[71 dB]

...from day one in the history of recorded music lifelike has always been the goal.

Do we even have a definition for what "lifelike" means?

 

[bigshot]

The goal of recording music isn't to capture something natural or lifelike. It's to create a sound that is optimized to sound *better* than real. Examples include miking techniques and equalization to separate instruments and volume adjustments and compression to improve balance and increase clarity of detail. These are deviations from the way the sound was heard in the studio. If this manipulation is successful, the adjustments don't draw attention to themselves, and the listener is presented with optimized sound that is so much better, they might assume it is natural.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Do we even have a definition for what "lifelike" means?

A very good question.
The most pragmatic answer would be: what can be sold to consumers most profitably - the rest, including sound engineers, would be aligned accordingly.

 

[Blackwoof]

The difference in file size is inconsequential. You don't have to find the exact line where it becomes transparent. You just need to choose a setting that is transparent for sure.

That why It always been 160Kbps AAC if I can't use that It V2(192k) with LAME. At 160kbps AAC, the more complex stuff goes to 220 ~ 320kbps anyways allowing me to fit nearly 6,000 ~ 10,000 of music on a 128GB card. Anything pure voice or audio book I set that to 48kbps HE-AAC also in QAAC.

 

[bigshot]

I found a killer track that artifacts below 192. The way I handled it, I found the baseline of transparency (192) and added one major notch just to be safe (256) and added VBR so the file would be efficient. It's one notch higher than it needs to be, but the file size difference between 192 and 256 is negligible.

 

[gregorio]

The most pragmatic answer would be: what can be sold to consumers most profitably - the rest, including sound engineers, would be aligned accordingly.

That’s certainly the “most pragmatic answer” for what actually happens, what has and does drive production styles/techniques for the vast majority of music recordings but it’s not a good answer for defining what “lifelike” means.

With orchestral recordings we could have a valid discussion about whether “lifelike” means the actual sound that would exist at a particular listening position in a real life performance or if it means what a listener might experience. However, that’s not a valid discussion for virtually all popular music (including all it’s genres/sub-genres) because popular music started deliberately moving away from “lifelike” even in the late 1950’s. Multi-layering, multi-tracking, heavy editing, heavy distortion and processing, synths and later “samplers” is what “sold to consumers” and “lifelike” was simply irrelevant, even largely by the late 1960’s/early ‘70’s, let alone by the ‘80s and later.

“Lifelike”, “real”, “natural” and other related audiophile terms are almost always just derived from audiophile marketing, typically dating back to the consumer release of so called hi-res audio formats. We might as well discuss how “lifelike” Pandora or the Death Star are.

G

 

[manueljenkin]

That’s certainly the “most pragmatic answer” for what actually happens, what has and does drive production styles/techniques for the vast majority of music recordings but it’s not a good answer for defining what “lifelike” means.

With orchestral recordings we could have a valid discussion about whether “lifelike” means the actual sound that would exist at a particular listening position in a real life performance or if it means what a listener might experience. However, that’s not a valid discussion for virtually all popular music (including all it’s genres/sub-genres) because popular music started deliberately moving away from “lifelike” even in the late 1950’s. Multi-layering, multi-tracking, heavy editing, heavy distortion and processing, synths and later “samplers” is what “sold to consumers” and “lifelike” was simply irrelevant, even largely by the late 1960’s/early ‘70’s, let alone by the ‘80s and later.

“Lifelike”, “real”, “natural” and other related audiophile terms are almost always just derived from audiophile marketing, typically dating back to the consumer release of so called hi-res audio formats. We might as well discuss how “lifelike” Pandora or the Death Star are.

G

Most binaural and live recordings do have a life-like character to them (outside of modulations from mic and recording equipment) compared to general commercial music, just by virtue of having little to no processing. Examples are ottmar liebert - La luna, jj Lin - from me to myself, Miranda sex garden, etc.

The life-like, defined here is how close it is to the original sound that was present in the recording ambiance at the position of the mic.

 

[bigshot]

The problem is, good binaural recordings of music are few and far between because they aren't easy to create. And a lot of music isn't designed to be played like that. The mixing board has become a member of the band in a lot of popular music.

