| Originally Posted by Jahn 2)my ipod would crash trying to load up those huge lossless files. |
| Originally Posted by PsychoZX Did your ipod skip once or twice a song while playing big lossless files? Mine is and I'm trying to figure out whether or not it is a common problem. |
| Originally Posted by Filburt Honestly, I think the audible loss from lossy codecs is greatly exxagerated in the audiophile community. There is a wealth of evidence available (such as those tests by hydrogenaudio) in controlled, double-blind tests showing that, in many cases (perhaps the vast majority of "real world" cases), one can achieve transparency with high quality lossy formats at bitrates around 200kbps (and sometimes lower). Now this is simply my personal opinion on the matter, but, I think audiophiles tend to exxagerate the loss in lossy as a point of pride. As the original poster exhibited here - it is apparently a norm amongst audiophiles that one ought to be able to distinguish between the lossy file and the original. I think this is a bit silly, really. These codecs are designed to be able to achieve transparency, and are tested on real people (with trained ears) in order to tune the psy model. The fact of the matter is that there is minimum level at which you can hear a given frequency (threshold in quiet), and information is masked by other information; sometimes a lot, such as with rock. So, both in theory and in practice, there is a lot of information contained that you simply cannot hear. What one does have to worry about is errors such as pre/post-echo, and the effect often referred to as a "swishing" or "shimmering" sound (also some with transients, some with phase, etc.). However, those sorts of issues usually arise at lower bitrates (128k and below) and are becoming increasingly rare at ~200. Really, guys, there's nothing wrong with you if you can't tell the difference and, even if you think you can tell the difference, you may find you really can't in a double blind test. Placebo can be a powerful factor in one's listening experience. Ultimately, placebo counts in one's listening experience, as this is a subjective domain. However, that doesn't mean the lossy codec is failing beyond your finding the idea of it displeasing
|
| Originally Posted by Filburt Honestly, I think the audible loss from lossy codecs is greatly exxagerated in the audiophile community. There is a wealth of evidence available (such as those tests by hydrogenaudio) in controlled, double-blind tests showing that, in many cases (perhaps the vast majority of "real world" cases), one can achieve transparency with high quality lossy formats at bitrates around 200kbps (and sometimes lower). Now this is simply my personal opinion on the matter, but, I think audiophiles tend to exxagerate the loss in lossy as a point of pride. As the original poster exhibited here - it is apparently a norm amongst audiophiles that one ought to be able to distinguish between the lossy file and the original. I think this is a bit silly, really. These codecs are designed to be able to achieve transparency, and are tested on real people (with trained ears) in order to tune the psy model. The fact of the matter is that there is minimum level at which you can hear a given frequency (threshold in quiet), and information is masked by other information; sometimes a lot, such as with rock. So, both in theory and in practice, there is a lot of information contained that you simply cannot hear. What one does have to worry about is errors such as pre/post-echo, and the effect often referred to as a "swishing" or "shimmering" sound (also some with transients, some with phase, etc.). However, those sorts of issues usually arise at lower bitrates (128k and below) and are becoming increasingly rare at ~200. Really, guys, there's nothing wrong with you if you can't tell the difference and, even if you think you can tell the difference, you may find you really can't in a double blind test. Placebo can be a powerful factor in one's listening experience. Ultimately, placebo counts in one's listening experience, as this is a subjective domain. However, that doesn't mean the lossy codec is failing beyond your finding the idea of it displeasing
|
| Originally Posted by Loftprojection I agree with you and I don't at the same time. Most of the time what people don't consider in their evaluations or comments is how much each pieces of the audio equipment used for making those comments is worth. You can call it snobery of audiophile community if you want, or whatever other name but there is still a lot of people (even those who don't really have the money for it) willing to pay (cash or credit) a few thousand $ to buy a simple, metal box CD player. There is still plenty of people willing to spend hundreds of $ to buy a "stupid" little power cord or interconnect cable just to get that tiny little edge in sound quality they don't have without the expensive power cord or interconnect. So, yes, the difference might be "tiny/non existant" to some ears between different compression formats and feel "bigger" to some others, but one thing for sure, a "tiny" difference when using a PC with various compression formats and a pair of $2-300 headphones hooked up directly in the sound card may feel "tiny" but the same "compressed" song played in its original format using a pair of $1-2000 headphones hooked up to a $1-2000 DAC may well sound much "bigger". My point out of all this, if someone is willing to regularly spend money upgrading his cans and upgrading is portable amp, and his portable player or soundcard, why not spend $50 to $100 more, get a uge harddisk and be sure that the "uncompressed" format used will be getting out the best of whatever gear your are using down the audio chain. For the current gear used, the difference may be tiny, but who says the person is not going to buy some L3000 or R10 or whatever high end amp in a few months/year. May be I'm a snob audiophile after all but that's ok. |
| Originally Posted by Filburt My point was simply that, in many cases, one may really not be obtaining perceptible (excluding placebo) improvements in audio quality by encoding everything in a lossless format (versus lossy). Now, if someone is spending large amounts of money on equipment, it may make sense to simply preserve the source material losslessly (or in its original format), if not simply because it eliminates a variable. One thing that I forgot to mention is that many codecs do employ middle/side stereo encoding (meaning the audio is encoded as a middle component and a side component as opposed to left/right) in order to save additional space (as the left and right channels often share information; sometimes a lot). This *can* have the effect of compressing the soundstage in some cases, or causing misplacement of instruments in some binaural (or binaural-like) recordings. I haven't seen anyone report a problem with high bitrate Apple AAC causing this problem, but, it's possible (and plausible) that it may in certain cases. |
| Originally Posted by Loftprojection Filburt, I also forgot to mention that, like dfong87, I'm a speaker guy! I use headphones as a necessity, if there is an opportunity, I will always use my speaker gear before my headphone gear. <...> Anyway, I think this whole issue is probably a never ending debate and one that audio companies don't like very much because it prevents them from selling high end gear to some people who read our debates without experimeting it for themselves and then don't buy high end gear thinking it's not worth it. I mean, a lot of people think a power cord doesn't make a difference on the sound but I'm one that has experimented with different power cords on my speaker amplifier and I do ear a difference, even if it is not night and day type differences. Cheers. |
| Originally Posted by Loftprojection Filburt, I also forgot to mention that, like dfong87, I'm a speaker guy! I use headphones as a necessity, if there is an opportunity, I will always use my speaker gear before my headphone gear. <...> Anyway, I think this whole issue is probably a never ending debate and one that audio companies don't like very much because it prevents them from selling high end gear to some people who read our debates without experimeting it for themselves and then don't buy high end gear thinking it's not worth it. I mean, a lot of people think a power cord doesn't make a difference on the sound but I'm one that has experimented with different power cords on my speaker amplifier and I do ear a difference, even if it is not night and day type differences. Cheers. |
