IEM's and Portables - Lossless is NOT overkill!

[halcyon]

It's easy when I know the statistics of spotting the artifacts from a fairly large numer of people and I know how well some golden eared people perform on lossy compression

Of course, I would not be as foolish to say that others cannot hear artifacts at say 192kbps properly encoded on randomly selected tracks. I just think it's very unlikely, given the experience (both statistis about general performance and my own journey of listening to perceptual encodings).

Also, I don't require anybody to prove anything. People are free to do what they do. I do think though that it can be a big revelation to perform an abx test on oneself and find out for real how well one can really spot the differences.

I in fact had a wager about this, to encourage to people to do this. But it is impossible to eliminate the chance of cheating in remote tests like these, I'm afraid.

So, by all means go lossless if you feel like it. But don't expect everybody else to do so, as there can be various reasons not to.

regards,
halcyon

 

[K2Grey]

I don't see why someone would not be able to hear the artifacts on a portable rig. Having said this, the first two posts each of:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=63803
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=66150

when read in succession are very enlightening about the distinguishing of lossless from lossy.

 

[fiz]

The space lossless takes up isn't worth the gains I notice over compression (namely ogg vorbis), which are virtually none. I tried to convice myself the difference is there but in all honesty I have a hell of a time differenciating ogg and FLAC. Choosing between a 25MB FLAC and 5MB ogg is easy when they sound the same to me. Kind of sad because I originally bought my DAP for lossless playback - guess my ear just isn't trained as well as I thought.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman you do know that no current encoders are optimised for dual core. Why does one need such a powerful computer to transcode. You know that you would also benefit from vbr. v1 vbr new is your friend. if one can't here an audible differnce between lossless and lossy there is no reason to waste space and battery life. I use lossless to archive my music collection and transcode to formats best suited for my portable players.

I am experimenting with LAME MT but unfortunately it's not ready for prime time... you're right. But think 3~4 instances of LAME running at once transcoding an album, with each instance crunching on a different track. The brute force approach as it were. I haven't received the processors yet, but I theorise that I'll be down to an effective 10 seconds per track transcode time with this set-up, which makes it somewhat usable when filling a player ad hoc. That's the intention at the moment until people work more on X2 compatible implementations of LAME. When you consider running multiple instances of LAME, then the question becomes not why do you need such a powerful computer but rather hey, why don't you add another processor on? The only thing that limited me once I decided what I wanted to do was that there seem to be no way of running a quad-dualcore-Opteron set-up. For LAME control, I've managed to collar a friend and ask him to look into a scalable multiprocessor LAME scheduler for j.River Media Center primarily, but also for any other program which is capable of calling LAME repeatedly.


Back on topic, to add to what I said raisin is raisin (

) a key point there about the level of ambient noise present in a typical IEM-use scenario.

 

[Morte]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisin Maybe the majority can't discern the difference between lossless and lossy, it doesn't mean that some people can't hear a benefit.

I discern a difference, but I don't hear a benefit.

Do I like musically excellent electronics? Sure thing.

Do I get additional musical pleasure from better headphones? Sure thing.

Can I tell AAC 192VBR from 320CBR from WAV? Sure thing.

Do I prefer one version to another, or get any additional musical pleasure from the higher rates? Well, not really.

I care whether the portable can articulate a violin, or play tunes in the bass, or rhythm in the cymbals, or macrodynamics on Polly Harvey's "To Bring You My Love", or communicate subtle inflections in the vocals. I can't say I'm bothered about the occasional compression artefact, so long as they're rare enough to be unfatiguing -- I'm here to enjoy the music, not critique the sound.

About ten years ago I'd have said "if your system doesn't play music well enough that you just get captivated and ignore the clicks and pops on your LPs, you've got the wrong system". I find the parallel to lossy compression artefacts compelling.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The D ABXing lossy and lossless is not that hard, I have ABXed 256kbs Vorbis vs Wav and I can tell the difference 97% of the time (this is with quite a few tests BTW) with KSC75's!

No offense, but there is now way you can tell that with the KSC 75s. I suspect that you are not doing blind tests.