 

[Ryokan]

I found a killer track that artifacts below 192. The way I handled it, I found the baseline of transparency (192) and added one major notch just to be safe (256) and added VBR so the file would be efficient. It's one notch higher than it needs to be, but the file size difference between 192 and 256 is negligible.

Just interested, why is file size a concern when large memory on SD cards etc is now taken for granted. Couldn't you just use 320BR and be done? 320 is still much smaller than Flac.

 

[bigshot]

320 is fine. Nothing wrong with that. That is two stops about transparent. Like you say, not much difference in file size. If that is easier for you, sure. I use AAC 256 VBR because it's transparent and that is what the Apple Music store uses, but 320 is good too.

 

[gregorio]

Most binaural and live recordings do have a life-like character to them (outside of modulations from mic and recording equipment) compared to general commercial music, just by virtue of having little to no processing. Examples are ottmar liebert - La luna, jj Lin - from me to myself, Miranda sex garden, etc.

Most commercial live recordings do have a lot of processing, even a lot of classical music live recordings. Although “a lot” is a relative term of course and, there are some exceptions. With binaural recordings, it depends on how the recording was created and of course how the HRTF matches the listeners’.

The life-like, defined here is how close it is to the original sound that was present in the recording ambiance at the position of the mic.

At the position of which mic? Virtually all professional/commercial recordings, even of live performances, use multiple mics all over the place. “Close” mics on individual instruments and musicians, slightly less close mics on sections of musicians and distant mics capturing venue ambience and/or audience noise. Obviously that’s not life-like at all, unless you’ve got a dozen ears or more, located many meters apart, all over the place! “Life-like”, when/if desired, is a manufactured illusion according to the subjective opinion of the engineers/producer.

G

 

[Blackwoof]

Just interested, why is file size a concern when large memory on SD cards etc is now taken for granted. Couldn't you just use 320BR and be done? 320 is still much smaller than Flac.

Why is folk ignoring me using 128GB card to justify overkill bitrates?, because they found at best 4 tracks that artifact. With AAC(Apple/FHG) my sweet spot is 144kbps VBR which matches V3(170kbps) LAME MP3 being transparent. Upping a song to 256kbps VBR that gains zero quality boost is on par with people who defend 24bit / 96KHz+ lossless despite them unable to tell 16 bit / 44.1KHz.

 

[bigshot]

I only have the one file. I don’t maintain a lossless backup, and the CDs I ripped my library from are boxed up in the garage. It took me many years to rip my library. It’s huge. With that kind of an investment of time, I don’t want to have even four files with artifacting. Every file should be perfect. The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. 256 matches iTunes downloads. It’s a standard.

The discussion here isn’t “Why 256 and not 192?” There’s no real argument there. The discussion is “Why not lossless for everything?”

 

[sonitus mirus]

I only have the one file. I don’t maintain a lossless backup, and the CDs I ripped my library from are boxed up in the garage. It took me many years to rip my library. It’s huge. With that kind of an investment of time, I don’t want to have even four files with artifacting. Every file should be perfect. The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. 256 matches iTunes downloads. It’s a standard.

The discussion here isn’t “Why 256 and not 192?” There’s no real argument there. The discussion is “Why not lossless for everything?”

Yes, I think Apple already did the work for you in choosing AAC 256kbps VBR.

 

[Ryokan]

Why is folk ignoring me using 128GB card to justify overkill bitrates?, because they found at best 4 tracks that artifact. With AAC(Apple/FHG) my sweet spot is 144kbps VBR which matches V3(170kbps) LAME MP3 being transparent. Upping a song to 256kbps VBR that gains zero quality boost is on par with people who defend 24bit / 96KHz+ lossless despite them unable to tell 16 bit / 44.1KHz.

My point was with large storage devices generally the norm today why rip close to the point you may experience the odd artifact? 320kbps has you 'covered' and doesn't take up much more space - 170kbps on average for an album. I listen mainly to flac, can I hear the difference between 320? probably not, and some of my recordings on mp3 actually sound better than flac (same album different mastering), but I have the space and know I've got cd quality. Hi-res I agree with you. In the past I used to buy 192kbps and even lower and could often tell the difference from a higher bit rate, but then storage space was an issue.