8 ms·

Never heard these myself, but I remember that Nautilus speakers were used in an MP3 listening test by the German c't magazine in 2000[1]. Conclusion: > In plai

by em500 5y ago

Never heard these myself, but I remember that Nautilus speakers were used in an MP3 listening test by the German c't magazine in 2000[1]. Conclusion: > In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves. This article made me (1) never worry about "lossy audio encoding" again and (2) ignore everyone starting about "better equipment" wrt compressed audio. Granted, they used the cheaper Nautilus 803 rather than the 801 in the test. But they also had Sennheiser Orpheus available in the listening test. [1] https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=27324.0 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=27324.0

bayindirh 5y ago
After a certain point, lossy compression doesn't create any perceptible loss in audio quality as long as the rip is done well (with a good encoder, etc.), and you don't know every part of the piece in question. e.g. in classical music, you can tell subtle differences if you've listened the piece live or performed it inside an orchestra. However, that's a pretty edge case. There are always differences if you know where to look for, otherwise it's pretty insignificant.
- stinos 5y ago
  e.g. in classical music, you can tell subtle differences if you've listened the piece live or performed it inside an orchestra Can you explain this a bit more? How is having heard a piece live, which by definition means a unique performance, going to affect whether or not you can pick out whether the recording of (likely) a different performance has been put through lossy compression? Or do you mean a recording of that same live performance? I mean I'm used to subtle differences coming and going depending on room/speakers/crappy compression, but only because I use the same source as reference (say, the same CD). Using a live performance as reference sounds strange, because there I would be able to here one of the musicians doing something different, but difference isn't there on another recording so not usable as cue for hearing differences in sound reproduction.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    In classical music, the performance is of course unique, but the piece is not. What I mean is, even if the arrangement has changed for a particular piece, the underlying score, the foundation is same. As you know, classical music is layered. It can be scaled for different sized orchestras, which can be akin to tessellation in graphics. You can add more nuanced scores or details if your orchestra has enough members. Of course this has a limit, which is the full score written by the original composer. Similarly, you can remove some layers or simplify the piece if you're smaller orchestra without compromising the piece. What I tried to say is, if you've listened the piece from or performed with a relatively big orchestra, you'll know that which instrument shall be there, where the small optional triplets are, how the piece should sound or where's that little oboe shall come in, where the little cymbal adds that little crash, or how the harmonics affect each other and create that atmosphere. So, you'll notice something is missing or off or not as it should be especially in the high end. Classical music has a lot of perceptual tricks under its sleeves to create a specific ambiance and sense of space and most of this lays in the higher end of the spectrum, and they get shaved off first with lossy compression. Hope this helps, because it's something more felt than can be said with words, how you can't really hear the double bass but feel how it's there. It's that kind of perception. Edit: Just wanted to add that one musician's or orchestra's specific style of course will be different, but a good orchestra is very faithful to the original score of the piece. Even if an orchestra is playing a little fast or more aggressive, or a simplified version, base instrumentation and atmosphere is the same (as long as the orchestra is not doing Metallica S&M style play the right thing with wrong instruments kind of deliberate arrangement). Another extreme example would be the band Pink Martini. They have an on-stage audio magic which allows them live with the exact sound of their studio recordings, albeit live. It's surreal to experience.
    - drw85 5y ago
      But that still had nothing to do with comparing lossy vs lossless, or am I misunderstanding you? How does a live performance that you hear with your ears at a specific place in a room help you pick out missing parts in a different recording, played by different people in a different place, recorded with multiple mics and then mixed and mastered?
vatican_banker 5y ago
My honest and unscientific opinion is that the difference _is_ discernible but the listener needs to know what to hear for. Also, the reproduction quality is impacted by several factors like room, equipment, and recording quality (not just speaker quality). [Anecdotal] One example of the difference between MP3 and lossless: the "image" [1] on 256kbps MP3s is worse compared to the the original uncompressed, lossless, versions (but the listening room must be appropriately prepared to reproduce a good image). This is a highly subjective topic. IMO we'll never reach full agreement. Personally, I listen MP3 while on-the-go and lossless music at home. Important to keep in mind the "size" of the experiment. Two interesting quotes from the article in c't magazine: > twelve participants would be asked to come to Hanover. > It's true that the data we collected does not support watertight conclusions, but they do provide interesting insights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_imaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_imaging
- em500 5y ago