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade No offense, but there is now way you can tell that with the KSC 75s. I suspect that you are not doing blind tests.

I can't get near 97%, but it isn't too hard w/ Vorbis, if you just don't like how it sounds on headphones. When I was testing for my ripping a year or two ago, I needed q 9 to compete with APE MP3. The Vorbis files, while finally transparent, were huge. The MP3 were a bit big, but it covered the few songs I could find problems in at APS (I found three I could ABX, but not at APE, so stuck with APE MP3 until going to FLAC). That was with KSC50 and AK35GT2's onboard sound, using FB2K's ABX plugin.

Some brains like it one way, some like it another. Whether The D is being honest or not, it definitely is possible. Now, possible for every lossy codec and encoder...not a chance. At least one of them will end up good enough for a given person, discounting major problem samples. For most people, many of them will be good enough (I just haven't bothered any but Ogg Vorbis and MP3 due to hardware support).

 

[rextrade]

You all have much better ears than me--I can barely tell any difference (if any at all) between 320 AAC and WAV on an ipod through through a the line out through an xp7 with ety 4s.

 

[MartinJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth I admit that for the most part, I have 192 kb/s files on my iPod, mostly because that is how I obtained them.

Hehe...
But honestly, I agree with you, lossless sounds better. Thats why I will most likely get the Kenwood player. Does anyone here know if one can put in ID tags on wav files?
Cheers

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinJ Hehe... But honestly, I agree with you, lossless sounds better. Thats why I will most likely get the Kenwood player. Does anyone here know if one can put in ID tags on wav files? Cheers

I presume you're not serious.

 

[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth I admit that for the most part, I have 192 kb/s files on my iPod, mostly because that is how I obtained them. When using the Etymotic 4 series, I cringe often enough (heck this happens when using Grado HF-1's or 325i's as well!) because these files just don't provide the information that top phones deserve. When I rip, I rip to Apple Lossless exclusively. Much better on my ears. For those who use the high-end IEM's and proclaim lossy formats are enough, then why use IEM's at all?

Yeah, I bet I can tell the difference between 192 AAC and Lossless hands down. 224 AAC Lossless nearly all the time. 320 AAC Lossless half half of the time. And the difference i hear isn't great enough to warrant a doubleing in memory size. So, try 320 and then tell me if LOSLESS IS NOT OVERKILL!

 

[EdipisReks]

i rip at 256 AAC VBR now, but i'm perfectly happy with the LAME Standard and 192 AAC files i've made in the past. my portable rig is either iPod->ER-4P, iPod->line out->SuperMini->ER-4P or iPod->line out->Go-Vibe->ER-4P/S. i don't do any critical listening on the go, and even when i'm sitting down with my transportable rig the music is just playing in the background while i do work. no point in using up the disc space in these circumstances, and i like to have a lot of variety with me.

 

[trains are bad]

The thing with me and lossless, is that it's not like I can tell a difference between LL and high bitrate Lossy just flipping back and forth.

But every now and then in my lossy compression career, there has been a passage or instrument or effect that has defied proper encoding, and I got artifacts.

So for normal listening, in my truck or portable, HIGH bitrate quality lossy is fine with me.

But I would never be happy with, for example, ripping all my music to high bitrate lossy, and relying on that exclusively, now that I know that such differences CAN exist. On my computer, where space is cheap, why would I?

 

[raisin]

Artifacts are not the problem with lossy conversions, losses are. The first thing you lose in downconverting, is the original "air" of the recording, and that is the kicker to me. Am i the only one who can identify songs by the few moments of silence that preceeds the first note on most recordings?
It is that level of recognition and appreciation which is removed from most digital music. This is why there is a whole generation of music lovers, who are doomed to buy copy after re-mastered copy of their old favorites, vainly trying to resurrect the completeness of their original vinyl memories.

 

[Chef Medeski]

Yeah I rip everything to Lossless and then convert ot ACC 320 for my iPod. Its just that losless takes up too much space and wastes the battery (not only does the hardrive have to spin more, but the processor has to work harder with lossless). Definetly wouldn't rip to 320 AAC.