5 ms·

I've heard some explanations on why lossless is different even tho the stuff cut out of high quality MP3/ogg is in frequency we don't hear, but it honestly soun

by ido 9y ago

I've heard some explanations on why lossless is different even tho the stuff cut out of high quality MP3/ogg is in frequency we don't hear, but it honestly sounds like "high end cables/pure gold contacts" to me.

discreditable 9y ago
I don't store lossless because I think I sounds better. The idea for me is I can transcode to whatever format I need without generational quality loss.
ordu 9y ago
At high bitrates maybe mp3 has the same heard quality. But mp3 has his artifacts, and the problem is if you heard them once, you couldn't stop youself from hearing them every time. It's like interlacing in movies or bugs at borders of contrasting areas of picture in jpeg. And yes, this can be proved by double-blind experiment at least for 128 kbit/s mp3. With 192 kbit/s, I believe, you can hear artifacts also, but you would need some special training for it. So with 192 kbit/s solution is simple: just do not teach youself to hear artifacts. With lower bitrates it's not so simple. As for me, flac is better for storing sounds. Stored flac has no artifacts (if obtained without them), I can recode it to mp3, vorbis, opus or something else, and get artifacts from that codec, but not artifacts from mp3 plus artifacts from that codec.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonsync 9y ago
  If I remember correctly, some of it came down to encoder settings as well. Joint stereo, for example, always sounded janky at all bitrates. CBR vs VBR also made a difference. Also, the quality of the source was a factor. A low quality source that was already kind of lossy would sound much worse than the source itself when encoded at lower bitrates.
- simias 9y ago
  Can you give some sources? What are these artifacts you talk about? And even assuming that it's audible at 192kbit/s with a decent encoder, why not just use 320kbit/s MP3 which are still significantly smaller than lossless? 16bit lossless audio is great for producers, you have a lot of headroom for messing with it, re-encoding it, twisting it, amplifying it, mixing it etc... But if you're just archiving public releases for "consumption" it's completely overkill. >It's like interlacing in movies or bugs at borders of contrasting areas of picture in jpeg In what way? Interlacing is completely irrelevant in the context of audio. I'm sorry if I come off as adversarial but it's a pet peeve of mine. The maths and physics behind signal processing are very well understood, if some algorithm induces a signal degradation in the audible spectrum it should be trivial to show it objectively with the right measuring equipment and/or the right mathematical equation.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo is the usual example. I did hear it in that audio example on Wikipedia, but I doubt I'd hear it under realistic circumstances.
  - SyneRyder 9y ago
    > What are these artifacts you talk about? Splash cymbals in particular sound terrible (or noticeably degraded) on low bitrate stereo MP3s (ie 128kbit/s). Some early encoders actually did a lowpass filter to eliminate frequencies above 16kHz, to mask the 'watery' high-frequency warble (see [1]). Note how even the Fraunhofer codec differs a lot at high-frequencies in the charts on that link. Some of it is still noticeable even in lower bitrate AAC. I've got U2's Pop album on CD from 1997 (coincidentally the first album to be leaked as MP3 [2]), and even at 128kbps iTunes AAC the cymbals just don't sound right on 'Gone'. They're watery, like an audio version of a badly compressed JPG. I keep meaning to re-rip it at higher bitrate. [1] http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-3.html http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-3.htm... [2] http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/652-a-history-of-digital-album-leaks-1993-2015/ http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/652-a-history-of-digital-album...
- H1Supreme 9y ago
  320 mp3's sound just like .wav's to me. I have a middle of the road studio at home, and they sound great on my 8" monitors. I'll play back to back albums in wav, then mp3. Nothing sticks out at me.
- TremendousJudge 9y ago
  who uses 128 kbit/s mp3 these days? the lowest I find are 192
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    I have a ton of CDs I ripped to 128 kbit a long time ago, back when I couldn't afford the space for anything larger. Honestly, at my age, with only a few exceptions, I don't really notice anything. Still, when I get new stuff, or rip now, I try to do it at least at 192 or 320, since space isn't an issue any longer.
- inDigiNeous 9y ago