  > Important to keep in mind the "size" of the experiment. Two interesting quotes from the article in c't magazine: >> twelve participants would be asked to come to Hanover. It's a mistake to apply vanilla statistical thinking here. The 12 participants were not randomly drawn from the German population, they were extremely skewed towards enthusiasts/professionals: audio engineers, an owner of an actual Nautilus 801, someone who worked on MP3/AAC at Fraunhofer IIS, someone who works preparing masters for Deutsche Gramophon. If these are the people who have enormous difficulty distinguishing 256kbps MP3 from the CD original, I'm certainly not going to worry that I am going to miss out on anything with 256kbps MP3. If 12 Grand Slam participants tell me they can't tell the difference between a standard $100 and a $1000 high end tennis racket, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that it's going to make any difference for me.
  - vatican_banker 5y ago
    > It's a mistake to apply vanilla statistical thinking here. The 12 participants [...] were extremely skewed towards enthusiasts/professionals It is still undetermined if having 12 highly-skilled professionals in the experiment is enough to have a conclusive experiment. Also, this subject is so difficult to get right that the authors of the article themselves hedged by saying that experiment "does not support watertight conclusions".
voldacar 5y ago
I got to hear the sennheiser orpheus a few years ago. Honestly it was kind of underwhelming. It is a very physically beautiful headphone but in terms of sound, it's kind of warm with a slight haze and indistinctness in the treble. That might be pleasant for some people, but I think any modern electrostat like the L700 or SR009 would outperform it significantly if you put them side by side. I assume its value is due mostly to its rarity.
brnt 5y ago
Note that the quality of MP3 encoders has changed significantly since 2000, and differed significantly between encoders at the time. (Does anyone not use LAME these days?)
jfrunyon 5y ago
Honestly, these days drives are so large compared to even FLAC that it's not worth worrying about if an MP3 would be just as good, IMHO.
- teknopaul 5y ago
  mp3 is often better, it removes close frequencies that your ears can't hear baring tricks like very slow phase shifts. Speakers and amps are asked to do less work, so they often sound better, particularly at high volume. The same applies to the air the sound travels through and your ear drum and bio-pickups. You can often tell the difference, but its arguable if before or after mp3 processing is and improvement or destructive in terms of psychoacoustics. I often see djs who swear by wavs without knowing how the pitch and tempo adjust algo work in the equipment they are using. I.e. Top of the range pioneer Cdj decks run Busybox Linux and ffmpeg
- leetcrew 5y ago
  I'm quite certain I can't tell the difference between flac and mp3 v0, but I keep all the music I care about in flac. I don't know what lossy formats will have mainstream support in 10-20 years, but I know I will be able to transcode flac to them.
vnorilo 5y ago
I believe Fraunhofver did a pretty rigorous scientific test that established the CD transparency quality to be around 256kbps mp3. I don't dispute or doubt that. However, obvious encoding artifacts abound on Spotify. Do I have a superhuman hearing? Probably not. My hypothesis is that not everyone authors lossy files as meticulously as Fraunhofver. Also, the performance of mp3 depends on a highly linear and faithful reproduction after decoding. Mp3 is painfully obvious on crappy, processed-to-hell speaker systems like the iMac. I think the real question is, why bother with lossy codecs? FLAC streams are lightweight by today's standards, and it's just so much simpler.
- KozmoNau7 5y ago
  Spotify doesn't use MP3, though. So if you're hearing MP3-specific artifacts (pre-echo, washy "underwater" cymbals), those are probably the result of bad mastering or perhaps using MP3-encoded samples in some tracks. I hear this on some lossless tracks I have, unfortunately if the source material is flawed, there's nothing you can do. Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, except the lowest bitrate on mobile, which is HE-ACCv2, and on Chromecast/similar devices, which get AAC (because they can't natively decode Ogg Vorbis). It is a significantly better codec than MP3, and doesn't suffer from the pre-echo, washy cymbals and badly-encoded high frequencies. At least not until you severely decrease the bitrate.
  - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
    I did some test with ogg vorbis a while back. I think it was q4 vs q5 that was my limit. What struck me though was that I couldn’t tell which was “better”. In the track there was a section where the background drumming on one setting sounded like aluminum drum sticks while the other like wooden drumstick. Very subtle effect, and took some intense concentration to pick out.
  - vnorilo 5y ago
    That is true of course, although the more modern codecs most significantly outperform mp3 at lower bitrates. At 256kbps mp3 should be enough, and iirc Spotify offers 320kbps ogg in hifi mode (not sure, I mostly don't ever use it unless someone links something) which should also be enough. The most common problem is when the master is hot and encodes clipped waveforms. It sounds even stranger on lossy. In fact I'm not sure if the codecs' filter banks still have perfect reconstruction in this case or if it's just a borked master. In any case, it always tends to be quite clear when I switch between lossy and lossless on Tidal. Anyway, it's complicated and brittle, and lossless 44/16 is only something like 2x bitrate and bit-perfect (so you can write proper regression tests for codecs very easily) shrug, I think I'll go that route. disclaimer: occasionally get paid for mastering music, so I'm wired to prefer simplicity, transparency and don't mind some redundancy in ensuring signal integrity.

