, the quality of MP3 files also depends on the quality of the encoder itself.

And it is blatantly obvious to everyone reading this thread that you are unable to do so as well. Otherwise you COULD change my mind by taking me up on my offer to come to you, at my expense, where ever you like, whenever you like, and provide you with a proven, scientific, unbiased method to prove your claim. A simple listening test that would take a few minutes. Yet, you dodge, ignore the proposal and attempt to change the subject. Why?

Are you familiar with James Randi aka "The Amazing Randi"? He has offered one million dollars (sitting in a verifiable bank account collecting interest) to any psychic who will submit to his double blind tests to prove their claims. The tests are even posted on his website. To date NONE have come forward to take the test. He has had a few agree, but they always back out or never show. Why do you think that is? There can be only one reason.

They can't do what they claim either.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html



Again, you have refused to post your source for this supposedly factual statistic. 15-18 out of one hundred?

Where did this come from, except for out of thin air?



Because you are making a BS claim. As I stated earlier, if you put the purest water under an electron microscope you will see bacteria "without question electronically".

But this does not mean that you can taste the difference.

The expert knowledge of Davis Pan would seem to support Bazza in this respect:






It's nice that JoeChartreuse has such exceptional aural perception and it is clearly his choice as to what audio format he wishes to utilise in his business. For most though, research would indicate that mp3 files compressed to 256 kb/s would be perfectly adequate. After all, 'it's only karaoke', right?


Of course, the question begs to be answered. Are the mp3 files available for purchase compressed at 256 kb/s or more. Or are the bit-rates lower than this?

EXACTLY. The whole notion that one must use CD's for some perceived audio quality improvement is folly because, as I have said ad nauseum...YOU ARE IN A NOISY BAR, over a PA SYSTEM, with effects, compression, etc. This is not a recording studio or concert hall with perfect acoustics & silence so you can hear every subtle nuance.

Not only is 256kbs MP3 adequate...it's indistinguishable and anyone claiming otherwise is simply blowing smoke to pump their ego.



The GEM series are all 256kbs as are all the Chartbuster KJ-PRO songs.

I must admit that I agreed with everything you have been trying to teach Joe but on this, sorry, I do hear the difference on my AKG headphones For LIVE, you're right if of course you were using a Lame encoder

And I suggest you give up trying to teach Joe, he won't admit... but I'm sure he learned a lot

Hey, it's only Karaoke guy's

Ever try to get a dog to watch TV? That's how I feel.



I agree, except when blatant mistruths and hearsay are being smugly trumpeted as hard facts. If you are going to proclaim yourself an expert and spout off with other experts in the room, you better have your facts straight and not be offended when they call you on it.

Actually 320, but what's 64kbps among friends?

...how silly of me! I stand corrected.

The thing that puzzles me is why go to such lengths to argue having the best sound and then proclaim Backstage, Amerising, Music Maestro, and Karaoke Bay to be adequate replacements for Sound Choice? Aren't there differences in sound quality there, also?

"it's just karaoke"
no wonder our industries in turmoil when i see this statement keep popping up.

cd's going the way of 8 track was inevitable, i personally did not see it being completely dumped in one big shot like this though.
i can handle buying one track at a time, as long as it is the best i can get, it is what it is.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Sorry, did't mean to offend anyone but you have to admit that a Karaoke Track is not always well recorded/masterized, so this CD sound versus an mp3 at 256-320k is a waste of time an energy, an mp3 file could easily sound better than a CDG player with a low end D/A converter combined with low end cables I would personnaly never consider running a show on CD, but hey, what do I know, I'm no KJ

And yes, Karaoke is just Karaoke, it's for fun, it doesn't mean a KJ can't take his job seriously and care about the quality of his sound

WOW! That's a LOT of typing!

Let's keep it simple. NO ONE argues the fact that converting to MP3 deletes a large amount of audio information ( Except maybe Bazza- but he would argue sky color with me if he couldn't didn't find anything else). If one doesn't believe ME, feel free to check with Lon, or other technically proficient posters here, or run one of the electronic tests discussed earlier.

Therefore, based on the fact that audio information is deleted, the sound produced by that source must be altered as well.

Therefore, the only REAL arguement here is whether you believe that a human being can perceive that difference.

OK, the percentages that I state are based not on any MP3 test, but statistical norms of the human hearing range.

( Before you say it, look it up YOURSELF. Then you'll KNOW. If I do it Bazza will just come up with another arguement).

BTW- These tests are also how we know that our hearing range differs from other species. The huming hearing range has a median, and also has exceptions to the median group.

Does any human beings have the RANGE on either side to pick up those differences? Yes. ( BTW, that 15-18% is actually split between the two ends of the audio spectrum. Very few have the ability as both ends. In my case, the payback is in the mid-range which is bit less than normal)

But there's another variable- and Bazza's gonna love it. Let's call it "Audio Correction Wetware"

The human brain will, in many cases make "corrections" to fit it's owner's perception of what SHOULD be.

Example: In the original production of the movie "Psycho", the ONLY time the color red was used was in the shower scene, to add to the shock value. For instance, in a scene incorporating a Coca Cola sign, said sign was actually rust colored, but this went unnoticed because the mind "corrected what the eye actually saw.

So there are actually 2 variables in play. The range of the listener's hearing, and the ability of his mind- or lack of it- to "correct" his perception.

In short the perception of sound is limited to the individual perceiving it. Anyone who claims to know what anyone else can hear is making a false assumption.

One might electronically measure the CAPABILITY of hearing in a certain range, but there is no way to measure perception.

No MP3s for me, thanks. All others? Enjoy....

