Here is the problem. I have been able to download mp3s under a subscription, and I have several albums downloaded at this time. I also prefer to use a DVD player as a source, with mp3s written to CD as data. My speakers are Wharfedale Diamond 4s.
Original audio CDs sound fairly good, but at the low levels I listen at, 72dB at listening position and 80 dB at 1 metre, I do not get the clarity and punchiness that I am used to, and I know from using headphones on the same tracks, or using a phone output with equalizer, there are some sounds that are lost. Obviously this is not what the recording was intended to sound like.
I do not have an equalizer so I had the idea of processing the mp3s using the Audacity application and exporting the files to disk, then copying them to CD. The results are fine, and I feel I am restoring the sound of the recording rather than simply equalizing to my tastes.
Two question to begin:
1. Has anyone tried this and has it worked out?
2. Have I missed anything here?
I will attach pictures of my DVD player, home made amplifier (TEA 2025 ) and speakers.
Initially I tried Bass and Treble boost, it did not work out too well.
Original audio CDs sound fairly good, but at the low levels I listen at, 72dB at listening position and 80 dB at 1 metre, I do not get the clarity and punchiness that I am used to, and I know from using headphones on the same tracks, or using a phone output with equalizer, there are some sounds that are lost. Obviously this is not what the recording was intended to sound like.
I do not have an equalizer so I had the idea of processing the mp3s using the Audacity application and exporting the files to disk, then copying them to CD. The results are fine, and I feel I am restoring the sound of the recording rather than simply equalizing to my tastes.
Two question to begin:
1. Has anyone tried this and has it worked out?
2. Have I missed anything here?
I will attach pictures of my DVD player, home made amplifier (TEA 2025 ) and speakers.
Initially I tried Bass and Treble boost, it did not work out too well.
Attachments
the first question i have is what data rate are the mp3 files?
are they a "good" quality to start with? even the best mp3 data rate (320Kbps) is a fraction of the audio cd data rate.
mp3 is a lossy medium to start with (when converting from audio CD to mp3, you are actually throwing away data!), so best to use highest rate rate you can if you must use mp3.
equalizers just try to put a pleasant spin on what you have; they cannot add in data that was removed from the music.
once data is removed, you can't really put it back.
mlloyd1
are they a "good" quality to start with? even the best mp3 data rate (320Kbps) is a fraction of the audio cd data rate.
mp3 is a lossy medium to start with (when converting from audio CD to mp3, you are actually throwing away data!), so best to use highest rate rate you can if you must use mp3.
equalizers just try to put a pleasant spin on what you have; they cannot add in data that was removed from the music.
once data is removed, you can't really put it back.
mlloyd1
I can't speak to your EQ curve suitability, only you would know. But otherwise you are doing it right.
I don't remember if Audacity has a batch function, some editors do. That makes the whole process a lot faster.
Audacity or any other software has to uncompress the MP3 before working on it. You get what you get, depending on th4 quality of the MP3. High rate MP3 can bee rather good.
I don't remember if Audacity has a batch function, some editors do. That makes the whole process a lot faster.
Audacity or any other software has to uncompress the MP3 before working on it. You get what you get, depending on th4 quality of the MP3. High rate MP3 can bee rather good.
Here is a picture of my DVD player and my amplifier. I learned about DVD players they really smoke... if you don't use them for a while, so I thought I might as well use the one I have. Works fine so far: good blank CDs and recording at the lowest possible speed 4X or 10X is the best.
Sound Quality of mp3s
The sound quality of the mp3s are all listed as '192 kbps' which is one of the lowest available, but that is not the whole story. Some of the recordings are noticeably better than the others and I have the original cassette tapes to two of the albums I now have mp3 versions of: those also sounded different, one was better quality than the other.
To complicate matters further, and I have attached an image, some of the files don't play very loud: I can increase the amplitude, normalize, or do something else, but equalizing does result in red lines 'distortion' peaks, that do not seem to affect the sound too much.
Any suggestions? A batch function would be handy, have not found it yet.
Take a look at this track for example: "Finding out the Hard Way" - Cynthia Rhodes, Stayin Alive , 1983
Normalised:
mp3 export settings - alright?
The sound quality of the mp3s are all listed as '192 kbps' which is one of the lowest available, but that is not the whole story. Some of the recordings are noticeably better than the others and I have the original cassette tapes to two of the albums I now have mp3 versions of: those also sounded different, one was better quality than the other.
