Lossless audio formats, why didnt WAV take off?

[KAZANI]

Ever watch videos on youtube? That is why lossy compression is still around.

Making or watching a youtube video doesn't require you to keep your audio library in lossy.

 

[Cogman]

The untrained ear is untrained. Most people who are passive about these things would fail such tests. People who live and breath sound can here/describe the nuances.

The is BS, plain and simple. There is no such thing as "the untrained ear" or "the golden ear". Everyone with normal hearing can hear the same thing.

Like I said, people who claim to have such elite training and advance skills often FAIL the double blind tests. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit (Ok, this is not lossless, but it gets the point across.)

It doesn't surprise me though. The audio industry is the biggest "full of crap" industry on the face of this planet. I kid you not, there is a large group people out there that swear there is a difference between lossless and uncompressed (and no, that wasn't a typo). With that in mind, you have to question whether something is accurate.

 

[Cogman]

Making or watching a youtube video doesn't require you to keep your audio library in lossy.

You asked why it is still around, I gave you the answer.

There are other reasons it is still around and why people keep their libraries in it. Things like Itunes benefit from lossy compression because not everyone has high speed internet, so a song that is 27mb would just be a nightmare for them to download.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The is BS, plain and simple. There is no such thing as "the untrained ear" or "the golden ear". Everyone with normal hearing can hear the same thing...

From the article you linked:

Eight of the 10 participants expressed a preference for the higher-bit rate songs while listening with the Apple buds, compared to only six who picked the higher-quality track while listening to the Shure’s... All four musicians picked the higher-quality track while listening to the Apples, and three of the four were correct with the Shures

This at least implies that the musicians' "trained ears" were superior.

 

[Cogman]

From the article you linked:This at least implies that the musicians' "trained ears" were superior.

If you actually read the article, they were all not very confident about the results. We are talking about dumb luck. The fact that they performed much worse with the higher quality earbuds should make that pretty self evident.

None of them were absolutely sure about their choices with either set of earphones, even after an average of five back-to-back A/B listening tests.

 

[KAZANI]

If you actually read the article, they were all not very confident about the results. We are talking about dumb luck. The fact that they performed much worse with the higher quality earbuds should make that pretty self evident.

I think you rely too much on a test done using earbuds and lossy compression to reach conclusions on the bullshitness of audio purists' claims of better hearing. I know my hearing, and I can discern between lossy and lossless on a side by side comparison.

 

[JSt0rm]

The is BS, plain and simple. There is no such thing as "the untrained ear" or "the golden ear". Everyone with normal hearing can hear the same thing.

Like I said, people who claim to have such elite training and advance skills often FAIL the double blind tests. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit (Ok, this is not lossless, but it gets the point across.)

It doesn't surprise me though. The audio industry is the biggest "full of crap" industry on the face of this planet. I kid you not, there is a large group people out there that swear there is a difference between lossless and uncompressed (and no, that wasn't a typo). With that in mind, you have to question whether something is accurate.

Wow. LOL. Anyways I never said that the trained ear hears DIFFERENT things then the untrained ear. The difference is in KNOWING what you are hearing. Being able to analyze the layers of sound in front of you and understanding what it means. This is not something normal people do.

They dont do it because in the natural world if a tiger growls from behind you the important thing to know is that there is a tiger behind you. Now if you were to analyze what you heard you could hear if the growl was wet or dry or weezy or any other numerous things.

Turn off your music right now. Listen. What do you hear? No really? I hear about 6 different layers of noise and given the time I could describe each one to you. you hear this too but you dont spend time thinking about how a fan noise modulates slowly or how the air conditioner has a dull thud when it starts through the wall and how you hear a slight hiss from your speakers.

 

[JSt0rm]

Also take the example of a preamp. There are different qualities of preamp out there. Lets take a shitty preamp with a non flat eq response. Say it has a slight bump at 10khz. Now if we record 1 sound with this micpre we have basically the sound that we recorded intact. Now use this same micpre to record MANY sounds and layer them together. Soon this "non flat" eq response begins to build up (at 10khz no less!). It becomes noticeable. The sound begins to become too "bright" and "hissy".

