Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Phronesis]

I agree with your sentiment - but not with your example.

I do agree that a lot of audiophiles have totally unreasonable expectations that balanced connections, or balanced circuitry, will improve the sound of their system.
However, I'm not convinced that many of them really believe it will "make their system sound more balanced" specifically because the description includes the word "balanced".
I suspect it has more to do with the idea that anything that improves the specs will produce an audible improvement.

I do, however, disagree with your example - MP3.
Yes, when you apply LOSSY MP3 compression to an audio file, you are losing information; there is no question about that; the purpose of MP3 encoding is to save space by discarding information.
(In contrast to LOSSLESS compression, where all of the original information is retained.)
Feel free to argue that you may not notice that information has been lost, and that you personally find that MP3 files sound just fine, but it would be inaccurate to neglect to describe MP3 as LOSSY compression.
It seems quite reasonable to me to expect a copy of an audio file to be complete, and to expect someone to specifically notify me when parts have been discarded, whether I notice the omission or not.
(Describing an MP3 file as having undergone LOSSY compression is not at all misleading - in fact it is rather the opposite - it is simply an accurate description of the process.)

IMO, both of you have valid points on "lossy". The term is technically appropriate, but it will also likely influence many listeners to perceive the sound to be worse (relative to lossless) than it actually is.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

That is my point. I am not suggesting that we change the lingo in order to cuddle up the natives, no, I am suggesting that people try their best to leave their presumptions at the door. The easiest way for one to do this is doing a simple blindtest via Foobar. If you hear or can’t hear the difference, then you’re well on your way to better understanding the word lossy in context with your ears.

 

[bigshot]

Keith has already done a listening test comparing lossless to lossy. He couldn't discern a difference.

 

[KeithEmo]

Actually, as I recall, even using content I wasn't familiar with, I DID score significantly above random.
However, I'm not sure of the relevance either way.
Even assuming that I couldn't tell the difference with a certain few files, that wouldn't prove that this would ALWAYS be the case.

This is all moot, however, because, when applied to digital data, both "lossy" and "lossless" have very specific technical meanings.
A file that has been losslessly compressed, then losslessly uncompressed, will be IDENTICAL to the original.
By definition, a file that has been LOSSY compressed, then uncompressed, will NOT be identical to the original.
Therefore, one is a known quantity, while the other is not...

Now, from the point of practical usage and philosophy......
At that point you are left with the question of whether the lossy copy will be close enough to be "indistinguishable from the original to you".
Bear in mind that, with the lossless copy, there is no question - because we KNOW it is identical to the original.
Personally, given the choice, I will always choose something that I KNOW is perfect over something that "might be good enough"...
And, since the cost in terms of extra storage space is negligible, I see no reason not to do so...

Keith has already done a listening test comparing lossless to lossy. He couldn't discern a difference.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

the cost in extra storage space isn't really negligible.

I've taken a couple tests and could reliably discern a difference up to 192kb mp3s. 256 and up sounded perfect to my 52 year old ears. Spotify's "extreme" setting is golden afaic.

 

[KeithEmo]

I guess "negligible" is relative.

The entire collection of albums that I actually listen to, in lossless FLAC format, fits on a USB hard drive that cost me $129 .
Reducing the size of the files, even significantly, would save me at most a few cents per album.
Or, looking at it another way, my entire audio collection takes up as much space as a dozen high quality Blu-Ray movies, or one or two 4k movies.
(And, for portable users, a 128 gB USB stick is now less than $30 )

the cost in extra storage space isn't really negligible.

I've taken a couple tests and could reliably discern a difference up to 192kb mp3s. 256 and up sounded perfect to my 52 year old ears. Spotify's "extreme" setting is golden afaic.

 

[Phronesis]

I guess "negligible" is relative.