To complicate matters further, and I have attached an image, some of the files don't play very loud: I can increase the amplitude, normalize, or do something else, but equalizing does result in red lines 'distortion' peaks, that do not seem to affect the sound too much.
Any suggestions? A batch function would be handy, have not found it yet.
Take a look at this track for example: "Finding out the Hard Way" - Cynthia Rhodes, Stayin Alive , 1983
Normalised:
mp3 export settings - alright?
Some discussion earlier:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...r-in-hi-fi-audio-or-even-mid-fi-audio.319409/
I am also reading the manual.
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/mp3_export_options.html
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...r-in-hi-fi-audio-or-even-mid-fi-audio.319409/
I am also reading the manual.
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/mp3_export_options.html
That is true, however the 'data' is present, in terms of low amplitude sounds, these have to be boosted to normal levels, of course something may be lost in the translation.
A rough plot of dB vs frequency measured by a mobile phone running JBL Tools and the online tone generator.
Ideally I should be plotting the subjective loudness against the frequency, or move up the volume at each frequency to preserve the loudness of the tone.
That said, the lower frequencies really could not be heard too well, and the frequency response of the speaker itself needs to be equalized in any case: the loudness perception effect only makes the lack of perception of high and low frequencies worse. Subjectively, however, the 1 kHz tone sounds the loudest.
Ideally I should be plotting the subjective loudness against the frequency, or move up the volume at each frequency to preserve the loudness of the tone.
That said, the lower frequencies really could not be heard too well, and the frequency response of the speaker itself needs to be equalized in any case: the loudness perception effect only makes the lack of perception of high and low frequencies worse. Subjectively, however, the 1 kHz tone sounds the loudest.
I use an old copy of CoolEdit Pro to repair or otherwise modify digital audio files like this. A few things I'd suggest.
- Change the vertical scale on the waveform display to dB, I think if you right click on the window the option comes up.
- You should be able to adjust the amplitude of any track by any amount you want, I do this all the time with rips from older CDs that were recorded well below 0dB.
- For MP3s use the highest bitrate available.. should be 320kb/s, but really since you are burning to DVD you should use wave files instead as you have no shortage of storage capacity... up to 7 times as much as a CD.
Yes, importing the mp3 then equalizing, normalizing, then exporting as mp3. Should I import, convert to .WAV , equalize, then re-export?
CoolEdit pro is free to try, what then.
I changed the scale to dB, that fattened up the plot somewhat, not sure why, amplitude and dB should be the same thing? Normalizing fattened it up further. Why on earth were older CD's recorded below 0dB?
Does it make sense to convert the mp3 and burn as .wav (to CD not DVD) since it is not possible to recover lost information? Do .wav files play better
nevertheless?
A decent (in terms or recording quality) MP3 file is indistinguishable from CD/Reel-to-reel/Flac files/etc. to the vast majority of 'ordinary' listeners even at 192 kbps, so this is most unlikely to be your root problem. On any half-decent system the limiting factor is usually the source recording quality, which varies to a profound degree, particularly with high recorded level and brick wall compression - Nickelback are a prime example of this hideous practice. Once dynamic range is compressed then there is no way of accurately retrieving it. Any recording with severely flattened dynamic range is going to sound pretty awful at any volume regardless of any amount of post-processing or EQ. Dynamic range and the ability of any given system to properly reproduce is most important to realism and 'excitement' of the sound - that's your 'punchiness', and MP3 encoding reduces this by an inaudible amount since it does not of itself compress dynamic range. (64kps MP3 encoding has a dynamic range of about 120dB; vinyl struggles to achieve 35dB). An important and oft overlooked feature of domestic listening is a low room background noise floor which subjectively improves sound to a surprising degree - the nighttime effect as some folks call it - due in part to the very limited spl capability of most domestic systems.
It should go without saying that speaker placement and room treatment will produce the largest subjective improvements by far in sound quality and imaging than any amount of file 'tampering'.
Returning to EQ, every person's ears and tastes are different, and a fixed setting to one's personal taste will help a great deal on all recordings, but you should never be afraid to EQ specific tracks at the burning stage as you see fit. Old recordings 'well below 0dB...' do not present very much of a problem except noise floor, and they usually benefit from great dynamic range. As an analogy, if we wanted to cruise for hours on the Autobahn every day at 110mph, we would not buy a car with a top speed of 111mph. Older recordings mastered on tape cannot possess more than about 70dB dynamic range.
