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

[DaveSimmons]

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.

Exactly. I have 1,000 of my CDs ripped to lossless FLAC, and unless I lose both the HDs and the backups I will never have a need to rip those CDs again, regardless of what lossy format I want to transcode to for a portable.

At xmas I got a 30 GB Zen Xtra and transcoded about 300 of the CDs from FLAC to 192 kbps MP3, but if I change my mind I can always transcode again to 160 or 128 kbps with no lossy-to-lossy quality loss. Same if I get a new player and want AAC or Ogg or any new format. Each new encoding will be the exact same quality as if ripped directly from the CD.

Meanwhile, in my home office with good Polk speakers I can listen to all 1,000 CDs in true CD quality without needing to hunt for the physical CDs.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'll prepare some samples in a bit.

I only have couple telarc classical things, and they are in a different city ATM.

if someone wanted to supply some great sounding classical, go for it.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Dubb

Originally posted by: 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.

I'll prepare some samples in a bit.

I only have couple telarc classical things, and they are in a different city ATM.

if someone wanted to supply some great sounding classical, go for it.

I have 1812 overture on Telarc, if someone wants to pick tracks I can rip them (if I can find it...). I think it's a hybrid SACD, if it's pure SACD you're out of luck.

Viper GTS

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: 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.

want to see the math? i'm not talking about A/B-ing a record and CD here.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: 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.

want to see the math? i'm not talking about A/B-ing a record and CD here.

Actually there's a finite amount of quantization noise caused by the ADC. A vinyl record has all sorts of other problems. I don't want to go into it, but vinyl is hardly the ideal recording medium.

 

[Staples]

This test may not be a bad idea. I'd love to see this happen.

I bet not many could tell the difference.

 

[metalmania]

Never heard of 360 kbs mp3, only 320 kbs.

 

[thomsbrain]

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.

and they were right. if you don't believe me, compare the CD and SACD versions of an album. 16 bit and 44K just doesn't cut it. 24 bit makes the most difference, and better sampling rates/methods mostly help with the "air" in a recording. SACD uses a different sampling technology, of course, but it is comparable in quality to 24 bit/96k+.

i do a fair amount of recording, on everything ranging up to $1-2 million setups (in top-notch facilities), down to mixing on my Bloes speakers in my living room. taking a source file at 24 bit/48 kHz and downsampling to 16/44, even using high-quality dither and resamping, results in a NOTICEABLE decrease in quality, even on my not-so-special speakers. strap on some good headphones and the difference is very in-your-face. but i'm very tuned into this kind of thing. i can tell you when the guitarist needs a new PICK, for christ sake. EVERYTHING in the signal chain matters: source, mic, mic cable, mic preamp, pre-processing (comp, EQ, etc), A/D convertor, in-box summing and plug-in quality, mixing, mastering (this is a huge one), playback accuracy, D/A, cables, preamp, power amp, speaker cables, speakers, room, your ears. if you're listening on a computer, car stereo, or portable device, you've already ruined the sound at the D/A level and it's just getting worse from then on out.

as for MP3, a really good rip is pretty close in quality. but that's just the problem; really good rips are few and far between. most MP3's suffer from distortion, compression, and high-frequency hash that makes me want to puke. i can tell a CD burned from your average MP3 on my crappy car stereo in an instant, compared to a CD rip. cymbals, brass, strings, and electric guitars are a dead give-away. the sounds are just too complex to compress without artifacts. if you listen to fvcking hip-hop or electronica, you'll probably never know the difference because the source sounds are generally utter sh!t to begin with (sometimes on purpose). but a good rip can come mighty close, definetely good enough for car stereo/portable use. and i've heard rips that i couldn't tell from the original wav when listening back on a computer (which is a HORRIBLE listening device/environment). so there you go.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

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.

and they were right. if you don't believe me, compare the CD and SACD versions of an album. 16 bit and 44K just doesn't cut it. 24 bit makes the most difference, and better sampling rates/methods mostly help with the "air" in a recording. SACD uses a different sampling technology, of course, but it is comparable in quality to 24 bit/96k+.

If you think that vinyl is an ideal recording medium you're out of your mind. You're right that 24-bit encoding makes a big difference (SACD's use some sort of differential encoding scheme similar to an oversampled sigma-delta ADC that works pretty well too). Nonetheless, by far the biggest issue in mass market CDs however is that the sound is compressed and clipped to hell. I'm really not sure why they do that instead of setting up a proper balance.

Anyhow, getting back to the comparison, we're almost ready to go on my clips. I'll start a new thread soon.

 

[thomsbrain]

by the way, guns and roses isn't a good rock choice. all the instruments have an extremely focused sound. for instance, the guitars were recorded with Shure SM-57's, which have a very specific frequency range that they focus on, and they've probably been shelved on top of that. you're losing out on a lot of the spectrum with a recording like that.

i might recommend something denser and more broadband, like smashing pumpkins or muse. muse might be a good choice because the master is distorted as fvck and that'll be tough for the compression.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

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.

and they were right. if you don't believe me, compare the CD and SACD versions of an album. 16 bit and 44K just doesn't cut it. 24 bit makes the most difference, and better sampling rates/methods mostly help with the "air" in a recording. SACD uses a different sampling technology, of course, but it is comparable in quality to 24 bit/96k+.