  This. Maybe people have different hearing skills also. But I can definitely hear the artifacts in MP3s, like hihats getting muffled and the deep base getting lost in the sea of MP3 compression. With good headphones (I'm talking 200+ euros class headphones for example) there is a certain difference between even a 320 kpbs MP3 vs a 128 AAC. AAC or OGG for example just has better usualy clarity in the sound, the bass is clearer and more distinct and the hihats and other hi sounds aren't muffled in the background or don't lose their clarity like they do with MP3s. And like the parent wrote, once you have heard those 'signature losses' of the mp3 codec, it's very hard not to notice them.
biztos 9y ago
I own "high-end cables" (not sure if the contacts are gold) and my low-end-of-high-end HiFi might sound just as good with cheaper cables but I don't know, having never (yet) tried it that way. It's very likely that all that super great sound is just the high quality amp and speakers. The same thing could be happening with lossless. If you are going to the trouble of encoding and storing a lossless digital music collection, I think chances are good you're listening on very good equipment. And you might scoff at the idea of trying out high-bitrate MP3 on it, because the MP3s you have from your Napster days really do sound terrible through your tube amp. OTOH I wouldn't go too far down the "can't hear it anyway" road. I'm in my 40's and there's plenty I can't hear, but I assume not everything in my collection will be on YouFacePotify for my grandkids to listen to while their ears still work.
soundwave106 9y ago
From my perspective, I don't think I'd ever be able to tell the difference between high quality MP3 and FLAC in an ABX test. If I first heard the MP3 version, and then heard the FLAC... I might be able to point out which one was which afterwards, under very good conditions and depending on the recording. I remember doing this test several years back. The general details are pretty much the same, but the MP3 version kind of changes the "sound stage" a bit for a lack of a better term. It's very subtle and in practice, you need critical-listening environments even to do this. 99% of music is not heard in critical listening music environments. A huge amount of music isn't even engineered for this kind of critical listening these days (eg: you need recordings that haven't destroyed the dynamic range in the first place, which rules out most radio pop today.) I agree that having the ability to transcode to lossy with as little loss as possible is IMHO the best reason to store music in FLAC.
- Bahamut 9y ago
  I agree with all of this - I have had studies quoted to me by artists about self-proclaimed audiophiles performing worse in a double blind test identifying which was the lossless audio vs. a high bit rate mp3 (256 kbps? I forget). The evidence seemed to suggest quite strongly that humans aren't able to distinguish either. I would love to have lossless audio purely for storage purposes - however, it would be quite expensive for me to do so with the amount of music I have, as well as time consuming. For me at least, mp3 is the perfect balance, and its ubiquitous compatibility makes it a no brainer.
  - Zancarius 9y ago
    I have to wonder how many who claim to immediately tell the difference between mp3 and FLAC have instead simply been exposed to horribly encoded mp3s. Although this is anecdotal, it pings off your own experiences: A friend of mine (and self-described audiophile) recently got into a discussion with a mutual friend regarding mp3, FLAC, and how both of them could tell the format apart simply by listening. I suggested that perhaps the mp3s he had available were simply poorly encoded, and sent him a sample of my library that's a direct rip from a CD (at a modest bitrate of either 192kbps or 256kbps, I can't remember). He then realized that the mp3s he had been comparing against his FLAC copies of the same album were likely YouTube rips from before he bought the album, and that he likely never downloaded the official mp3s when he purchased the FLAC sources. He confided that he had a difficult time determining which was which when comparing the two on more equal footing with the sample I sent. I still posit that the average person can't tell the difference, even with above average hardware. Exceptionally sensitive hearing outside the normal range of most humans notwithstanding, a decently encoded mp3 (or Opus format for that matter) should hardly be distinguishable from a FLAC, if at all. I suspect that most of those who claim they can hear the difference aren't particularly special--they're just comparing poorly encoded files against a source format. At any rate, I'm in my mid-thirties, and I know my hearing isn't quite as acute as it was a decade ago. FLACs are more of a novelty for the sake of original sources, because there's no way I could tell the difference between that and mp3s with a good bitrate. With the exception of the Hunt for Red October soundtrack, I've not been able to tell low/moderate (~128kbps) bitrate mp3s apart from high (384kbps) ones AFAIK (the high pitches in the hymn "warble" at lower bitrates--not sure I can detect this now, though).