by em500 5y ago

bayindirh 5y ago

After a certain point, lossy compression doesn't create any perceptible loss in audio quality as long as the rip is done well (with a good encoder, etc.), and you don't know every part of the piece in question. e.g. in classical music, you can tell subtle differences if you've listened the piece live or performed it inside an orchestra. However, that's a pretty edge case. There are always differences if you know where to look for, otherwise it's pretty insignificant.

stinos 5y ago
e.g. in classical music, you can tell subtle differences if you've listened the piece live or performed it inside an orchestra Can you explain this a bit more? How is having heard a piece live, which by definition means a unique performance, going to affect whether or not you can pick out whether the recording of (likely) a different performance has been put through lossy compression? Or do you mean a recording of that same live performance? I mean I'm used to subtle differences coming and going depending on room/speakers/crappy compression, but only because I use the same source as reference (say, the same CD). Using a live performance as reference sounds strange, because there I would be able to here one of the musicians doing something different, but difference isn't there on another recording so not usable as cue for hearing differences in sound reproduction.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  In classical music, the performance is of course unique, but the piece is not. What I mean is, even if the arrangement has changed for a particular piece, the underlying score, the foundation is same. As you know, classical music is layered. It can be scaled for different sized orchestras, which can be akin to tessellation in graphics. You can add more nuanced scores or details if your orchestra has enough members. Of course this has a limit, which is the full score written by the original composer. Similarly, you can remove some layers or simplify the piece if you're smaller orchestra without compromising the piece. What I tried to say is, if you've listened the piece from or performed with a relatively big orchestra, you'll know that which instrument shall be there, where the small optional triplets are, how the piece should sound or where's that little oboe shall come in, where the little cymbal adds that little crash, or how the harmonics affect each other and create that atmosphere. So, you'll notice something is missing or off or not as it should be especially in the high end. Classical music has a lot of perceptual tricks under its sleeves to create a specific ambiance and sense of space and most of this lays in the higher end of the spectrum, and they get shaved off first with lossy compression. Hope this helps, because it's something more felt than can be said with words, how you can't really hear the double bass but feel how it's there. It's that kind of perception. Edit: Just wanted to add that one musician's or orchestra's specific style of course will be different, but a good orchestra is very faithful to the original score of the piece. Even if an orchestra is playing a little fast or more aggressive, or a simplified version, base instrumentation and atmosphere is the same (as long as the orchestra is not doing Metallica S&M style play the right thing with wrong instruments kind of deliberate arrangement). Another extreme example would be the band Pink Martini. They have an on-stage audio magic which allows them live with the exact sound of their studio recordings, albeit live. It's surreal to experience.
  - drw85 5y ago
    But that still had nothing to do with comparing lossy vs lossless, or am I misunderstanding you? How does a live performance that you hear with your ears at a specific place in a room help you pick out missing parts in a different recording, played by different people in a different place, recorded with multiple mics and then mixed and mastered?

vatican_banker 5y ago

My honest and unscientific opinion is that the difference _is_ discernible but the listener needs to know what to hear for. Also, the reproduction quality is impacted by several factors like room, equipment, and recording quality (not just speaker quality). [Anecdotal] One example of the difference between MP3 and lossless: the "image" [1] on 256kbps MP3s is worse compared to the the original uncompressed, lossless, versions (but the listening room must be appropriately prepared to reproduce a good image). This is a highly subjective topic. IMO we'll never reach full agreement. Personally, I listen MP3 while on-the-go and lossless music at home. Important to keep in mind the "size" of the experiment. Two interesting quotes from the article in c't magazine: > twelve participants would be asked to come to Hanover. > It's true that the data we collected does not support watertight conclusions, but they do provide interesting insights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_imaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_imaging

em500 5y ago
> Important to keep in mind the "size" of the experiment. Two interesting quotes from the article in c't magazine: >> twelve participants would be asked to come to Hanover. It's a mistake to apply vanilla statistical thinking here. The 12 participants were not randomly drawn from the German population, they were extremely skewed towards enthusiasts/professionals: audio engineers, an owner of an actual Nautilus 801, someone who worked on MP3/AAC at Fraunhofer IIS, someone who works preparing masters for Deutsche Gramophon. If these are the people who have enormous difficulty distinguishing 256kbps MP3 from the CD original, I'm certainly not going to worry that I am going to miss out on anything with 256kbps MP3. If 12 Grand Slam participants tell me they can't tell the difference between a standard $100 and a $1000 high end tennis racket, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that it's going to make any difference for me.
- vatican_banker 5y ago
  > It's a mistake to apply vanilla statistical thinking here. The 12 participants [...] were extremely skewed towards enthusiasts/professionals It is still undetermined if having 12 highly-skilled professionals in the experiment is enough to have a conclusive experiment. Also, this subject is so difficult to get right that the authors of the article themselves hedged by saying that experiment "does not support watertight conclusions".

