The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Will lossy compression ever die? Audio Interfaces
Old 24th December 2010
  #91
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
So no, a 320 kbps mp3 is not perfectly fine in that case.
And I submit that it would be fine in that case too. As long as you didnt know it was an mp3, you'd enjoy it just fine.
Old 24th December 2010
  #92
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulbrother View Post
And I submit that it would be fine in that case too. As long as you didnt know it was an mp3, you'd enjoy it just fine.
Do you just not believe that some people can hear it? Obviously 320 kbps is safe from the "under water" garbled sound you get at 128, but the music simply fills less of the room. The attenuated highs make it feel smaller.

And when you get right down to it I try to avoid 16 bit 44.1 if I can. So I'm certainly not going to use a compressed version of it.

I'm not some kind of gear snob and I'm not a music snob. I got a record player for free, restored it to working condition, and spent about $200 on the cartridge. The speakers are modest ($650-ish). The amp is a hand-me-down from my dad. 80% of my listening is dumb fun popular music.

But if I'm going to listen, I'm going to put a reasonable amount of effort into the experience to bring out the details and enjoy it. Being a sound guy and a (very small time) producer and engineer, my ears are trained. Back when they weren't trained, it was cassette tapes on a boom box for me, just like the rest of the world. But my listening skills are my curse as well as my blessing. Now that I can listen, I have no off switch. I know many engineers do. I wish I did.

On one hand I get to enjoy the hell out of great productions in ways I never could 15 years ago. On the other hand I am no longer moved by compromised playback. I know I'm a rare case. But I know what I hear. Don't try to tell me that mp3's don't bother me. I promise you I hear it.
Old 24th December 2010
  #93
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat View Post
My normal listening is me sitting in my listening room with the lights and TV off and some decent midfields cranking.

Do you recognize that music is listened in this fashion by you, me, and about .005% of the rest of the music-listening population?

What you & I need to enjoy music is, quite bluntly, irrelevant to the multi-nationals that create the bulk of the product.

People need to understand that itunes et al. will not convert to lossless / full-res files once bandwidth and storage are non-issues.

Itunes et al. will convert to lossless IF AND ONLY IF it is more profitable to do so.


Quote:
I submit that the person who spends time and money to create a listening environment that can support music as a primary form of entertainment enjoys music more than the person who downloads mp3's to the computer that they already own to drone in the background.

I submit that the billions of teenagers cranking their swishy mp3's in their tizzly earbuds enjoy music every bit as much as you & I.

Enjoyment is not the sole domain of the snob. If anything, we have a ****load of criteria that frequently diminish our ability to enjoy the music that is playing. Most people have no such hangups, they simply like the music or they don't like the music, the sound is irrelevant.

You seem to confuse enjoyment of music with enjoyment of how it sounds. They are not the same things.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 24th December 2010
  #94
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulbrother View Post
As long as you didnt know it was an mp3, you'd enjoy it just fine.
I'd bet large sum of money that this is true!

One of my audiophile friends listened to 256k mp3 all day long, endlessly raving how good his B&W speakers and Harman Kardon amp were... without being aware that it's a mp3. When I finaly confronted him with the truth, he drank his beer in silence for the rest of the evening.

But the best bit was few days after, when he identified a 32k AAC stream as 320k mp3.... and said that 320k mp3 was acceptable, but no less.
Old 24th December 2010
  #95
Lives for gear
 
djanthonyw's Avatar
 

A 320k MP3 is acceptable, but why settle for acceptable when we can have no loss in quality, yet still smaller file sizes?
Old 24th December 2010
  #96
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by djanthonyw View Post
A 320k MP3 is acceptable, but why settle for acceptable when we can have no loss in quality, yet still smaller file sizes?
Because if we do, we can focus on making music rather than bull****ting around about the enormous differences between mp3-44/16-24/96p-analog-shmanalog and so on...
Old 24th December 2010
  #97
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post
Because if we do, we can focus on making music rather than bull****ting around about the enormous differences between mp3-44/16-24/96p-analog-shmanalog and so on...
Point missed completely.
Old 24th December 2010
  #98
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaMc View Post
Point missed completely.
OK: Lossy compression will not die because there is no reason for it to die. It's fine, it savesbandwith, and brings music to the mases which would otherwise miss it.

Even if one has 1000000 Gbps internet connection, it's always better to get 1000 rather than 100 songs in 2 seconds.
Old 24th December 2010
  #99
Lives for gear
 
petsematary's Avatar
 

A lot of material is perfectly suited for mp3, radio shows for example. Good mp3 is way better than FM (not to mention AM) broadcast. The frequency range kicks analog radio's balls.

As far as music, I wouldn't pay for mp3 compressed songs myself - just a matter of principle. Give me FLAC. I'd probably mp3 it myself anyway but it's just a personal policy not to pay for less than perfect quality. I have 100+ gigs of songs on my iPod but I haven't bought a single mp3 track in my life (they're cd rips).

Kind of like buying clothes. I don't pay for pre-worn jeans, I buy new ones and wear 'em down myself. That's just how I roll.
Old 24th December 2010
  #100
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
I submit that the billions of teenagers cranking their swishy mp3's in their tizzly earbuds enjoy music every bit as much as you & I.

Enjoyment is not the sole domain of the snob. If anything, we have a ****load of criteria that frequently diminish our ability to enjoy the music that is playing. Most people have no such hangups, they simply like the music or they don't like the music, the sound is irrelevant.