The entire collection of albums that I actually listen to, in lossless FLAC format, fits on a USB hard drive that cost me $129 .
Reducing the size of the files, even significantly, would save me at most a few cents per album.
Or, looking at it another way, my entire audio collection takes up as much space as a dozen high quality Blu-Ray movies, or one or two 4k movies.
(And, for portable users, a 128 gB USB stick is now less than $30 )

Agreed. Money spent on storage is a pittance compared to what people spend on gear chasing sonic nirvana.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

expense isn't really the issue. I just have limited space on my Iphone which is the source for a fair bit of my listening. If I were ripping a large collection onto my laptop or something I'd not worry about it...although frankly, since I can't tell the difference anyway I'd probably still go with 320kb mp3.

I also do my best to not spend ridiculous amounts chasing sonic nirvana. I have pretty reasonable, real world expectations and I keep the expenses down. I won't spend crazy money on negligible sonic improvements...

 

[bigshot]

Wasted space is wasted no matter how economical it is. If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter. I have a massive library that would be a royal PITA to manage lossless. AAC 256 VBR sounds identical to lossless and it works perfectly in everything, from my main speaker system to the limited space available on my iPhone. Why bother with bits you can't hear?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Wasted space is wasted no matter how economical it is. If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter. I have a massive library that would be a royal PITA to manage lossless. AAC 256 VBR sounds identical to lossless and it works perfectly in everything, from my main speaker system to the limited space available on my iPhone. Why bother with bits you can't hear?

yeah I have a bit of a philosophical issue with the whole law of diminishing returns aspect of things. I don't like spending 4 times as much (whether it be money or data space or whatever) for a 3 or 4% improvement. It feels like spending $80000 on a car that - compared to the $20000 version - has 5% more horsepower and a set of designer floor mats.

 

[KeithEmo]

Obviously this is going to depend on exactly how you plan to use something....
HOWEVER, I dispute your absolutely general statement that: "If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter".
In fact, all you can say for certain is that: "Using your current equipment, and your ears, you cannot hear any difference."
Therefore, at most, you may reasonably generalize your results to others who plan to listen to those files on similar equipment, in similar ways, using similar ears.

Let's try a simple example.

Dolby PLIIx is a surround sound synthesizer that is featured on virtually every recent surround sound processor produced in the past decade.
(DSU, the Dolby Surround Upmixer, is the new version which replaces it on all Dolby Atmos enabled processors.)
Both synthesize surround sound from stereo content by deconstructing the audio content and routing it to various channels based on things like relative amplitude and phase.
(So, if you alter the signal in any way that's significant to the decoder, you change its output.)
Likewise, there are several "headphone processors" that utilize phase relationships contained in the content to exaggerate separation and produce other "spatial effects".

I know a few people who prefer surround sound, and who play most or all of their stereo music through their home theater processor, using PIIx to turn it into surround sound.
Have you actually confirmed that, when you apply PLIIx to a lossless file and an AAC file, you get exactly the same result every time?
Have you also confirmed that they produce exactly the same audible output using the new Dolby Surround Upmixer?
And, have you confirmed that they produce the same result with various "headphone processors"?
If not, then, while you may reasonably assert that "they sound exactly the same in stereo".....
You really have no idea whether the lossy encoding has significantly altered the way those files will play through one or more of the commonly used surround sound decoders.
(Yet we do know that, since lossless files actually deliver an exact reproduction of the original, they will produce the correct result.)

This is NOT some sort of obscure scenario....
MANY people listen to their stereo music using a surround sound decoder.

Wasted space is wasted no matter how economical it is. If you can't hear it with human ears, it doesn't matter. I have a massive library that would be a royal PITA to manage lossless. AAC 256 VBR sounds identical to lossless and it works perfectly in everything, from my main speaker system to the limited space available on my iPhone. Why bother with bits you can't hear?

 

[KeithEmo]

In that case I would agree with BigShot.
If that's the only place you're going to listen to the files - then all that matters is how they sound on your iPhone.
(I would also say that applies to streaming, where all that matters is how the files sound today, because you can't save them anyway.)

