Am I the only one that hates the "I only listen to losslessly compressed audio" crowd

[randomlinh]

i just don't like the ones who say lossless is the only way to go, and try to shove it down your throat.

 

[b0mbrman]

...and then play it on their 17 w/ch car stereo

 

[Kev]

I didn't realize there was such a "crowd"

 

[loup garou]

I do it because hard drives are cheap. I'm not that picky, but honestly, why not do it?

 

[gigapet]

i dont give a rats ass about what someone elses compression preferences are.

 

[Calin]

They should be forbidden to listen to radio. After all, radio transmission have losses also.
What about telephones? Sound is digitized at some time or another in almost all calls.
Also, digital audio is certainly lossy compared to the original audio.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

Audiophiles were the same way when CD first came out. They were upset that CD's only had 44k(whatevers) and insisted that they could hear the difference between a CD and LP. CD's just were "missing" a lot of the music, so they said.

CDs are lossy compared to an analog source.

CD DOes suck . . . compared to vinyl . . . on a really audiophile system . . . you have to be DEAF to not hear the difference
[or an "engineer"]:roll: . . .
:thumbsdown:

 

[daniel1113]

I don't hate the lossless crowd since they are somewhat correct. What I hate is when they pull a Gurck in every thread about compression trying to convince everyone that lossless is the only way to go, period. I just ignore them, then

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

Audiophiles were the same way when CD first came out. They were upset that CD's only had 44k(whatevers) and insisted that they could hear the difference between a CD and LP. CD's just were "missing" a lot of the music, so they said.

CDs are lossy compared to an analog source.

CD DOes suck . . . compared to vinyl . . . on a really audiophile system . . . you have to be DEAF to not hear the difference
[or an "engineer"]:roll: . . .
:thumbsdown:

We've been over this before but CDs are definitely more "correct" than vinyl, the reason people prefer vinyl to CDs is because they enjoy the distortion produced by vinyl. CDs are certainly not the absolute best music storage format, SACD and DVD-A do sound marginally better on a good set of speakers.


OK, as for the people saying that they could tell which file is which from GSpot, that wouldn't work because they will all be posted in the same lossless format, encoded by the same encoder. There's just an additional intermediate step for the lossy compressed files before they are recompressed losslessly. Obviously, the file names will be changed randomly so that you don't know which is which, I was just giving an example.

ALright, this is what I'm thinking: 3 different types of music will be tested.

Guns'n Roses - Locomotive
Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize
Wagner - Ride of the Valkyries, I couldn't find my Mozart's Requiem CD

Three different genres, each in three different formats.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Guns & Roses - Locomotive

ban

 

[daveymark]

please do a lossless compression with "Poster Girl" by Backstreet Boys....I want to know if crap, even when it sounds good, still sounds like crap.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: apoppin
CD DOes suck . . . compared to vinyl . . . on a really audiophile system . . . you have to be DEAF to not hear the difference
[or an "engineer"]:roll: . . .
:thumbsdown:

sure, there will be a difference, but that'll be due to either:

(1) the mastering/A-to-D conversion or
(2) the random errors introduced by "reading" an anolog source (the record)

for a band-limited signal, there's no change in the audible spectrum between a record and CD

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Guns'n Roses - Locomotive

unban

fixed

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What I mean is if someone wanted to make one digital master, for archival purposes, and then re-encode to other formats for portable devices.

So, for example, if you ripped your CD to lossless, and then converted some tracks to VBR MP3 for your iPod...and then the next week a new format came out called MP9 that blew away MP3 in quality/size...you could still use your lossless digital master to re-encode to MP9. If you only had MP3s, you would be recompressing something that was previously compressed, reducing quality further.

Although I agree, you probably won't be able to notice the difference unless you have a really nice pair of headphones, or a good hi-fi setup at home.

I thought this was the only reason people brought up lossless in those music threads. The "which music file format is the best" threads tend to be of the fan boi variety anyway (MP3 vs. OGG vs. AAC vs. (insert format)). Why does posting about lossless cause more animosity?

