|
|
|
03-09-2015, 02:32 AM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
Best for live performance use, import Flac or MP3 ???
I'm doubting, what format to use for live playback.
I'm using Reaper to playback audio files, play synth1 along, play a projector video and some extra effects on the voice on 1 channel.
I have a performant W8.1 gamer laptop, quad core, 8Gb , big disk...
So that's not the problem.
I'm doubting flac or MP3 use.
Since mp3 is decoded by the processor, and these days the computers are fast enough, so the file read from the hard disk is little, compared to the cpu use for the uncompressing.
On the other hand, flac doesn't have to be decoded. But takes more Mb's to be read from the HD. And as we know, traditional HD are slow. (I don't have the option to put a ssd in my laptop)
I know there's a discussion on flac and mp3 quality, flac is uncompressed, but that's not the issue, most important is to have live performance.
Also bear in mind that I use a mp4 video in playback, wich has to be decoded. Same principle here of course, only, I don't use the sound of course.
What is your opinion?
Should I use flac and set a bigger buffer?
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 02:41 AM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 635
|
Flac is most definitely compressed so needs to be decoded, probably more so than mp3.
What kind of live playback are we talking about here? With the amount of processing/EQ going on in your average PA system nowadays, no one will know the difference anyway.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 02:45 AM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulheu
Flac is most definitely compressed so needs to be decoded, probably more so than mp3.
What kind of live playback are we talking about here? With the amount of processing/EQ going on in your average PA system nowadays, no one will know the difference anyway.
|
Thx Paulheu,
Yes, It's a live track that drives my band, we play along.
I just need good clear kicks and bases, it's electronic music.
So you would advice mp3? (320 quality obvious)
DO you think flac needs more cpu power to be decompressed?
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 02:49 AM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 635
|
IMO 320 mp3 would be fine, you can try both during rehearsals and/or sound check to see what works best for you.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 02:51 AM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
I've found some good info !!
It's a test foor a mobile, but I guess it goes for a laptop also?
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm
The wav is best, but I'm fearing that the disk read would spoil it live.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 03:04 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
So I think you're correct, flac is the least best.
Highest I/O disk read and highest cpu load.
Wav is no option, the I/O for the large files would be to much for live use I guess.
I already had Reaper 'hanging' for a second or so on stage, the sound was still going on, but the player needle was stopping, and so did my heart !!!!
I also noticed it on the lights, because they follow the playback with a DMX controller (DMXis).
Quote:
What happens if you play WAV?
A codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
As the content is almost identical to raw PCM, this codec has almost nothing to do so have very little impact on CPU use.
However, as the file is uncompressed, you do have a lot of I/O
What happens if you play FLAC?
Exactly the same, a codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
However, as the audio is compressed, it must be unpacked. This requires more CPU.
The file is about half size compared with WAV, so I/O is substantially reduced.
Do we have to conclude that CPU activity is more damaging than I/O?
There are a lot of claims that I/O is detrimental to, one should use a memory player, loading the entire song in memory before playback starts (and preferably spin down the HD).
What would happen if we translate the WAV and the FLAC to PCM first, load the result in memory and start playback. Will they sound different?
|
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 04:24 AM
|
#8
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by godly
|
v0 is the best lossy compression you can get in mp3. the v indicates that it has variable bitrate, what is a good thing, because the quality can go higher on complex material as 320k (what is in mp3 the upper limit).
v3 is another variable bitrate compression method. dont know anything about it, I always use v0.
and another thing: hydrogenaudio is the one and only real place top find information. they dont let someone posting things that are not proven. so there is near to none dumb stupid blahblahing.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 04:44 AM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe
and another thing: hydrogenaudio is the one and only real place top find information. they dont let someone posting things that are not proven. so there is near to none dumb stupid blahblahing.
|
thx ! and sorrrryyy !!! haaaaahaaaaaaa
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 05:51 AM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,562
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulheu
What kind of live playback are we talking about here? With the amount of processing/EQ going on in your average PA system nowadays, no one will know the difference anyway.
|
It's the direct opposite actually.
We'll leave the 'not really a sound guy running a PA system hooked up wrong and with half blown speakers' examples out as that sounds like distorted mush no matter what the sound source.
On an actual PA system (ie. large room sound filling system), mp3 destruction/compression will be most obvious. Much in the same way the coarse resolution of a youtube video (that looks fine in a 4" window) looks ridiculous on a large HD screen.
Mp3 is a highly compressed portable format made for emailing and low grade portable media players where full quality is not expected. FLAC is lossless but still saves half your hard drive space. Production and performance should always use full quality audio. The only concern with using FLAC in production (vs. WAV) would be the CPU hit.
When a DJ or other karaoke act comes in with mp3's it's really obvious and awkward vs. a live band or a pro DJ. Just backing tracks might not be as obvious but... there's no good reason to lower the fidelity for live performance.
Concerns for I/O for full 24 bit WAV files?
Not really.
I can run full live sound with Reaper with 36 channels of 24 bit 48k audio with a 128 sample buffer for 'real time' low latency while recording all the files to the hard drive (at full 24 bit WAV) with my 6 year old laptop.
I think you'll be fine with a few backing tracks in full 24 bit WAV format.
Last edited by serr; 03-09-2015 at 05:57 AM.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 07:55 AM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
It's the direct opposite actually.
On an actual PA system (ie. large room sound filling system), mp3 destruction/compression will be most obvious.
|
Very much doubt you'll recognize a 320 LAME encoded mp3 in most any situation here.. Also doubt you'd be able to tell which is the mp3 and which flac in the same environment.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 08:04 AM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulheu
Very much doubt you'll recognize a 320 LAME encoded mp3 in most any situation here.. Also doubt you'd be able to tell which is the mp3 and which flac in the same environment.
|
It's almost not noticable
And the stats show it also.
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/04/...en-wav-vs-mp3/
http://mp3ornot.com/
Frequency Chart for .WAV file
Frequency Chart for .MP3 file
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 08:10 AM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,562
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulheu
Very much doubt you'll recognize a 320 LAME encoded mp3 in most any situation here.. Also doubt you'd be able to tell which is the mp3 and which flac in the same environment.
|
Then try it yourself.
The above wasn't speculation. This is actually the scenario where mp3 compression stands out the most. It really is analogous to watching that youtube video on a big HD screen where the pixels are about 1" across.
If the argument is: "Well, this is going to be gorilla theater with beat up gear and bad sound, so no one will hear it." How far do you want to go with that? It's your show. There's people out there.
|
|
|
03-09-2015, 08:14 AM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Belgium - Gent
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
If the argument is: "Well, this is going to be gorilla theater with beat up gear and bad sound, so no one will hear it." How far do you want to go with that? It's your show. There's people out there.
|
Yes please, spare the people
On the other hand, DJs play all the time mp3 (128) quality.
I know it's a different story, but still, they have the dancefloor filled also.
But you're right, better have the best if you can choose...
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 AM.
|