If you think that vinyl is an ideal recording medium you're out of your mind. You're right that 24-bit encoding makes a big difference (SACD's use some sort of differential encoding scheme similar to an oversampled sigma-delta ADC that works pretty well too). Nonetheless, by far the biggest issue in mass market CDs however is that the sound is compressed and clipped to hell. I'm really not sure why they do that instead of setting up a proper balance.

Anyhow, getting back to the comparison, we're almost ready to go on my clips. I'll start a new thread soon.

i didn't say vinyl was ideal, just that CD's fail to reproduce a lot of the music that you can hear on vinyl. i have CD and vinyl versions of several modern recordings and you can flat-out hear more stuff on the vinyl version. but you also have to put up with scratches and clicks and crap. it's like watching a film or a DVD. the film has more detail, but at a cost of being dirty and messed up in places.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: 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

Not surprising that someone putting me down hasn't actually read my posts on the matter... I understand that it makes your head hurt and is a slow process, but take the necessary 30-45 minutes each to read through my posts on this subject, you'll see your accusation is baseless.

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.

Headphones

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
by the way, guns and roses isn't a good rock choice. all the instruments have an extremely focused sound. for instance, the guitars were recorded with Shure SM-57's, which have a very specific frequency range that they focus on, and they've probably been shelved on top of that. you're losing out on a lot of the spectrum with a recording like that.

i might recommend something denser and more broadband, like smashing pumpkins or muse. muse might be a good choice because the master is distorted as fvck and that'll be tough for the compression.

I have Smashing Pumpkins' Melon Collie album, any track in particular you recommend? I made a set of clips with Billy Talent's Try Honesty as a rock track

 

[Fenixgoon]

yes.. leave me and my mp3's alone

 

[Dubb]

if you want to see how compression affects a "bad" sounding album, try RHCP "californication" It's one of the few albums I've ever heard that the clips are bad enough to be audible on a bookshelf system. The first time I listened to it, I thought I'd somehow cracked a cone. switched material and nope, just an album mixed for radio...

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Actually there's a finite amount of quantization noise caused by the ADC. A vinyl record has all sorts of other problems. I don't want to go into it, but vinyl is hardly the ideal recording medium.

aye. i was going to mention quantization noise, but i figured 99% of those reading this have never heard of it, and since it's basically inconsequential, i didn't want to make my side of the argument appear to have a weakness

which, of course, it doesn't

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: 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.

want to see the math? i'm not talking about A/B-ing a record and CD here.

Actually there's a finite amount of quantization noise caused by the ADC. A vinyl record has all sorts of other problems. I don't want to go into it, but vinyl is hardly the ideal recording medium.

ah, ok, I read that wrong. I thought davestar was saying that there's no difference between a well-recorded LP and a well recorded CD.

I'm not saying records are perfect, but if I had the money, I'd have no cds that were available on quality vinyl.

 

[KoolAidKid]

OK, I have uploaded 3 clips for your listening pleasure. RAR archive. The archive contains the same 30-second clip in 3 different versions:

CD -> WAV
CD -> WAV -> 320 VBR mp3 (lame) -> WAV
CD -> WAV -> 320 AAC -> WAV

The three clips are exactly the same length. The archive is approximately 13 megs. I decided not to recompress the WAV files using FLAC because the filesizes would be different, possibly offering a clue as to which lossy compression was used. Enjoy.

 

[FrustratedUser]

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.

LOL!
Why do you rip your own CD for 'archival purposes'? You already got the original.

 

[brigden]

I generally download 192 VBR. Music is entertainment and little else.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

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.

LOL!
Why do you rip your own CD for 'archival purposes'? You already got the original.

However, with a digital archive, you don't have to handle the original cd again.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

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.

LOL!
Why do you rip your own CD for 'archival purposes'? You already got the original.

I have a cd collection of several thousand discs. I the past 13 years (roughly the time I've been collecting) I've probably had 30-50 discs lost/stolen or destroyed. It also sucks when I go to look for it and don't know if it's in the car, behind a peice of furniture, buried on my desk somewhere.... "disc clutter" becomes a problem. Having a flac fileserver is just easier, and combined with a portable player, allows me to never put the discs in harms way in the first place.

that's my reason at least.

 

[Dubb]

Raynor - i'm uploading some gabriel flacs now. I'll PM you links when I'm done.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

The comparison thread is up: Thread

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Dubb

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
LOL!
Why do you rip your own CD for 'archival purposes'? You already got the original.

I have a cd collection of several thousand discs. I the past 13 years (roughly the time I've been collecting) I've probably had 30-50 discs lost/stolen or destroyed. It also sucks when I go to look for it and don't know if it's in the car, behind a peice of furniture, buried on my desk somewhere.... "disc clutter" becomes a problem. Having a flac fileserver is just easier, and combined with a portable player, allows me to never put the discs in harms way in the first place.

that's my reason at least.

Same here, though I only have a little over 1,000. While I was ripping them I found about 10 that had at least one track with skips / clicks that even Exact Audio Copy couldn't read through.

Also, I have many CDs that are now out of print or imports, and the record company scum offer no way to replace a damaged disc except to buy a new copy. Some of my OOP CDs sell for $50-75 on eBay and Amazon.