Some of the brightest people in the biz think that true Golden ears hear things the way the majority of people hear. This would make sense in trying to make things pleasing for the most people. This doesnt mean that most people would understand a subtle distortion on a bassline would add a pleasing effect to the sound, it just does.

I leave you with this.

http://www.wimp.com/mcgurkeffect/

Very interesting effect on how we hear language. You can be a part of the experiment in the video. All of us are "tricked" by this effect. We all hear the same thing no matter what our brain tells us and how hard we try. I show you this to say "Yes, I agree we all have the ability to hear the same things. But, its HOW we hear it that is important here.

 

[Cogman]

I think you rely too much on a test done using earbuds and lossy compression to reach conclusions on the bullshitness of audio purists' claims of better hearing. I know my hearing, and I can discern between lossy and lossless on a side by side comparison.

Ok, let me put it this way. Post a documented test that proves that music artists can hear the difference between 128 AAC lossy and lossless.

 

[evilspoons]

Back to the original post... WAV files are just a CONTAINER, like AVI, MKV, etc... they typically contain uncompressed PCM audio, and off a CD that'd be stereo, 16-bit, 44.1 KHz. I think that uses like 1411 KB/sec IIRC. (That was a hell of a lot of space when the MP3 "revolution" started.)

Open up Windows Sound Recorder for XP or earlier: you can actually save a WAV file with MP3 compression if you have the right CODEC installed.

I use 256 KB/sec VBR AAC and I can't tell the difference between it and FLAC/CD audio/whatever on the same equipment. It's probably hardly any different from the 192 KB/sec AAC I previously used, but I can afford the drive space now.

 

[JSt0rm]

so you see its not plain and simple BS.

 

[0roo0roo]

The is BS, plain and simple. There is no such thing as "the untrained ear" or "the golden ear". Everyone with normal hearing can hear the same thing.

Like I said, people who claim to have such elite training and advance skills often FAIL the double blind tests. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit (Ok, this is not lossless, but it gets the point across.)

It doesn't surprise me though. The audio industry is the biggest "full of crap" industry on the face of this planet. I kid you not, there is a large group people out there that swear there is a difference between lossless and uncompressed (and no, that wasn't a typo). With that in mind, you have to question whether something is accurate.

no kidding, real life is 24/7 "training" for lossless full fidelity sound.

the idea you need to be trained to hear is laughable.

 

[JSt0rm]

no kidding, real life is 24/7 "training" for lossless full fidelity sound.

the idea you need to be trained to hear is laughable.

Really? I just explained why. Refute my points if you think they are wrong.

 

[Ross Ridge]

no kidding, real life is 24/7 "training" for lossless full fidelity sound.

the idea you need to be trained to hear is laughable.

As JSt0rm explained being able to recognize what you hear does in fact require experience. Even if they're playing right in front of you, you're not going to be able to tell blindfolded which is a real violin and which is a crappy FM synthesized one, if you've never heard them before.

 

[Cogman]

Really? I just explained why. Refute my points if you think they are wrong.

My point, which you ignored, is that even people who profess having a trained ear can't tell the difference between lossless audio and 128bit AAC.

 

[JSt0rm]

My point, which you ignored, is that even people who profess having a trained ear can't tell the difference between lossless audio and 128bit AAC.

Im telling you that people can hear the difference between compressed and not. Double blind A/B switching between the sources I can tell the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz because i know what I'm listening for. The same is true with lossy audio compression.

 

[JSt0rm]

Let me say this if the audio doesnt null then you CAN hear the difference. If it nulls then no you wont hear the difference because there isnt one.

 

[LikeLinus]

My point, which you ignored, is that even people who profess having a trained ear can't tell the difference between lossless audio and 128bit AAC.