I have almost all of my collection (500+ cds) in 128 VBR mp3 format. I picked that format because it was very portable, I couldn't hear the difference (at the time) and I simply didn't have the HD space for lossless.

After getting a pair of Sennheiser headphones, I could then hear a difference (albeit subtle on my onboard audio) between the cd and the mp3 file. However, I couldn't stand the fact that I would have to rerip my collection if I wanted to use a different format. Maybe my settings when creating the mp3s were bad, but I still would have to rerip, right? By having the raw cd data on the hd (with compression to save a little space), one can create any format that suites them.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

Audiophiles were the same way when CD first came out. They were upset that CD's only had 44k(whatevers) and insisted that they could hear the difference between a CD and LP. CD's just were "missing" a lot of the music, so they said.

CDs are lossy compared to an analog source.

CD DOes suck . . . compared to vinyl . . . on a really audiophile system . . . you have to be DEAF to not hear the difference
[or an "engineer"]:roll: . . .
:thumbsdown:

We've been over this before but CDs are definitely more "correct" than vinyl, the reason people prefer vinyl to CDs is because they enjoy the distortion produced by vinyl. CDs are certainly not the absolute best music storage format, SACD and DVD-A do sound marginally better on a good set of speakers.


OK, as for the people saying that they could tell which file is which from GSpot, that wouldn't work because they will all be posted in the same lossless format, encoded by the same encoder. There's just an additional intermediate step for the lossy compressed files before they are recompressed losslessly. Obviously, the file names will be changed randomly so that you don't know which is which, I was just giving an example.

ALright, this is what I'm thinking: 3 different types of music will be tested.

Guns & Roses - Locomotive
Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize
Wagner - Ride of the Valkyries, I couldn't find my Mozart's Requiem CD

Three different genres, each in three different formats.

I'm up for it, but I want the following:

Multiple samples of each track (one lossless, AAC, MP3, etc.). The only way to do a real comparison is to have the same thing to directly compare.

I would suggest final file delivery in WAV, unless compressed FLAC sizes are identical (to make the test more honest).

Also I need to get myself a better pair of headphones - I killed my Grados & haven't replaced them yetso I'm a little short on quality headphones at the moment.

I have done this before successfully (uncompressed WAV vs 320 MP3 vs "audiophile" AAC) and correctly ID'd all three.

Also I would like you to add some well recorded classical if you can. I'm not entirely confident I can do it with mass market normalized pop crap.

Viper GTS

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Calin
They should be forbidden to listen to radio. After all, radio transmission have losses also.
What about telephones? Sound is digitized at some time or another in almost all calls.
Also, digital audio is certainly lossy compared to the original audio.

I don't listen to radio, I can't stand it.

Telephones we're pretty much stuck with what's available, I use a cell phone. Skype sounds significantly better than any phone but I'm not always at a PC.

You are correct on your last statement, any format of digital audio is a compromise - Some are just less so than others.

Viper GTS

 

[Spike]

I am a big fan of MP3 160 and 192, in fact, I don't have a single losless file on my comp. The reason? Well, I ripped all my cd's almost 4 years ago and have not bothered to re-rip them since. Maybe someday when I have time I will again, but until that I stick with 160 and 192. I even have a few 128 MP3's that sound decent. I can notice a difference when blasting them on my Z-560's and imagine the difference would be much greater if I had a nice audio setup, but for now it is fine by me.

-spike

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

Audiophiles were the same way when CD first came out. They were upset that CD's only had 44k(whatevers) and insisted that they could hear the difference between a CD and LP. CD's just were "missing" a lot of the music, so they said.

CDs are lossy compared to an analog source.

CD DOes suck . . . compared to vinyl . . . on a really audiophile system . . . you have to be DEAF to not hear the difference
[or an "engineer"]:roll: . . .
:thumbsdown:

We've been over this before but CDs are definitely more "correct" than vinyl, the reason people prefer vinyl to CDs is because they enjoy the distortion produced by vinyl. CDs are certainly not the absolute best music storage format, SACD and DVD-A do sound marginally better on a good set of speakers.