voldacar 5y ago

I got to hear the sennheiser orpheus a few years ago. Honestly it was kind of underwhelming. It is a very physically beautiful headphone but in terms of sound, it's kind of warm with a slight haze and indistinctness in the treble. That might be pleasant for some people, but I think any modern electrostat like the L700 or SR009 would outperform it significantly if you put them side by side. I assume its value is due mostly to its rarity.

brnt 5y ago

Note that the quality of MP3 encoders has changed significantly since 2000, and differed significantly between encoders at the time. (Does anyone not use LAME these days?)

jfrunyon 5y ago

Honestly, these days drives are so large compared to even FLAC that it's not worth worrying about if an MP3 would be just as good, IMHO.

teknopaul 5y ago
mp3 is often better, it removes close frequencies that your ears can't hear baring tricks like very slow phase shifts. Speakers and amps are asked to do less work, so they often sound better, particularly at high volume. The same applies to the air the sound travels through and your ear drum and bio-pickups. You can often tell the difference, but its arguable if before or after mp3 processing is and improvement or destructive in terms of psychoacoustics. I often see djs who swear by wavs without knowing how the pitch and tempo adjust algo work in the equipment they are using. I.e. Top of the range pioneer Cdj decks run Busybox Linux and ffmpeg
leetcrew 5y ago
I'm quite certain I can't tell the difference between flac and mp3 v0, but I keep all the music I care about in flac. I don't know what lossy formats will have mainstream support in 10-20 years, but I know I will be able to transcode flac to them.

vnorilo 5y ago

I believe Fraunhofver did a pretty rigorous scientific test that established the CD transparency quality to be around 256kbps mp3. I don't dispute or doubt that. However, obvious encoding artifacts abound on Spotify. Do I have a superhuman hearing? Probably not. My hypothesis is that not everyone authors lossy files as meticulously as Fraunhofver. Also, the performance of mp3 depends on a highly linear and faithful reproduction after decoding. Mp3 is painfully obvious on crappy, processed-to-hell speaker systems like the iMac. I think the real question is, why bother with lossy codecs? FLAC streams are lightweight by today's standards, and it's just so much simpler.

KozmoNau7 5y ago
Spotify doesn't use MP3, though. So if you're hearing MP3-specific artifacts (pre-echo, washy "underwater" cymbals), those are probably the result of bad mastering or perhaps using MP3-encoded samples in some tracks. I hear this on some lossless tracks I have, unfortunately if the source material is flawed, there's nothing you can do. Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, except the lowest bitrate on mobile, which is HE-ACCv2, and on Chromecast/similar devices, which get AAC (because they can't natively decode Ogg Vorbis). It is a significantly better codec than MP3, and doesn't suffer from the pre-echo, washy cymbals and badly-encoded high frequencies. At least not until you severely decrease the bitrate.
- CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
  I did some test with ogg vorbis a while back. I think it was q4 vs q5 that was my limit. What struck me though was that I couldn’t tell which was “better”. In the track there was a section where the background drumming on one setting sounded like aluminum drum sticks while the other like wooden drumstick. Very subtle effect, and took some intense concentration to pick out.
- vnorilo 5y ago
  That is true of course, although the more modern codecs most significantly outperform mp3 at lower bitrates. At 256kbps mp3 should be enough, and iirc Spotify offers 320kbps ogg in hifi mode (not sure, I mostly don't ever use it unless someone links something) which should also be enough. The most common problem is when the master is hot and encodes clipped waveforms. It sounds even stranger on lossy. In fact I'm not sure if the codecs' filter banks still have perfect reconstruction in this case or if it's just a borked master. In any case, it always tends to be quite clear when I switch between lossy and lossless on Tidal. Anyway, it's complicated and brittle, and lossless 44/16 is only something like 2x bitrate and bit-perfect (so you can write proper regression tests for codecs very easily) shrug, I think I'll go that route. disclaimer: occasionally get paid for mastering music, so I'm wired to prefer simplicity, transparency and don't mind some redundancy in ensuring signal integrity.