by ido 9y ago

discreditable 9y ago

I don't store lossless because I think I sounds better. The idea for me is I can transcode to whatever format I need without generational quality loss.

ordu 9y ago

At high bitrates maybe mp3 has the same heard quality. But mp3 has his artifacts, and the problem is if you heard them once, you couldn't stop youself from hearing them every time. It's like interlacing in movies or bugs at borders of contrasting areas of picture in jpeg. And yes, this can be proved by double-blind experiment at least for 128 kbit/s mp3. With 192 kbit/s, I believe, you can hear artifacts also, but you would need some special training for it. So with 192 kbit/s solution is simple: just do not teach youself to hear artifacts. With lower bitrates it's not so simple. As for me, flac is better for storing sounds. Stored flac has no artifacts (if obtained without them), I can recode it to mp3, vorbis, opus or something else, and get artifacts from that codec, but not artifacts from mp3 plus artifacts from that codec.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jasonsync 9y ago
If I remember correctly, some of it came down to encoder settings as well. Joint stereo, for example, always sounded janky at all bitrates. CBR vs VBR also made a difference. Also, the quality of the source was a factor. A low quality source that was already kind of lossy would sound much worse than the source itself when encoded at lower bitrates.
simias 9y ago
Can you give some sources? What are these artifacts you talk about? And even assuming that it's audible at 192kbit/s with a decent encoder, why not just use 320kbit/s MP3 which are still significantly smaller than lossless? 16bit lossless audio is great for producers, you have a lot of headroom for messing with it, re-encoding it, twisting it, amplifying it, mixing it etc... But if you're just archiving public releases for "consumption" it's completely overkill. >It's like interlacing in movies or bugs at borders of contrasting areas of picture in jpeg In what way? Interlacing is completely irrelevant in the context of audio. I'm sorry if I come off as adversarial but it's a pet peeve of mine. The maths and physics behind signal processing are very well understood, if some algorithm induces a signal degradation in the audible spectrum it should be trivial to show it objectively with the right measuring equipment and/or the right mathematical equation.
- Tomte 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo is the usual example. I did hear it in that audio example on Wikipedia, but I doubt I'd hear it under realistic circumstances.
- SyneRyder 9y ago
  > What are these artifacts you talk about? Splash cymbals in particular sound terrible (or noticeably degraded) on low bitrate stereo MP3s (ie 128kbit/s). Some early encoders actually did a lowpass filter to eliminate frequencies above 16kHz, to mask the 'watery' high-frequency warble (see [1]). Note how even the Fraunhofer codec differs a lot at high-frequencies in the charts on that link. Some of it is still noticeable even in lower bitrate AAC. I've got U2's Pop album on CD from 1997 (coincidentally the first album to be leaked as MP3 [2]), and even at 128kbps iTunes AAC the cymbals just don't sound right on 'Gone'. They're watery, like an audio version of a badly compressed JPG. I keep meaning to re-rip it at higher bitrate. [1] http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-3.html http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-3.htm... [2] http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/652-a-history-of-digital-album-leaks-1993-2015/ http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/652-a-history-of-digital-album...
H1Supreme 9y ago
320 mp3's sound just like .wav's to me. I have a middle of the road studio at home, and they sound great on my 8" monitors. I'll play back to back albums in wav, then mp3. Nothing sticks out at me.
TremendousJudge 9y ago
who uses 128 kbit/s mp3 these days? the lowest I find are 192
- cr0sh 9y ago
  I have a ton of CDs I ripped to 128 kbit a long time ago, back when I couldn't afford the space for anything larger. Honestly, at my age, with only a few exceptions, I don't really notice anything. Still, when I get new stuff, or rip now, I try to do it at least at 192 or 320, since space isn't an issue any longer.
inDigiNeous 9y ago
This. Maybe people have different hearing skills also. But I can definitely hear the artifacts in MP3s, like hihats getting muffled and the deep base getting lost in the sea of MP3 compression. With good headphones (I'm talking 200+ euros class headphones for example) there is a certain difference between even a 320 kpbs MP3 vs a 128 AAC. AAC or OGG for example just has better usualy clarity in the sound, the bass is clearer and more distinct and the hihats and other hi sounds aren't muffled in the background or don't lose their clarity like they do with MP3s. And like the parent wrote, once you have heard those 'signature losses' of the mp3 codec, it's very hard not to notice them.