OK, as for the people saying that they could tell which file is which from GSpot, that wouldn't work because they will all be posted in the same lossless format, encoded by the same encoder. There's just an additional intermediate step for the lossy compressed files before they are recompressed losslessly. Obviously, the file names will be changed randomly so that you don't know which is which, I was just giving an example.

ALright, this is what I'm thinking: 3 different types of music will be tested.

Guns & Roses - Locomotive
Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize
Mozart's Requiem

Three different genres, each in three different formats.

thing is, none of those (perhaps the mozart- depending on the release) is worth half a sh!t as a comparison peice. using those, even on good speakers it'll be tough, if not impossible to tell, because the mastering just isn't that great. it's not that you need different types of music, because there's stuff that's well recorded and stuff that sounds like a 10 year old did it in any music catagory.

Here are my recomendations and why:

Peter gabriel - passions (2002 remaster): amazingly well mixed album, very diverse and complicated sounds (unique voices, many instruments, all very well recorded) Originally recordied on 2" analog tape, with a great, recent, remaster/transfer

Peter gabriel - long walk home soundtrack: similar to passions, except this newer album was digitally mastered from the start (DSD - the SACD format). it's cleaner-sounding than passions, and makes an effective binary pair for testing: good sounding digital sourced cd and good sounding analog sourced cd.

Harrison's all things must pass is another good one, it's an "easy test" because on good systems you can clearly hear clapton doing all this crazy guitar stuff really low in the mix in a couple spots, which gets muddle out of specificity on poorer systems - it gets lost in the clutter of the song)

For classical, telarc and Delos international usually have well recorded stuff.

 

[FoBoT]

i have significant hearing loss in my left ear and some in my right ear, so i am just glad i can still hear music, but i am thinking of getting a stereo that goes to "11" , like in spinal tap, so i can turn it up just a little bit more

 

[feelingshorter]

i dont people that do that but i myself do that when i can just to make master copies like a lot of people. Plus, some people are more into audio than others, talking about to the point of buying special cables to connect your speakers, gold plated and such, twisted for anti EMI.....yea thats the sutff..

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Dubb

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

Audiophiles were the same way when CD first came out. They were upset that CD's only had 44k(whatevers) and insisted that they could hear the difference between a CD and LP. CD's just were "missing" a lot of the music, so they said.

CDs are lossy compared to an analog source.

CD DOes suck . . . compared to vinyl . . . on a really audiophile system . . . you have to be DEAF to not hear the difference
[or an "engineer"]:roll: . . .
:thumbsdown:

We've been over this before but CDs are definitely more "correct" than vinyl, the reason people prefer vinyl to CDs is because they enjoy the distortion produced by vinyl. CDs are certainly not the absolute best music storage format, SACD and DVD-A do sound marginally better on a good set of speakers.


OK, as for the people saying that they could tell which file is which from GSpot, that wouldn't work because they will all be posted in the same lossless format, encoded by the same encoder. There's just an additional intermediate step for the lossy compressed files before they are recompressed losslessly. Obviously, the file names will be changed randomly so that you don't know which is which, I was just giving an example.

ALright, this is what I'm thinking: 3 different types of music will be tested.

Guns & Roses - Locomotive
Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize
Mozart's Requiem

Three different genres, each in three different formats.

thing is, none of those (perhaps the mozart- depending on the release) is worth half a sh!t as a comparison peice. using those, even on good speakers it'll be tough, if not impossible to tell, because the mastering just isn't that great. it's not that you need different types of music, because there's stuff that's well recorded and stuff that sounds like a 10 year old did it in any music catagory.

Here are my recomendations and why:

Peter gabriel - passions (2002 remaster): amazingly well mixed album, very diverse and complicated sounds (unique voices, many instruments, all very well recorded) Originally recordied on 2" analog tape, with a great, recent, remaster/transfer

Peter gabriel - long walk home soundtrack: similar to passions, except this newer album was digitally mastered from the start (DSD - the SACD format). it's cleaner-sounding than passions, and makes an effective binary pair for testing: good sounding digital sourced cd and good sounding analog sourced cd.

