• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Inferior Source

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
When listening to inferior sources like youtube, mp3, etc... do you adjust the bass and especially the treble knobs or even adjust the eq? If you do, what frequency and how much do you bump up? Are there certain frequencies that will almost need bumping in general? Its easy to overdo it, and it will be apparent on certain tracks, hence this discussion. TIA.
 
Last edited:

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
You really shouldn't. You are simply adding more chances for things to go wrong. To use a metaphor from the world of experimentation, you would simply be adding another confound making any conclusion that much harder to have confidence in. The songs themselves are the biggest factor and you will never find a global adjustment that splits the differences. Wouldn't be something I would try, personally. Just an opinion, but I'm no expert.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
No, so-called inferior sources firstly may not be that inferior (Spotify at 320kbps I suggest is transparent for almost everyone), but also if they are inferior, it's not due to frequency response errors that need correcting. Their inferiority, if any, is due to the nature of the bit reduction used, which still passes the full 20-20kHz bandwidth, but has more or less audible artefacts which depend entirely on the nature of the programme material. Some will be completely transparent, some will have low levels of 'burbling' (I can't think of a better way of describing it) which isn't like noise or distortion, but means that on a straight A-B comparison with the original, the bit-reduced version will sound 'different'. Note also that this 'different' isn't necessarily worse, some people have actually expressed a preference for the sound of MP3.

There is no way I know of restoring or improving the sound from these 'inferior' sources that wouldn't equally apply to the original. Once audio has been through MP3, Ogg, or whatever bit reduction, it can never ever be recovered. It will always be tainted by the process. That doesn't necessarily make it sound bad, although it might, but it will never be identical to the original.

S.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
No, when it's a single track, the track would be over by that time.
Yes when it's a mix - 1 hour, 2 hours - iow, Soundcloud, much of the day - I switch between the Monitor preset and Dynamic preset.
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
When I said inferior sources I mean example, some old vids on youtube, sometimes sounding very dull. So if that is the case, no bumping of anythin is still better touching any control knobs?
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
No, when it's a single track, the track would be over by that time.
Yes when it's a mix - 1 hour, 2 hours - iow, Soundcloud, much of the day - I switch between the Monitor preset and Dynamic preset.
Must be using an edifier, and that is definitely messing with the eq, although its way easier because it is preset. Had the s3000pro back then, it was as easy as pressing one button to brighten up dull and bad vids on youtube/sattelite tv.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
It's up to you isn't it?

"sounding dull" - hence the Dynamic preset. - And you can do that with EQAPO/whatever. But I have a remote, easier.

PS: yes, exactly.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
When I said inferior sources I mean example, some old vids on youtube, sometimes sounding very dull. So if that is the case, no bumping of anythin is still better touching any control knobs?
If it's an old video recording, it's quite possible it originally had an optical soundtrack, with a limited HF response. In which case, it's perfectly legitimate to use a bit of treble boost from tone controls, but bear in mind that lifting the HF will also lift noise and distortion, so there will come a point where the overall sound is worse. That's why QUAD amplifiers had very good filters, so that one could filter off the Hf noise and distortion from old soundtracks. It's also quite possible that whoever digitised the sound to go on YouTube used the wrong equalisation, didn't compensate for the Academy Curve on old films or otherwise got it wrong. Anything you can do to make the sound 'better' is legitimate, as it's wrong from the beginning, so you can't make it wronger.

S.
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
No, so-called inferior sources firstly may not be that inferior (Spotify at 320kbps I suggest is transparent for almost everyone), but also if they are inferior, it's not due to frequency response errors that need correcting. Their inferiority, if any, is due to the nature of the bit reduction used, which still passes the full 20-20kHz bandwidth, but has more or less audible artefacts which depend entirely on the nature of the programme material. Some will be completely transparent, some will have low levels of 'burbling' (I can't think of a better way of describing it) which isn't like noise or distortion, but means that on a straight A-B comparison with the original, the bit-reduced version will sound 'different'. Note also that this 'different' isn't necessarily worse, some people have actually expressed a preference for the sound of MP3.

There is no way I know of restoring or improving the sound from these 'inferior' sources that wouldn't equally apply to the original. Once audio has been through MP3, Ogg, or whatever bit reduction, it can never ever be recovered. It will always be tainted by the process. That doesn't necessarily make it sound bad, although it might, but it will never be identical to the original.

S.
Yeah, its impossible to retain neutral tonality with dull sounding recordings if you bump up anything at all. So you either A. Forget about anything neutral and just go with your ears or B. Keep listening to a whole badly posted album like the half the tweeter is missing but remain true to the source. Some would reach straight for the tone controls, I have yet to do it but mighty tempted to. Just seeing what the cons are if I did it.
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
No. The artifacts lossy compression algorithms can create, are not a lack of bass or a lack or treble or anything like that. So changing frequency response to "compensate" doesn't make any sense.

Depends very much on the level of lossy compression along with said content.
 

escape2

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
883
Likes
944
Location
USA
Keep listening to a whole badly posted album like the half the tweeter is missing.
Can you give an example of this?

I just wanted to hear it myself to see how I'd EQ it personally.
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
Can you give an example of this?

I just wanted to hear it myself to see how I'd EQ it personally.
Here are a few examples :

Notice that these songs sound very dull and flat, as if the higher spectrums were chopped off or somethin. If it sounds normal you probably have a bright system to begin with. Sorry about the last song though.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
Depends very much on the level of lossy compression along with said content.
No it doesn't. The level of compression has no effect on the level of HF unless very extreme, like 16kbps!
Once one gets over about 96kbps depending on the algorithm, the full bandwidth is encoded.

S
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
No it doesn't. The level of compression has no effect on the level of HF unless very extreme, like 16kbps!
Once one gets over about 96kbps depending on the algorithm, the full bandwidth is encoded.

S

Did you read my post?
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
It has virtually nothing to do with lossy compression, the way I see it... either it sounds better with the DSP preset or it doesn't.
...That said, it starts with the EAPO.
...Although I see the speaker remote presets as crossover options, I use the Dynamic like a Loudness switch.
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
Er, yes, there wasn't much other than what I quoted. What did I miss?

S

The entire post? Pretty short, though: "Depends very much on the level of lossy compression along with said content. "
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
No. The artifacts lossy compression algorithms can create, are not a lack of bass or a lack or treble or anything like that. So changing frequency response to "compensate" doesn't make any sense.

True, except for the matter of psycho-acoustics and individual preference. The OP will just have to play around to see what is best, or what is least worst...
 
Top Bottom