3 ms·

> We recommend that, for serious listening, our readers use uncompressed audio file formats, such as WAV or AIF—or, if file size is an issue because of limited

> We recommend that, for serious listening, our readers use uncompressed audio file formats, such as WAV or AIF—or, if file size is an issue because of limited hard-drive space, use a lossless format such as FLAC or ALC. I recommend that, for serious listening (for some weird definition of "serious"), go to a music concert. PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step, albeit its effect is much less pronounced for so many reasons that no one even thinks it as a "compression" method. If you can tolerate PCM, you should be also able to accept some good enough lossy codecs---I don't know if that includes MP3 or AAC or Vorbis or Opus or whatever, though.

jraph 3y ago
I think it depends on the style of music. I guess for orchestral / classical music it's good. But for other styles, I don't enjoy concerts for audio quality. It's usually way too loud, so you have to wear earplugs. I've heard some made for this don't skew audio too much, but they are still a filter. And then you have to like the balance that's chosen by the audio engineers and they are often not ideal. The voices can sometimes be not loud enough to the point you don't hear the words well, the bass too loud. Frequencies don't all travel the same way, so if you are too far away some things are missing or distorted, etc. And then there's the noises from other people, the claps, the screams, etc. And the audio still possibly went through some kind of non-analog equipment. Not saying that feeling the bass in your whole body and feeling the communicative / excited atmosphere from the crowd can't be enjoyable but for audio quality, I'd rather listen to music in a calm room with some good equipment, at a volume level comfortable to me, when audio engineering didn't have to be live and could be (even) more carefully managed. > If you can tolerate PCM Are there people who can't tolerate it? It must not be very convenient. (Huge caveat to this comment: I listen to music most of my awaken hours, but I'm not an audiophile. I never carefully listen to music, it's usually in the background.)
akira2501 3y ago
> PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step, albeit its effect is much less pronounced for so many reasons that no one even thinks it as a "compression" method. 20 * log10(1.0 / 2**16) == -96db Much like sampling rate, it produces a range that's most likely outside of the ability for any human to appreciably detect. It's also a constant effect, whereas codecs actually analyze the audio to determine which components of the frequency spectrum it can eliminate. I don't think it's reasonable to compare PCM and lossy codecs this way.
rplst8 3y ago
>PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step Wrong, especially today. Modern ADCs use oversampling to push quantization noise into the inaudible range, and then filter it out before decimation to standard PCM.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Sorry, it is what you say that is wrong. Because the end result is standard PCM, the quantization can be only worse, not better. Oversampling ADCs push a much greater quantization noise into the inaudible range, and then, by low-pass filtering, reduce the quantization noise to the level of standard PCM. Oversampling ADCs are not better, they are much cheaper, because 16-bit or 24-bit quantizers with enough speed and accuracy are extremely expensive. Oversampling, i.e. sigma-delta modulation, in both ADCs and DACs, allows the use of much cheaper quantizers with low resolution, of only a few bits, or even of only 1 bit, and of much cheaper filters, which do not have to be very steep, without degrading too much the quality in comparison with real PCM conversion done at the Nyquist frequency.
  - rplst8 3y ago
    Nothing you said refutes my assertion.
deadbeeves 3y ago
>PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step No, it's a lossy encoding step. Losing at least some of the information of a performance when you record it is unavoidable. For PCM to be a lossless, when you play it back it would have to transport you back in time to when the performance was recorded and you should be able to touch the performer. You're being silly.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  That's a silly answer for a silly claim, if I really need a clarification.
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    I mean, you called PCM lossy because it quantizes the signal. What lossless recording method exists, if PCM is lossy? If the answer is none, then it seems you have a word for something that doesn't and can't possibly exist, and a qualifier that doesn't serve any purpose.
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      Which is the exact point of my silly answer. :-) The original article claimed that "of necessity [lossy codecs] eliminate some of the musical information". I don't know how to quantify the musical information, but given another statement that "[l]ess bits always equals less music", it seems to be more or less same to the information-theoretic complexity. But as you have correctly guessed, there are a lot of places where the information can be lost, everything from performer's skills, musical instruments, ADC/DAC processes, and up to speakers. So "information not lost" is not a good argument for bashing lossy codecs, because you have lost so many informations already, just that you haven't noticed yet. Also I claim the lossless compression exists even after this massive reduction of potential information because you can prove that a specific step is indeed bijective. In fact, even the most of lossy codecs are lossless. They are designed to lose some information at the very specific point so that they can be analyzed. "Lossless JPEG (re)compression" wouldn't make sense unless you realize that those lossless steps can be done more efficiently. I have seen enough people who assumed that this is impossible though...