In conclusion, EQ to your taste, buy a good modern used DAC for a couple of hundred quid or less, and don't waste time and storage space by encoding MP3 as .wav - neither your Wharfedales nor your ears can tell the difference!
PS. You could cut out the middle man, save money and time, and play the files directly from digital storage instead of burning them!
It should go without saying that speaker placement and room treatment will produce the largest subjective improvements by far in sound quality and imaging than any amount of file 'tampering'.
Returning to EQ, every person's ears and tastes are different, and a fixed setting to one's personal taste will help a great deal on all recordings, but you should never be afraid to EQ specific tracks at the burning stage as you see fit. Old recordings 'well below 0dB...' do not present very much of a problem except noise floor, and they usually benefit from great dynamic range. As an analogy, if we wanted to cruise for hours on the Autobahn every day at 110mph, we would not buy a car with a top speed of 111mph. Older recordings mastered on tape cannot possess more than about 70dB dynamic range.
In conclusion, EQ to your taste, buy a good modern used DAC for a couple of hundred quid or less, and don't waste time and storage space by encoding MP3 as .wav - neither your Wharfedales nor your ears can tell the difference!
PS. You could cut out the middle man, save money and time, and play the files directly from digital storage instead of burning them!
This is what I am finding. As I use better and better equipment, the differences between recordings becomes more and more apparent. At the moment I am struggling to bring out the high end in one album when another album recorded as a unprocessed set of mp3s is quite listenable. I have a 40 year old Cro2 tape that sounds just about the same as the problem mp3 album. By the way, tape hiss seems to be centered at about 4 kHz.
Of course there is the high resolution download or You Tube, but the YouTube version does not seem much better, though there are very good You Tube recordings. Makes me wonder if the CD is any better.
There is a COAX output on my DVD player...and there are some cheaper DACs which have good reviews on Amazon.
I hate to sound like an audophile, because I definitely am not one - I trust to physics, but DACs of apparently identical specifications do sound subtly different to my ear in the lower price brackets, and the difference between a cheap digital amp and a decent old analogue one are not subtle in the HF region on my PA (Beyma AMT TPL200-H). I went for a higher quality used DAC at about the same price as I could have bought a Chinese one new, and whilst the sound quality of the latter would still have represented staggering value, I am pleased with the route I took. The difference between it and the analogue output of an old but respected CD player was definitely a step in the right direction.
I don't constantly change my gear, but every now and then I feel the need for a little upgrade/change, the most recent and dramatic of which being better headphones; the DAC and dedicated headphone amp being in distant second and third place.
I don't constantly change my gear, but every now and then I feel the need for a little upgrade/change, the most recent and dramatic of which being better headphones; the DAC and dedicated headphone amp being in distant second and third place.
You want to export to wave, for sure. Don't compress again. Now that's the easy part.
Volume leveling is the hard part. As you've found, not all tracks are recorded at the same loudness, we wouldn't not expect them to be, but we'd at least hope for not too much variation in the same genre of music. If you don't know about the Loudness Wars it's worth reading about. @MrKlinky has mentioned this effect already.
If I need to level volume then I just use that setting in my music player. My files have been scanned so that the player knows their loudness values. The player will lower the loud tracks and bring up the soft tracks to an average. But it isn't normalizing, it's mostly reducing the volume of the loud tracks. Trying to get everything the same level and as loud as possible without clipping means that the softer tacks will need to be boosted and compressed. In other words, the loudness wars in you own home. 🙂
Volume leveling is the hard part. As you've found, not all tracks are recorded at the same loudness, we wouldn't not expect them to be, but we'd at least hope for not too much variation in the same genre of music. If you don't know about the Loudness Wars it's worth reading about. @MrKlinky has mentioned this effect already.
If I need to level volume then I just use that setting in my music player. My files have been scanned so that the player knows their loudness values. The player will lower the loud tracks and bring up the soft tracks to an average. But it isn't normalizing, it's mostly reducing the volume of the loud tracks. Trying to get everything the same level and as loud as possible without clipping means that the softer tacks will need to be boosted and compressed. In other words, the loudness wars in you own home. 🙂
Open the files, "Normailize" them to -3db. Then apply your EQ, then normalize to 0db and save as .WAV
Frankly, a DSP based EQ on your phone/computer's player would work in real time - no need to burn anything.
Frankly, a DSP based EQ on your phone/computer's player would work in real time - no need to burn anything.