Harrison's all things must pass is another good one, it's an "easy test" because on good systems you can clearly hear clapton doing all this crazy guitar stuff really low in the mix in a couple spots, which gets muddle out of specificity on poorer systems - it gets lost in the clutter of the song)

For classical, telarc and Delos international usually have well recorded stuff.

Precisely why I requested some good classical.

Don't get me wrong I love GNR but I would never use it for any kind of critical listening.

Viper GTS

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Dubb
thing is, none of those (perhaps the mozart- depending on the release) is worth half a sh!t as a comparison peice. using those, even on good speakers it'll be tough, if not impossible to tell, because the mastering just isn't that great. it's not that you need different types of music, because there's stuff that's well recorded and stuff that sounds like a 10 year old did it in any music catagory.

Here are my recomendations and why:

Peter gabriel - passions (2002 remaster): amazingly well mixed album, very diverse and complicated sounds (unique voices, many instruments, all very well recorded) Originally recordied on 2" analog tape, with a great, recent, remaster/transfer

Peter gabriel - long walk home soundtrack: similar to passions, except this newer album was digitally mastered from the start (DSD - the SACD format). it's cleaner-sounding than passions, and makes an effective binary pair for testing: good sounding digital sourced cd and good sounding analog sourced cd.

Harrison's all things must pass is another good one, it's an "easy test" because on good systems you can clearly hear clapton doing all this crazy guitar stuff really low in the mix in a couple spots, which gets muddle out of specificity on poorer systems - it gets lost in the clutter of the song)

For classical, telarc and Delos international usually have well recorded stuff.

Fair enough, I really don't mind what the musical samples are, but I don't have any of these tracks and my recording of the "Ride of the Valkyries" seems pretty generic.

If you want, you can send me a 30 second flac encoded clip and I will include in the comparison by using the same methodology as I am using on the others.

 

[dr150]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
I don't know what these guys are smoking but above about 250kbps even mp3s are pretty much transparent let alone AAC, Vorbis, or WMA. Hypothetically, even if you had incredible hearing, there are few circumstances where you can get a room quiet enough with good enough speakers to tell the difference.

The best part of all this is people who want lossless audio for portables and cars. I mean wth, seriously, you think you can tell the difference in your car?! If someone has some spare server space, I'd love to set up a double-blind test to verify the claims of people who "need" lossless audio.

You're absolutely correct--especially with car audio!!

If you have highly resolving $5k speakers like mine, however, you can hear some sibilance with MP3 & CDs. But this is more a function of the CD transfer to MP3. For CD replay, I use a tube DAC to take the edge off of CD (i.e. more analog).

All in all, lossless only serves for having a "pristine" copy of the recording to tweak to your desire. Other than that, a lower MP3 bitrate is fine for 99% of applications. Unfortunately, I fall in the 1% with my main system.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: davestar

for a band-limited signal, there's no change in the audible spectrum between a record and CD

I would very much disagree with you on that.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: dr150

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
I don't know what these guys are smoking but above about 250kbps even mp3s are pretty much transparent let alone AAC, Vorbis, or WMA. Hypothetically, even if you had incredible hearing, there are few circumstances where you can get a room quiet enough with good enough speakers to tell the difference.

The best part of all this is people who want lossless audio for portables and cars. I mean wth, seriously, you think you can tell the difference in your car?! If someone has some spare server space, I'd love to set up a double-blind test to verify the claims of people who "need" lossless audio.

You're absolutely correct--especially with car audio!!

If you have highly resolving $5k speakers like mine, however, you can hear some sibilance with MP3 & CDs. But this is more a function of the CD transfer to MP3. For CD replay, I use a tube DAC to take the edge off of CD (i.e. more analog).

All in all, lossless only serves for having a "pristine" copy of the recording to tweak to your desire. Other than that, a lower MP3 bitrate is fine for 99% of applications. Unfortunately, I fall in the 1% with my main system.

You don't need $5K in audio gear to tell the difference, I can do it with $80 headphones.

Could I do it with my $80 computer speakers? Absolutely not. Could I do it in my car ($400 total)? Absolutely not.

Viper GTS