jraph 3y ago

I think it depends on the style of music. I guess for orchestral / classical music it's good. But for other styles, I don't enjoy concerts for audio quality. It's usually way too loud, so you have to wear earplugs. I've heard some made for this don't skew audio too much, but they are still a filter. And then you have to like the balance that's chosen by the audio engineers and they are often not ideal. The voices can sometimes be not loud enough to the point you don't hear the words well, the bass too loud. Frequencies don't all travel the same way, so if you are too far away some things are missing or distorted, etc. And then there's the noises from other people, the claps, the screams, etc. And the audio still possibly went through some kind of non-analog equipment. Not saying that feeling the bass in your whole body and feeling the communicative / excited atmosphere from the crowd can't be enjoyable but for audio quality, I'd rather listen to music in a calm room with some good equipment, at a volume level comfortable to me, when audio engineering didn't have to be live and could be (even) more carefully managed. > If you can tolerate PCM Are there people who can't tolerate it? It must not be very convenient. (Huge caveat to this comment: I listen to music most of my awaken hours, but I'm not an audiophile. I never carefully listen to music, it's usually in the background.)

akira2501 3y ago

> PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step, albeit its effect is much less pronounced for so many reasons that no one even thinks it as a "compression" method. 20 * log10(1.0 / 2**16) == -96db Much like sampling rate, it produces a range that's most likely outside of the ability for any human to appreciably detect. It's also a constant effect, whereas codecs actually analyze the audio to determine which components of the frequency spectrum it can eliminate. I don't think it's reasonable to compare PCM and lossy codecs this way.

rplst8 3y ago

>PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step Wrong, especially today. Modern ADCs use oversampling to push quantization noise into the inaudible range, and then filter it out before decimation to standard PCM.

adrian_b 3y ago
Sorry, it is what you say that is wrong. Because the end result is standard PCM, the quantization can be only worse, not better. Oversampling ADCs push a much greater quantization noise into the inaudible range, and then, by low-pass filtering, reduce the quantization noise to the level of standard PCM. Oversampling ADCs are not better, they are much cheaper, because 16-bit or 24-bit quantizers with enough speed and accuracy are extremely expensive. Oversampling, i.e. sigma-delta modulation, in both ADCs and DACs, allows the use of much cheaper quantizers with low resolution, of only a few bits, or even of only 1 bit, and of much cheaper filters, which do not have to be very steep, without degrading too much the quality in comparison with real PCM conversion done at the Nyquist frequency.
- rplst8 3y ago
  Nothing you said refutes my assertion.

deadbeeves 3y ago

>PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step No, it's a lossy encoding step. Losing at least some of the information of a performance when you record it is unavoidable. For PCM to be a lossless, when you play it back it would have to transport you back in time to when the performance was recorded and you should be able to touch the performer. You're being silly.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
That's a silly answer for a silly claim, if I really need a clarification.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  I mean, you called PCM lossy because it quantizes the signal. What lossless recording method exists, if PCM is lossy? If the answer is none, then it seems you have a word for something that doesn't and can't possibly exist, and a qualifier that doesn't serve any purpose.
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    Which is the exact point of my silly answer. :-) The original article claimed that "of necessity [lossy codecs] eliminate some of the musical information". I don't know how to quantify the musical information, but given another statement that "[l]ess bits always equals less music", it seems to be more or less same to the information-theoretic complexity. But as you have correctly guessed, there are a lot of places where the information can be lost, everything from performer's skills, musical instruments, ADC/DAC processes, and up to speakers. So "information not lost" is not a good argument for bashing lossy codecs, because you have lost so many informations already, just that you haven't noticed yet. Also I claim the lossless compression exists even after this massive reduction of potential information because you can prove that a specific step is indeed bijective. In fact, even the most of lossy codecs are lossless. They are designed to lose some information at the very specific point so that they can be analyzed. "Lossless JPEG (re)compression" wouldn't make sense unless you realize that those lossless steps can be done more efficiently. I have seen enough people who assumed that this is impossible though...