You seem to confuse enjoyment of music with enjoyment of how it sounds. They are not the same things.
thumbsup
Old 24th December 2010
  #101
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post
Because if we do, we can focus on making music rather than bull****ting around about the enormous differences between mp3-44/16-24/96p-analog-shmanalog and so on...

I can't help but notice that as you preach the folly of putting one's focus on these matters rather than on making music... you have put your focus on these matters rather than on making music.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 24th December 2010
  #102
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
A few points:

>a couple of you pointed out that the basic format(s) that music is currently delivered in won't change until there;s a solid ECONOMIC reason for it to change. I agree 100%

>I am able to listen critically when I need to, as well as turn off the inner audio critic and just listen for enjoyment

>the vast majority of listeners can't hear, nor care about whatever minimal difference there is between wav file and 320 kps mp3. For this reason, there's little rationale for changing the mp3/acc format. IF consumers COULD easily hear the difference, the format would change overnight

>To be honest, I don't think I can hear a difference between CD quality and 320 kps mp3 or ACC 256. I've never mounted a serious in-depth A/B test -- nor can I be bothered. Why? Because the lossy formats sound fine. I seriously doubt those who claim they can hear it. It should be restated that the theorem that the lossy formats are derived from is based on SOLID psych-acoustic research, particularly in the area of masking. Do some reading -- your ears may be fooling you

>somebody said this is about formats, not media. Actually it;s about both. The format is intrinsically related to the medium you're using. If you're an audiophile, the CD format is available to you if you don't like mp3 etc. Indeed, even the vinyl LP is making a big comeback
Old 25th December 2010
  #103
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
>To be honest, I don't think I can hear a difference between CD quality and 320 kps mp3 or ACC 256. I've never mounted a serious in-depth A/B test -- nor can I be bothered. Why? Because the lossy formats sound fine. I seriously doubt those who claim they can hear it.
Myself and others already showed we could hear it earlier in this very thread. If you care to post another test, I would be happy to take it and pass it again.
Old 25th December 2010
  #104
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post
I'd bet large sum of money that this is true!

One of my audiophile friends listened to 256k mp3 all day long, endlessly raving how good his B&W speakers and Harman Kardon amp were... without being aware that it's a mp3. When I finaly confronted him with the truth, he drank his beer in silence for the rest of the evening.

But the best bit was few days after, when he identified a 32k AAC stream as 320k mp3.... and said that 320k mp3 was acceptable, but no less.
Audiophiles sometimes have more money than sense. I'm not an audiophile. I'm a trained music professional.

It is easy to hear. I honestly don't know how you guys don't hear it if you're also trained in music production.
Old 25th December 2010
  #105
Gear Maniac
 
djemberecords's Avatar
 

And JPEG digital images are even worse!
Old 25th December 2010
  #106
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat View Post
Audiophiles sometimes have more money than sense. I'm not an audiophile. I'm a trained music professional.

It is easy to hear. I honestly don't know how you guys don't hear it if you're also trained in music production.
Certain genre's of music it doesn't make a huge difference...but things like horns and strings are pretty noticeable...personally i'm not too worried, i listen to songs on my ipod, i listen to mixes in my studio from CDs...The reason why more and more albums are going to itunes exclusively is because their main market is those people who are just going to put the stuff straight onto their iPods anyway...

And if you REALLY wanna get into it...how inferior is 16bit/44.1k! haha...
Old 25th December 2010
  #107
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson89 View Post
things like horns and strings are pretty noticeable...
So what if it is noticeable? Big deal...
Old 25th December 2010
  #108
Lives for gear
I wish mp3 would die, mp4 is loads better.
Old 25th December 2010
  #109
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat View Post

It is easy to hear. I honestly don't know how you guys don't hear it if you're also trained in music production.
I'll take your word for it. Personally, I have never conducted my own investigation or A/B test to see, mostly because ACC 256 sounded fine to me for casual listening purposes. IMO, the issue is not whether CD quality sounds "better" than a high bit rate mp3, but whether a high bit rate mp3 truly sounds "bad" in its own right. If a high bit rate mp3 sounded that bad, even to an audiophile, the format would have been abandoned by now.
Old 25th December 2010
  #110
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by djemberecords View Post
And JPEG digital images are even worse!
Especially porn
Old 26th December 2010
  #111
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

I think as is often the case it's more easily noticeable if you've gotten accustomed to a degraded version of a sound, then suddenly find yourself hearing the original again.

I had a favorite cd (both musically and sonically) that got smashed in the closing door of my car. I listened to the mp3 rips I'd made (256k) for almost 2 years before picking up the cd again in a used bin.

When I popped that cd in my eyes got 3x wider, I couldn't believe how much more integrity the sound had, but moreso I couldn't believe how much I'd gotten used to the mp3 as being fine. And it was fine... but it was nowhere near as clear and deep as the disc.

I can clearly hear the differences between mp3 encodings and originals; the hf transients are the first things to suffer, definition and depth on the bottom octave takes a hit as well. Thing is, I generally don't care because I prefer to wear my music-lover hat most of the time.

If I wear the engineer/critical-listener hat too much I stop dancing, and then I just get grumpy. Who the hell wants to be grumpy when listening to music?


Gregory Scott - ubk
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
kilon / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
293
wildplum / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump