7 ms·

FLAC is useful for listening to high quality music which hasn't been filtered and compressed. It sounds significantly better than lossy audio. Iscit so hard t

by joobus 10y ago

FLAC is useful for listening to high quality music which hasn't been filtered and compressed. It sounds significantly better than lossy audio. Iscit so hard to comprehend that as more bandwidth comes online all the time, people won't want to compromise on sound quality the way they were forced to in the past?

shmerl 10y ago
> FLAC is useful for listening to high quality music which hasn't been filtered and compressed. It sounds significantly better than lossy audio. Doubtful. See https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html TL;DR: encode above transparency level when using the lossy codec, and it won't have audible difference with lossless playback. But again, that's only for playback. As soon as you'd want to re-encode anything, there is no substitute for the lossless original.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  I can't for the live of me think of a phrase that gives me Google search results even remotely related to the topic, but I am pretty sure I once found a study that said that consciously inaudible differences in audio due to compression still made a difference - subjects who got the compressed sounds tired more quickly (of hearing them). Having taken a bit of neuroscience I can easily accept that - but I did not take enough (ns) to say for sure that it is so. I can easily accept that merely asking people about anything is not actually objective, it needs more credulity to believe my claim that even people in a blind test who can't tell the difference between two songs (lossless vs. compressed), which is more objective than just asking about qualitative measures, is not a reliable way to determine the question of "lossless vs. compressed". So could anyone confirm or deny such a study and the mechanism exists from a basis of actual knowledge?
  - shmerl 10y ago
    That falls into some speculation area, unless actually substantiated with serious studies. I'd be interested in it, if you can find a source. There are too many hoaxes going regarding audio, to be skeptical enough. Here is one read on this: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/ http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      > That falls into some speculation area, unless actually substantiated with serious studies. I made that quite clear, and I asked for the latter in the prominently placed last sentence. It's the main point of my post, as I think I made clear. I really don't know what more I could/should have done apart from dropping the question entirely, which I don't think is fair - or useful?
      - shmerl 10y ago
        You said you saw some study, but can't find it now. I guess if it's a known issue, it will come up eventually.
  - tmnvix 10y ago
    This sounds familiar. It brings a few things to mind. I can't remember the term that was used, but I remember reading about audible frequencies possibly being affected by inaudible frequencies in ways that are perceptible to humans. So if you have two source files played using the same equipment with one including the inaudible frequencies then they will sound subtly different due to the interaction. With the 'getting tired' while listening thing, I know just what you mean. Listening to music on a laptop for instance is a mentally draining experience for me. I've heard it explained like this: your brain knows what a piano sounds like and when it hears the poor imitation it is busy 'filling in the blanks'. Listening on good equipment is much more relaxing - as is listening to something that isn't 128kbps. I don't claim to know that either of the above are true, but to me they are plausible. I'm also a little sceptical of the 'lossless is no better than good lossy' claims that inevitably come up in these discussions. While I accept that there is likely a point that audible differences between lossy and lossless would be imperceptible, I've been hearing those claims for a long time (starting with "it's digital - it's cd quality'). When I was seriously interested in these things there most definitely was a noticeable difference. I was right about 128kbps. I'm confidant I was right about 256kbps. Maybe with 320kbps that's changed now, but I don't know as I haven't had a decent stereo for some time. I'm not about to be convinced by those blind test studies that people keep pointing to as objective and conclusive - they always make me think of that one where it was 'proved' that cheap wine is just as 'good' as expensive wine. I'll stick to lossless when possible and compress to lossy when necessary. Can't go wrong like that!
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      Yes, I agree. I just think I better point out - for other readers - that my point was made for when people are unable to hear a difference even in blind tests. It was about a longer-term effect that is not part of the direct listening experience. Even if my memory was correct this effect would not change people's difficulty (or at some point, inability) in telling different sound sources apart.
- mbrock 10y ago
  That article is almost entirely about how it's useless to encode audio at excessive sample rates and bit rates beyond the human ear's capacities—not about lossy compression. It does claim that modern lossy compressors are good enough, but admits that there can be reason to prefer lossless distribution since there is then no need to trust the distributor to use a good encoder with correct settings.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    Yes. The point is not about that distributor can fail to use a good encoder (anything can happen), but that they can use a good one if they want to, and audible result will be the same as lossless. When I buy music, I always try to buy it in lossless FLACs anyway. And then I encode it to Opus for playback. But for listening to something on-line, Opus would do just fine to begin with.
sjwright 10y ago
> It sounds significantly better than lossy audio. Lossy audio can be completely transparent. If you disagree, you need to provide some objective evidence, because all objective evidence points in favour of good lossy compression being indistinguishable from lossless at sensible bitrates. Look, I've no problem with LAME being supported, but don't make it out to be "significant" in terms of sound quality. Try AAC at 256kbps (what iTunes Store has used for the past decade) or better yet, Opus. Do a serious blinded test and amaze yourself with the results.
- nsns 10y ago
  It all depends on how sensitive you are to these things, I've done such blind tests, and to my ears the fall in quality was significant, even painful.
  - stdbrouw 10y ago
    Blind tests comparing lossless against what codec at what bitrate? How many runs and how often were you able to correctly identify lossless?
    - themihai 10y ago
      Why to bother with various tradeoffs if you can get the best?(i.e lossless). You can make the same argument on video technologies(i.e HDR). The truth is that people usually adapt so "painful" audio or video quality stops being painful after a while.
      - stdbrouw 10y ago
        "Better" and "best" imply a detectable difference, and the point of a transparent lossy codec is that no such difference should exist.
      - sjwright 10y ago
        If it was even remotely painful, it would sail through an ABX test.

by joobus 10y ago

shmerl 10y ago

> FLAC is useful for listening to high quality music which hasn't been filtered and compressed. It sounds significantly better than lossy audio. Doubtful. See https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html TL;DR: encode above transparency level when using the lossy codec, and it won't have audible difference with lossless playback. But again, that's only for playback. As soon as you'd want to re-encode anything, there is no substitute for the lossless original.

Noseshine 10y ago
I can't for the live of me think of a phrase that gives me Google search results even remotely related to the topic, but I am pretty sure I once found a study that said that consciously inaudible differences in audio due to compression still made a difference - subjects who got the compressed sounds tired more quickly (of hearing them). Having taken a bit of neuroscience I can easily accept that - but I did not take enough (ns) to say for sure that it is so. I can easily accept that merely asking people about anything is not actually objective, it needs more credulity to believe my claim that even people in a blind test who can't tell the difference between two songs (lossless vs. compressed), which is more objective than just asking about qualitative measures, is not a reliable way to determine the question of "lossless vs. compressed". So could anyone confirm or deny such a study and the mechanism exists from a basis of actual knowledge?
- shmerl 10y ago
  That falls into some speculation area, unless actually substantiated with serious studies. I'd be interested in it, if you can find a source. There are too many hoaxes going regarding audio, to be skeptical enough. Here is one read on this: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/ http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    > That falls into some speculation area, unless actually substantiated with serious studies. I made that quite clear, and I asked for the latter in the prominently placed last sentence. It's the main point of my post, as I think I made clear. I really don't know what more I could/should have done apart from dropping the question entirely, which I don't think is fair - or useful?
    - shmerl 10y ago
      You said you saw some study, but can't find it now. I guess if it's a known issue, it will come up eventually.
- tmnvix 10y ago
  This sounds familiar. It brings a few things to mind. I can't remember the term that was used, but I remember reading about audible frequencies possibly being affected by inaudible frequencies in ways that are perceptible to humans. So if you have two source files played using the same equipment with one including the inaudible frequencies then they will sound subtly different due to the interaction. With the 'getting tired' while listening thing, I know just what you mean. Listening to music on a laptop for instance is a mentally draining experience for me. I've heard it explained like this: your brain knows what a piano sounds like and when it hears the poor imitation it is busy 'filling in the blanks'. Listening on good equipment is much more relaxing - as is listening to something that isn't 128kbps. I don't claim to know that either of the above are true, but to me they are plausible. I'm also a little sceptical of the 'lossless is no better than good lossy' claims that inevitably come up in these discussions. While I accept that there is likely a point that audible differences between lossy and lossless would be imperceptible, I've been hearing those claims for a long time (starting with "it's digital - it's cd quality'). When I was seriously interested in these things there most definitely was a noticeable difference. I was right about 128kbps. I'm confidant I was right about 256kbps. Maybe with 320kbps that's changed now, but I don't know as I haven't had a decent stereo for some time. I'm not about to be convinced by those blind test studies that people keep pointing to as objective and conclusive - they always make me think of that one where it was 'proved' that cheap wine is just as 'good' as expensive wine. I'll stick to lossless when possible and compress to lossy when necessary. Can't go wrong like that!
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Yes, I agree. I just think I better point out - for other readers - that my point was made for when people are unable to hear a difference even in blind tests. It was about a longer-term effect that is not part of the direct listening experience. Even if my memory was correct this effect would not change people's difficulty (or at some point, inability) in telling different sound sources apart.
mbrock 10y ago
That article is almost entirely about how it's useless to encode audio at excessive sample rates and bit rates beyond the human ear's capacities—not about lossy compression. It does claim that modern lossy compressors are good enough, but admits that there can be reason to prefer lossless distribution since there is then no need to trust the distributor to use a good encoder with correct settings.
- shmerl 10y ago
  Yes. The point is not about that distributor can fail to use a good encoder (anything can happen), but that they can use a good one if they want to, and audible result will be the same as lossless. When I buy music, I always try to buy it in lossless FLACs anyway. And then I encode it to Opus for playback. But for listening to something on-line, Opus would do just fine to begin with.

sjwright 10y ago

> It sounds significantly better than lossy audio. Lossy audio can be completely transparent. If you disagree, you need to provide some objective evidence, because all objective evidence points in favour of good lossy compression being indistinguishable from lossless at sensible bitrates. Look, I've no problem with LAME being supported, but don't make it out to be "significant" in terms of sound quality. Try AAC at 256kbps (what iTunes Store has used for the past decade) or better yet, Opus. Do a serious blinded test and amaze yourself with the results.

nsns 10y ago
It all depends on how sensitive you are to these things, I've done such blind tests, and to my ears the fall in quality was significant, even painful.
- stdbrouw 10y ago
  Blind tests comparing lossless against what codec at what bitrate? How many runs and how often were you able to correctly identify lossless?
  - themihai 10y ago
    Why to bother with various tradeoffs if you can get the best?(i.e lossless). You can make the same argument on video technologies(i.e HDR). The truth is that people usually adapt so "painful" audio or video quality stops being painful after a while.
    - stdbrouw 10y ago
      "Better" and "best" imply a detectable difference, and the point of a transparent lossy codec is that no such difference should exist.
    - sjwright 10y ago
      If it was even remotely painful, it would sail through an ABX test.