U2 - 2011-07-09 - Montreal

Originally posted by noiseless:First of all, I'd like to say I did not bother to listen to all sources being shared here or anywhere else. I listened to three sources. All of them sounded pretty much the same to me.

I cannot understand the discussion about bitrates and lossiness, no matter how hard I try. This is a webcast @192k. So take it or leave it, it will never get any better than 192k no matter how big you blow the files. And it sounds pretty damn good for a webcast, I think.

The only reason why this show sounds bad is because one of the channels is phase reversed. I cannot understand why people don't hear this. Appearently most people's ears are insensitive to phase inversion but as soon as the problem is solved, everybody will hear how much better the music sounds. Phase inversion cancels out many parts of the music and makes music sound canny and extremely unnatural.

So. I took a source and phase corrected it. That's all. And I'm pretty sure that did help a lot more than 'remastering' the show. It just does not make sense to EQ a show as long as it has fundamental flaws.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=82FBODUE

Originally posted by coodle:[..]

Nice catch! What a HUGE difference that makes. BTW how did you correct the phase shift?

Originally posted by coodle:[..]

Nice catch! What a HUGE difference that makes. BTW how did you correct the phase shift?

Originally posted by noiseless:[..]

Audio editing programs have a simple function for that. For instance

[image]

Originally posted by LSMelo:[..]

Noiseless.

Didn't download yet your "version" but is 100% sure very good. You are a living legend with this kind of works.

Just one question, asks the ignorant. What is phase reversed and so on? In simple language...

Thanks a lot.

Originally posted by noiseless:First of all, I'd like to say I did not bother to listen to all sources being shared here or anywhere else. I listened to three sources. All of them sounded pretty much the same to me.

I cannot understand the discussion about bitrates and lossiness, no matter how hard I try. This is a webcast @192k. So take it or leave it, it will never get any better than 192k no matter how big you blow the files. And it sounds pretty damn good for a webcast, I think.

The only reason why this show sounds bad is because one of the channels is phase reversed. I cannot understand why people don't hear this. Appearently most people's ears are insensitive to phase inversion but as soon as the problem is solved, everybody will hear how much better the music sounds. Phase inversion cancels out many parts of the music and makes music sound canny and extremely unnatural.

So. I took a source and phase corrected it. That's all. And I'm pretty sure that did help a lot more than 'remastering' the show. It just does not make sense to EQ a show as long as it has fundamental flaws.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=82FBODUE

Originally posted by noiseless:[..]

I'm afraid I'm not able to explain it easily, it's very abstract. As you might know every sound is essentially a waveform. A stereo sound has seperate waveforms for the left and the right channel. Now, if the phase of one of these channels is inverted, it simply means the waveform in one ot the channels is flipped upside down. This has very weird and unnatural sounding effects as some of the sound will be canceled out and if you listen with headphones, you get the strange experience like your head is crooked or something. I might explain it wrongly but you get an idea.

It happens quite a lot in all kinds of recordings, sometimes accidently, sometimes intentionally. Older LP's sometimes were phase inverted to achieve a broader stereo feel. And I remember my parents having an old TV with a fake stereo button that, if pushed, inverted the phase. Because phase inversion creates a wider feel but, again, in the end it destroys the sound and cancels out parts of the sound, especially in the low end.

Luckily it is reversible with one single hit on a button.