biztos 9y ago

I own "high-end cables" (not sure if the contacts are gold) and my low-end-of-high-end HiFi might sound just as good with cheaper cables but I don't know, having never (yet) tried it that way. It's very likely that all that super great sound is just the high quality amp and speakers. The same thing could be happening with lossless. If you are going to the trouble of encoding and storing a lossless digital music collection, I think chances are good you're listening on very good equipment. And you might scoff at the idea of trying out high-bitrate MP3 on it, because the MP3s you have from your Napster days really do sound terrible through your tube amp. OTOH I wouldn't go too far down the "can't hear it anyway" road. I'm in my 40's and there's plenty I can't hear, but I assume not everything in my collection will be on YouFacePotify for my grandkids to listen to while their ears still work.

soundwave106 9y ago

From my perspective, I don't think I'd ever be able to tell the difference between high quality MP3 and FLAC in an ABX test. If I first heard the MP3 version, and then heard the FLAC... I might be able to point out which one was which afterwards, under very good conditions and depending on the recording. I remember doing this test several years back. The general details are pretty much the same, but the MP3 version kind of changes the "sound stage" a bit for a lack of a better term. It's very subtle and in practice, you need critical-listening environments even to do this. 99% of music is not heard in critical listening music environments. A huge amount of music isn't even engineered for this kind of critical listening these days (eg: you need recordings that haven't destroyed the dynamic range in the first place, which rules out most radio pop today.) I agree that having the ability to transcode to lossy with as little loss as possible is IMHO the best reason to store music in FLAC.

Bahamut 9y ago
I agree with all of this - I have had studies quoted to me by artists about self-proclaimed audiophiles performing worse in a double blind test identifying which was the lossless audio vs. a high bit rate mp3 (256 kbps? I forget). The evidence seemed to suggest quite strongly that humans aren't able to distinguish either. I would love to have lossless audio purely for storage purposes - however, it would be quite expensive for me to do so with the amount of music I have, as well as time consuming. For me at least, mp3 is the perfect balance, and its ubiquitous compatibility makes it a no brainer.
- Zancarius 9y ago
  I have to wonder how many who claim to immediately tell the difference between mp3 and FLAC have instead simply been exposed to horribly encoded mp3s. Although this is anecdotal, it pings off your own experiences: A friend of mine (and self-described audiophile) recently got into a discussion with a mutual friend regarding mp3, FLAC, and how both of them could tell the format apart simply by listening. I suggested that perhaps the mp3s he had available were simply poorly encoded, and sent him a sample of my library that's a direct rip from a CD (at a modest bitrate of either 192kbps or 256kbps, I can't remember). He then realized that the mp3s he had been comparing against his FLAC copies of the same album were likely YouTube rips from before he bought the album, and that he likely never downloaded the official mp3s when he purchased the FLAC sources. He confided that he had a difficult time determining which was which when comparing the two on more equal footing with the sample I sent. I still posit that the average person can't tell the difference, even with above average hardware. Exceptionally sensitive hearing outside the normal range of most humans notwithstanding, a decently encoded mp3 (or Opus format for that matter) should hardly be distinguishable from a FLAC, if at all. I suspect that most of those who claim they can hear the difference aren't particularly special--they're just comparing poorly encoded files against a source format. At any rate, I'm in my mid-thirties, and I know my hearing isn't quite as acute as it was a decade ago. FLACs are more of a novelty for the sake of original sources, because there's no way I could tell the difference between that and mp3s with a good bitrate. With the exception of the Hunt for Red October soundtrack, I've not been able to tell low/moderate (~128kbps) bitrate mp3s apart from high (384kbps) ones AFAIK (the high pitches in the hymn "warble" at lower bitrates--not sure I can detect this now, though).