I wish the happiest of Thanksgivings to Bazza, Mickey, and ALL here on the foum! Be safe, be happy, and be well fed!

I'm off to a very long busy weekend that starts TONITE!

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

You said I didn't prove it. So I proved it.



MP3 is by design a "lossy" format. No one has ever denied that. The key is that you claim to be able to easily detect the difference and refuse to prove it.

Sure, just look at a WAV /s a MP3. One is obviously smaller, but i go back to my water analogy. Just because there IS a difference...doesn't mean you can TASTE (or hear) the difference.



Exactly...and when it comes to a Karaoke CD v/s a 256kbs VBR MP3 over a PA system in a noisy bar I do not believe they can.



Hey now. You told me I had to prove MY point with sources! Why don't you prove yours with sources too? I have tried to find your mystery stat and cannot. PLEASE point me to a an independent source and I will believe it.



Actually, I am very familiar with Psychoacoustics and Auditory masking and it is very real. In fact, MP3 are based heavily in them because they work so well. Often when presented with two frequencies simultaneously, the brain and ear cannot discern between the two. Codecs take advantage of this by eliminating the masked frequency since you cant hear it anyway (some of your "deleted audio information"). One of the predecessors to MPEG audio was even called "Perceptual Transform Coding" (PXFM) which used the same methodology.



I believe I have proven my point to the independent observers and I will let you have your "out".

Have a great Thanksgiving to you as well and enjoy your CD's!

I'm sorry but I've read this thread and find that even after one proves that your opinion has flaws, you still seem to not let go of your preconceived notions.

In the b/w film "Psycho", color was NEVER used. Chocolate syrup was what Hitchcock used in filming the shower scene:

"Despite the fact that the entire film is in black and white, several viewers vividly (and specifically) recall the "red" blood as it swirled down the shower drain. Obviously, this could not be true, not just for the fact of the black and white film, but the blood was actually Bosco chocolate syrup. Although feature films were produced in color at the time, newsreels were shown in black and white. Filming the movie in black and white might have made it seem less gory (see other trivia), but it also might have seemed more real to viewers at the time who were used to seeing the news in black and white."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/trivia

Just like in the comment above from the IMDb, your perception of sound of mp3 vs CD is all in your mind and not reality like the people who "thought" they saw red in the b/w movie which used dark brown chocolate syrup for the blood.

Also your post,"the ONLY time the color red was used was in the shower scene", you appear to state it as fact. Here you have again, it seems, post nothing but an assumption with nothing to back it up with.

Just saying.

No has proven that hearing and it's perception isn't subjective, the same as all the other human senses.

If I open up a bottle of Green Chartreuse, the first thing I smell is clove. Others first perceptions of the same scent have been oregano, or eucylyptus (sp?), or pine, or others. Since this liqueur is made with over 130 herbs and spices ( pre-exile was over 600), any or all of those things might be included. The point is that each person's receptors react differently to the scent.

Subjective.

Most people like the taste of tomatos. If I eat one I am guaranteed to puke. It's absolutely nauseating to me. If one watches the Food Channel one can watch trained chefs disagree on whether something tastes good or not.

Subjective.

Two people sit in the same room, and one is chilly while the other is comfortable or warm. Sure, one could be tired or sick or have a slower or faster matabolism, or whatever- but they still perceive the same temperature differently.

Subjective.

Is the print that you are reading clear as a bell, or a bit blurry. Do those who are color blind perceive the scenery the same as all others? Sunlight is less bothersome to the dark-yed than the more sensitive blue-eyed folk.

Subjective.


So:

1) Even Bazza admits that there is audio loss when files are ripped to MP3.

2) If audio is lost, then the track is altered- no question there either

Yet for some unknown reason, there are people hear who actually believe that hearing is an absolute. No variations between people. Everything sounds exactly the same to all.

On top of that, after all kinds of debate and after few years of doing so, NO ONE has ever explained WHY they believe that.

OR

Some simply don't believe converting to MP3 deletes audio, despite all the technical ways to prove that it does.

Or

Some simply don't follow the logic that deleting audio alters the music source- Kind of like saying that if you paint your face bright green it doesn't alter the color.....?

There is absolutely nothing to argue about here. People will believe what they will- Why, I don't know.

Bazza, First have I found you to make false statements such as:
Joe says MPEG audio is all crap and a file from 10 years ago is the same as today.
( never said it, and acknowleged the difference right on this thread)

From page one, when you spouted the same nonsense:

1) - Nope, I never have. MP3s of that era are nowhere near the quality of today's MP3s. Unfortunately, everything that falls within the MP3
grouping has both a lower AND upper limit to it's quality.



Tell me about no WAV + Gs again?

Second, I just don't find you extremely knowledeable on this subject. No useful info.

You can type "false in big bold red letters as often as you wish, but doing so doesn't change logic or facts even slightly.

BTW- Did you know that properly tuned pianos of the last 250 yers are no longer accoustically "in tume"? If it were, the modern ear would find it grating. NOW each fifth is flattened ( lowered in pitch) by a fifthieth of a semi-tone, knwn as "two cents".

This is done because the modern ear has become used to said "error tuning" ( because it spreads greater error throughout the piano's range, mimimizing it's effect, and allowing the modern ear to correct for it. Again, this is ONLY since the time of Bach.

Artificial flavors: A flavor chemist from Fritz, Dodge, and Alcott, inc. has stated that they have "moved away from the utilization of fresh flavor. It just isn't familiar anymore..."

Go figure....
I'm off to another thread....Done here. Bash away.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

But you claim you can hear the difference in brand of mic cable....which I think is just as if not more controversial.

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.