i am thinking that music in uncompressed wav format will better modulate a rangemaster to positive peaks better than compressed format. my thinking is that when you compress the music to mp3 a lot of the asymmetry gets lost.
the way a 222 works iirc is it limits positive peaks to 125% and negative to 95% so if those positive peaks are not there to begin with because of using a compressed mp3 as as source followed by a gain riding stage that a lot of the positive asymmetry is lost.
i have noticed this when mixing from mp3 to cd as a source.
so along with good processing and properly set levels using an uncompressed audio source can also help in a big way.
any thoughts on this theory?
That's a good observation. I remember when configuring a BW audio processor for a local LPFM, they warned in the user manual about using mp3's.
I agree with you in what you're saying. I haven't ever run laboratory experiments on that, so my thoughts are subjective.
The Rangemaster and AM signal on the radio is all in the analog domain, and the experienced ear can become very good at hearing nuances within a sound sample. By comparison, I just digitized some LP records of the same band on two different labels. On one label the transient response was crisp and the high end very clean, while on the other label highs were rolled off and the overall sound seemed dull and maybe had phase problems because of microphones being wrongly spaced during the session.
The best of analog sound gets wrung out in the digital domain, but the uncompressed wav format brings back a close a replica of the original. If the source recording is well done everything will be the best, but if the original recording is poorly done, uncompressed wav will show the badness. Sometimes a little "touching up" will do wonders to improve a poorly made recording, but back to your point, compressing the sample size will always sacrifice quality.
I never considered that mp3 files are already compressed.
So I guess another question is , how much compression is too much?
I might have to compare .wav and .mp3 files played through my Sstran to see if there is a difference in the two. I find mp3 files to be a bit too heavy on treble for my tastes.
And since I don't own a processor this test might be a bit of a challenge for me, but on the plus side the Sstran does offer compression.
So I'll go with that. I am curious what others might have to say.
Compression; are we talking about algorithms that reduce the size of a data file or processing that controls the loudness of an audio signal?
You may be confusing the two.
I'm familiar with digital artifacts caused by MP3 compression but that's a different animal. And of course depending upon the sample rate the frequency response will be degraded.
I do multitrack studio recording, both analog and digital, which is imported into the PC for editing in wav format and then put on CD. The wav format file is generally about ten times the size of a decent MP3 file. But, a wav file converted to an MP3 file at 128 kbit, 44.1 kHz sample rate sounds almost identical.
When I Record Shows I Do them straight off the airwaves.
And I notice that they do NOT fluctuate.
Its all The Same Level until I talk into the mic.
kinda like this
Music Waves (STEREO)
------------------
------------------
++++++++++
------------------
------------------
Mic (MONO)
-/--/---//--//--//
Mic is completely analog and goes through a little EQ processing.
Bad text example but the best I can do. (LOL)
My experience with MP3's is nothing but great. Their small files yet sound great. a one hour show rarely takes more that 57 mb.
32kbps at 44.1 sampling rate sounds clean as can be.
wav is good but hardly sounds different and is a bigger file.
But the point I'm making is yea, they're pretty darned compressed considering the closest thing i have to compression in my audio chain is an AGC!