or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Lossless vs. Lossy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lossless vs. Lossy - Page 3

post #31 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

 

Well, CD is still a lossy format.

 

Really? :rolleyes:

post #32 of 76

Yeah... no.

 

Lossy refers to data compression. Rip a CD, convert it to 44.1/16 (does nothing), burn it to CD, rip it again ... it always stays the same. That's lossless.

 

On the other hand, if you use a lossy encoder, each generation will suffer from additional information loss, until all that is left is garbage. That's lossy.


Edited by xnor - 11/6/13 at 7:44pm
post #33 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 


No, maybe you mean something different but usually you always listen to a mixdown regardless of format.

 

44.1/16 is fine (covers the whole hearing range and has a high dynamic range) and is the most common format. Encoding something with a higher sample rate just introduces more variables into the comparison.

 

edit: What you could do is compare 96/24 to 44.1/16 and then compare 44.1/16 to lossy.

I understand 16/44.1 is "fine", but it's not a master, i.e. "lossless"

 

With all due respect and please don't take offense, but I think that context is lost on you. Do you understand what I'm saying in regards to an actual original master (lossless)?

post #34 of 76

I'm not offended at all, just pedantic.

The original master can very well be a CD. Anyway, this has nothing to do with "lossless" or "lossy". If you insist on referring to CD as lossy then so is 24/96 and especially DSD (SACD) etc.

 

Since people so far have failed distinguishing say 96/24 from 44.1/16 under normal listening conditions I don't see why we should source such files now to make comparisons with their lossy versions.


Edited by xnor - 11/6/13 at 8:08pm
post #35 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

I'm not offended at all, just pedantic.

The original master can very well be a CD. Anyway, this has nothing to do with "lossless" or "lossy". If you insist on referring to CD as lossy then so is 24/96 and especially DSD (SACD) etc.

 

Since people so far have failed distinguishing say 96/24 from 44.1/16 under normal listening conditions I don't see why we should source such files now to make comparisons with their lossy versions.

Well some original masters are on tape, so we can't really compare that on the internet. Some are 24/96 that never left that domain, but the source of the master can be questionable. There are also known masters in DSD that never left that domain. Of course much of our music is in the tape domain in vaults, some from the master tape, others not (from safety copies). See where I'm getting at now? I'm just trying to (re)establish of what is lossless (unaltered in any way) and lossy. Therefore, in my opinion, the best way to demonstrate this comparison is to find either a known 24/96 or DSD master that never left that domain, from a reputable label company.

post #36 of 76

post #37 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post
 

Have something to say? Am I not making sense here? Is it that hard of a comparison?

post #38 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Have something to say? Am I not making sense here? Is it that hard of a comparison?

The facepalm is due to you saying cd is lossy and the later argument you give suggesting 24/96 or DSD is the only true lossless

 

Although I think you are saying that if the mastered version is done in 24/96 or DSD and then put into a CD, then the CD is lossy. Which is understandable for me however, for many, 24/96 or DSD is unnecessary as many people fail at distinguishing 24/96 or DSD to 16/44.1.

 

I guess next test is to distinguish between 24/96 track and its converted 16/44.1 version to see if people can hear the difference....if it already hasn't been done.

post #39 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post
 

The facepalm is due to you saying cd is lossy and the later argument you give suggesting 24/96 or DSD is the only true lossless

 

Although I think you are saying that if the mastered version is done in 24/96 or DSD and then put into a CD, then the CD is lossy. Which is understandable for me however, for many, 24/96 or DSD is unnecessary as many people fail at distinguishing 24/96 or DSD to 16/44.1.

 

I guess next test is to distinguish between 24/96 track and its converted 16/44.1 version to see if people can hear the difference....if it already hasn't been done.

No that's your assumption on his facepalm. I'm not saying the CD "bucket" is lossy and being naive to 24/96 and DSD as only true lossless. Ripping a CD to FLAC is "lossless" Ripping The Beatle's Abbey Road from the master tape to 24/96 or DSD is "lossy". It's not the original.

 

What I am trying to get at here is, let's give lossless vs. lossy a real chance at a possible difference. I think it should be done in a manner so it could be distinguishable as possible, like an original 24/96 (for compatibility reasons) to a 320 mp3. If there's no general consensus, then we can rest peacefully with itunes etc. and call it a day. It could be liberating, embarrassing, or no result at all.

 

Much like the whole "speaker amps sound the same" test....

post #40 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Have something to say? Am I not making sense here? Is it that hard of a comparison?

 

Going by your logic, any physical signal when sampled becomes lossy. Hence, all recordings since the beginning of the recording technique have been lossy, including the masters.

post #41 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post
 

 

Going by your logic, any physical signal when sampled becomes lossy. Hence, all recordings since the beginning of the recording technique have been lossy, including the masters.

Not my logic, but it's your simple assumption. Read my previous post, I think you missed it...

post #42 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

No that's your assumption on his facepalm. I'm not saying the CD "bucket" is lossy and being naive to 24/96 and DSD as only true lossless. Ripping a CD to FLAC is "lossless" Ripping The Beatle's Abbey Road from the master tape to 24/96 or DSD is "lossy". It's not the original.

 

What I am trying to get at here is, let's give lossless vs. lossy a real chance at a possible difference. I think it should be done in a manner so it could be distinguishable as possible, like an original 24/96 (for compatibility reasons) to a 320 mp3. If there's no general consensus, then we can rest peacefully with itunes etc. and call it a day. It could be liberating, embarrassing, or no result at all.

 

Much like the whole "speaker amps sound the same" test....

yea should have said added "I think" before that sentence

 

I was mostly referring to this

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by brunk View Post

 

 

Well, CD is still a lossy format.

 

Really? :rolleyes:

 

Which I think is a ridiculous statement and worthy of a facepalm. No offence.

 

Also lossy vs lossless is given as many chances as it wants, I don't think anybody is dismissing a possible audible difference unless there is a lack of evidence on the claimer's part. Its unscientific to dismiss a test but its also unscientific to claim results without evidence.

post #43 of 76

^ That's fine if someone wants to facepalm it, but i think my context is understood now. I haven't seen a single test done with "original master vs. CD/mp3" which is why i find it compelling.

post #44 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Not my logic, but it's your simple assumption. Read my previous post, I think you missed it...

 

The problem with this approach is that it goes into a regression loop. Ultimately it'll stop at the real performance being the ultimate 'lossless' form, an event which occurred decades ago.

 

We need to start from a viable standpoint. Masters are not for sale, nor are they accessible to everyone for a listening session.


Edited by proton007 - 11/7/13 at 12:04am
post #45 of 76

If you want to be pedantic about it, the comparison is compressed vs uncompressed audio, rather than "lossy vs lossless" as CD is 16-bit 44.1kHz uncompressed.

 

And when we're talking about compression, we mean lossy compression (MP3, AAC etc.) which discards audio to save space, rather than lossless compression (FLAC, ALAC etc.) which only compresses the file and the audio itself is untouched - identical to the uncompressed source.

 

But any reasonable person would have known that this is what was meant by "lossy vs lossless" without trying to argue that anything but a live performance is "lossy" in some regard, or that CD is a "lossy" source. With a high end DAC and nice headphones, I really can't find a good reason to go beyond well mastered CD-quality audio. I can easily tell the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless files though.


Edited by StudioSound - 11/7/13 at 12:43am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Lossless vs. Lossy