HOWEVER, if it was a choice between paying $12 for MP3 files and $15 for lossless, I would still:
- pay the extra $3 for the lossless version - just in case it makes a difference somewhere down the road
- save a backup copy of the lossless file somewhere
- make a good quality lossy copy to put on my phone

There's a sort of saying that is often repeated among photographers (and I consider it to apply to audio as well)....
- if you save a copy at the best quality, and find you don't need it, you can ALWAYS make a more compressed copy at lower quality to use today
- however, if you save a copy at lower quality, then find out you need a higher quality copy later, you're probably screwed

That's why photographers always save the negatives...
The reality is that, when purchasing music, the difference in cost between lossless and something like MP3 usually isn't all that much.

expense isn't really the issue. I just have limited space on my Iphone which is the source for a fair bit of my listening. If I were ripping a large collection onto my laptop or something I'd not worry about it...although frankly, since I can't tell the difference anyway I'd probably still go with 320kb mp3.

I also do my best to not spend ridiculous amounts chasing sonic nirvana. I have pretty reasonable, real world expectations and I keep the expenses down. I won't spend crazy money on negligible sonic improvements...

 

[bigshot]

I don't like spending 4 times as much (whether it be money or data space or whatever) for a 3 or 4% improvement.

With lossy and lossless the space overhead is significant and there's absolutely no sound quality advantage at all. You're only getting the audio equivalent of packing peanuts padding out the file sizes. "HD" audio is even worse for that.

With KeithEmo's ears and KeithEmo's equipment, there is absolutely no audible difference between high data rate lossy and lossless, so for him it's pointless. Any extra cost involved with lossless files is wasted. It would be better used on getting more music.

 

[sonitus mirus]

The reality is that, when purchasing music, the difference in cost between lossless and something like MP3 usually isn't all that much.

That is only true when a CD is still widely available for sale everywhere. In fact, on Amazon, today, if a new CD is available for sale, that is typically cheaper than the mp3 version, and with a Prime membership, the delivery is free and overnight.

The problem is when I run into something I want to hear, but is not available to stream on music services, or if something has only been released in a Hi-Res format.

The Grateful Dead Studio Albums Collection, as an example, is not available in a CD format nor is it available at 16/44.1. I can get it in a lossy format for $94.99 (Amazon 256kb mp3) or I can splurge on a 24/96 lossless version for $199.98 on HD Tracks.

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm sorry, but your bit of hyperbole about "packing peanuts", while colorful, is also technically untrue.

WHEN A FILE IS SUBJECTED TO LOSSY COMPRESSION, INFORMATION THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL FILE IS IRRETRIEVABLY LOST.

When you use a lossy encoder, the encoder deliberately discards information which it considers to be "perceptually unimportant".
(It discards whatever information it decides can safely be discarded "without producing a noticeable difference" - based on the criteria chosen by whoever programmed it.)
It may in fact be true that YOU have no use for that information... or even that many others have no need for it either...
However, it is also true that information present in the original file has been discarded, and the contents have been altered.
(Anyone who doubts this should open copies of both in their favorite audio editor and look for themselves.)

I would also really appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the other facts as well.
On a specific test, consisting of certain files provided by BigShot....
- I was able to easily recognize the difference between the lossless version and some low-sample-rate lossy versions
- and I was not able to recognize the difference between others beyond what would reasonably be expected by random chance

HOWEVER, unless you are willing to accept that MY ability to recognize the difference between a few specific files, on a certain few pieces of equipment, on a certain afternoon, comprises "the limits of human hearing ability and experience".....
Then that doesn't seem especially significant in the big picture.
(In fact, it almost seems like a single, isolated, almost anecdotal result...... hmmmmm....... )

With lossy and lossless the space overhead is significant and there's absolutely no sound quality advantage at all. You're only getting the audio equivalent of packing peanuts padding out the file sizes. "HD" audio is even worse for that.

With KeithEmo's ears and KeithEmo's equipment, there is absolutely no audible difference between high data rate lossy and lossless, so for him it's pointless. Any extra cost involved with lossless files is wasted. It would be better used on getting more music.