No, we got your point, it's just silly.

1. That test is LOSSY vs. LOSSY. You're "scientific" data is flawed. They were not listening to an actual lossless file (wav or FLAC). So the data is completely irrelevant. You've provided no actual data that supports your theory. Apples to Oranges, my friend. To to even mention a test of 10 people is not even remotely close to a decent sized test bed for this subject. But the funny thing, is even with all of that, your data, or lack of, still shows that the majority of responses still selected the higher bit rate song.

2. If you don't think you can train yourself to better process and understand sounds, you may want to talk to a few blind people. People can focus on one sense and learn to use it to a greater degree.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-can-some-blind-people-process

 

[Howard]

Im telling you that people can hear the difference between compressed and not. Double blind A/B switching between the sources I can tell the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz because i know what I'm listening for. The same is true with lossy audio compression.

Really?

Bet you $100 you wouldn't pass a double blind ABX (i.e. being able to tell beyond random chance) with the only difference between (unedited/raw) samples being 44.1kHz and 48kHz.

Stipulations:

Recording fidelity must be good enough such that the raw samples can be considered "hi-fi"
Recording must be of what anybody would consider "music", and the music must be performed on natural (non-electronic) instruments
Samples cannot be modified in any way except digital sampling of the raw, unmodified analog signal
Loudspeaker(s) must have a +/- 3dB frequency response from 100Hz to 25kHz
I agree to the test setup

 

[JSt0rm]

Really?

Bet you $100 you wouldn't pass a double blind ABX (i.e. being able to tell beyond random chance) with the only difference between (unedited/raw) samples being 44.1kHz and 48kHz.

Stipulations:

Recording fidelity must be good enough such that the raw samples can be considered "hi-fi"
Recording must be of what anybody would consider "music", and the music must be performed on natural (non-electronic) instruments
Samples cannot be modified in any way except digital sampling of the raw, unmodified analog signal
Loudspeaker(s) must have a +/- 3dB frequency response from 100Hz to 25kHz
I agree to the test setup

Do you know why I can? It has to do with the clock not the audio. so you see I know what to listen for.

 

[JSt0rm]

oh and i have no time to set this up with you. Think whatever u want

 

[Howard]

Do you know why I can? It has to do with the clock not the audio. so you see I know what to listen for.

I don't really care that you can or not, but I want to make my money.

And if you're not willing to do it then don't expect anybody to believe your claim.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't really care that you can or not, but I want to make my money.

And if you're not willing to do it then don't expect anybody to believe your claim.

Well I dont have enough gear set up to run 2 different sampling rates at the same time. While my monitor controller will take 2 7.1 audio signals I'm not going to go buy a d-sub to xlr snake and pull another hd rig out of a studio that i dont own to satiate your desire. I'm sorry. Its not a easy thing to set up.

 

[JSt0rm]

ooh and my converters are calibrated to 1.223v with a -20dbu 1khz sine. So I would need another set of these exact converters.

If you buy me all of this stuff I would be happy to set up the test.

 

[Cogman]

No, we got your point, it's just silly.

1. That test is LOSSY vs. LOSSY. You're "scientific" data is flawed. They were not listening to an actual lossless file (wav or FLAC). So the data is completely irrelevant. You've provided no actual data that supports your theory. Apples to Oranges, my friend. To to even mention a test of 10 people is not even remotely close to a decent sized test bed for this subject. But the funny thing, is even with all of that, your data, or lack of, still shows that the majority of responses still selected the higher bit rate song.

2. If you don't think you can train yourself to better process and understand sounds, you may want to talk to a few blind people. People can focus on one sense and learn to use it to a greater degree.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-can-some-blind-people-process

Post a better test that disproves what I'm saying. In other words, put up or shut up. It should be easy, after all, every audio aficionado and his dog claims this super sonic hearing that can tell the difference between any lossy and lossless.

Prove to me that someone can tell the difference between 128 AAC and lossless just using their own hearing.