4 ms·

why is that?

shawabawa3 2y ago
the human ear just isn't good enough at processing sound to need lossless codecs a modern audio codec at 320kbps bitrate is more than good enough. Lossless is useful for recompressing stuff when new codecs come out or for different purposes without introducing artefacts, not really for listening (in before angry audiophiles attack me)
- arp242 2y ago
  > a modern audio codec at 320kbps bitrate is more than good enough. MP3 V0 should already be, and is typically smaller. That said, it does depend on the quality of the encoder; back in the day a lot of MP3 encoders were not very good, even at high quality settings. These days LAME is the de-facto standard and it's pretty good, but maybe some others aren't(?)
  - elabajaba 2y ago
    Hell, modern audio codecs (opus and AAC, but not the ffmpeg opus/AAC encoders) are transparent at ~160-192k. MP3 is a legacy codec these days, and generally needs ~30% more bitrate for similar quality.
- givinguflac 2y ago
  The human ear is absolutely good enough to hear the difference. However the vast majority of the population has not had listening training. I’ve done double blind tests repeatedly and provided it’s not on crap audio gear I can absolutely tell the difference, as can most of my golden ears trained acquaintances.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    This conflicts with every published double blind study that was not in a context that had the word "audiophile" in its name. When you say you "can absolutely tell the difference", what score are you getting that proves you are doing better than guessing? And with what type of lossy encoding?
    - hackingonempty 2y ago
      People who make such claims either repeat the tests until they get one with a perfect score or otherwise don't count every trial, do a poor job of conversion so there is clipping or other artifacts that break blinding, compare different sources like the standard version that accompanies the "high rez" version on an SACD but may be from a different mastering, don't level match, don't actually do a real double blind test, don't do enough trials, or are just lying.
      - givinguflac 2y ago
        I’ve done multiple online tests and always scored at least in the 70s. Using foobar and my own cds or hi res downloads I’ve done encoding of the same exact wav file to flac, mp3, and ogg. Flac wins. Using monitor speakers (Mackie MR5’s) and a high end DAC it was not at all difficult for me. I truly appreciate you calling me a liar though; really adds to the conversation.
        BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
        > Mackie MR5 Don't want to sound snarky, but these are only "decent" (the succeeding MRx24 add an actually designed waveguide) and you'll never hear the sound of a DAC unless it's very badly implemented or has SNR troubles that show with ultra sensitive IEMs. Anyone who has read enough of the research in the matter will tell you that the codec itself is an improbable culprit. The way it's encoded and the test setup usually are "at fault" in this situation.
        snvzz 2y ago
        Indeed, it is quite possible to tell mp3 from flac in double blind test, with a good pair of ears and cheap (but well-measuring) audio equipment.
        BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
        I give the benefit of doubt for mp3, since the format is simply flawed even with all the LAME magic (e.g. https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME_Y_switch https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME_Y_switch). Though the differences mostly remain in the realm of ABX competition, especially with VBR (always use VBR). But for Vorbis, AAC and Opus with decent encoder/bitrate, I doubt it. Baring killer samples like castanets showing pre-echo issues inherent to some MDCT based codecs.
  - hylaride 2y ago
    > However the vast majority of the population has not had listening training. This pretty much means they don't need it. And even if they're all trained, there's still very much a good enough for many situations. I don't need to waste data on lossless if I'm streaming to my phone in a noisy environment, even with noise cancelling. Add to the fact that 99% of Bluetooth headphones are lossy anyways and you're left overoptimizing. Sitting on a beanbag at home with a pair of Hifiman Susvaras or some other overpriced headseat, that's maybe another story...
    - seba_dos1 2y ago
      > Add to the fact that 99% of Bluetooth headphones are lossy anyways and you're left overoptimizing. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, Bluetooth headphones is actually a use case where lossless audio helps the most, as you're avoiding double-lossy compression. SBC XQ isn't that bad, but it gets much worse when what you feed it is already lossy.
      - Marsymars 2y ago
        I really like my 2.4 GHz RF headphones. Not portable outside of the house, but optical input to the base, lossless wireless transmission, and compared to Bluetooth, better range/interference/pairing/obsolescence. I like them so much I bought a second pair that I have as a backup for when the first breaks.
    - givinguflac 2y ago
      Right, and children shouldn’t be taught to name distinct colors and therefore they would not need it. Hot take there bud.
      - hylaride 2y ago
        I didn't say they shouldn't, but aren't.
- timrichard 2y ago
  Possibly, depending on the listener. But why would I bother recompressing when the various media players in the house can deal with the FLAC files just fine? On a typical home wifi network, a track probably transfers in about a second.
  - shawabawa3 2y ago
    right but I was talking about in the context of low latency streaming, where the costs of sending FLAC over <insert modern audio codec here> are considerably higher (in terms of latency, bandwidth etc)

why is that?

the human ear just isn't good enough at processing sound to need lossless codecs a modern audio codec at 320kbps bitrate is more than good enough. Lossless is useful for recompressing stuff when new codecs come out or for different purposes without introducing artefacts, not really for listening (in before angry audiophiles attack me)

arp242 2y ago
> a modern audio codec at 320kbps bitrate is more than good enough. MP3 V0 should already be, and is typically smaller. That said, it does depend on the quality of the encoder; back in the day a lot of MP3 encoders were not very good, even at high quality settings. These days LAME is the de-facto standard and it's pretty good, but maybe some others aren't(?)
- elabajaba 2y ago
  Hell, modern audio codecs (opus and AAC, but not the ffmpeg opus/AAC encoders) are transparent at ~160-192k. MP3 is a legacy codec these days, and generally needs ~30% more bitrate for similar quality.
givinguflac 2y ago
The human ear is absolutely good enough to hear the difference. However the vast majority of the population has not had listening training. I’ve done double blind tests repeatedly and provided it’s not on crap audio gear I can absolutely tell the difference, as can most of my golden ears trained acquaintances.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  This conflicts with every published double blind study that was not in a context that had the word "audiophile" in its name. When you say you "can absolutely tell the difference", what score are you getting that proves you are doing better than guessing? And with what type of lossy encoding?
  - hackingonempty 2y ago
    People who make such claims either repeat the tests until they get one with a perfect score or otherwise don't count every trial, do a poor job of conversion so there is clipping or other artifacts that break blinding, compare different sources like the standard version that accompanies the "high rez" version on an SACD but may be from a different mastering, don't level match, don't actually do a real double blind test, don't do enough trials, or are just lying.
    - givinguflac 2y ago
      I’ve done multiple online tests and always scored at least in the 70s. Using foobar and my own cds or hi res downloads I’ve done encoding of the same exact wav file to flac, mp3, and ogg. Flac wins. Using monitor speakers (Mackie MR5’s) and a high end DAC it was not at all difficult for me. I truly appreciate you calling me a liar though; really adds to the conversation.
      - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
        > Mackie MR5 Don't want to sound snarky, but these are only "decent" (the succeeding MRx24 add an actually designed waveguide) and you'll never hear the sound of a DAC unless it's very badly implemented or has SNR troubles that show with ultra sensitive IEMs. Anyone who has read enough of the research in the matter will tell you that the codec itself is an improbable culprit. The way it's encoded and the test setup usually are "at fault" in this situation.
        snvzz 2y ago
        Indeed, it is quite possible to tell mp3 from flac in double blind test, with a good pair of ears and cheap (but well-measuring) audio equipment.
        BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
        I give the benefit of doubt for mp3, since the format is simply flawed even with all the LAME magic (e.g. https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME_Y_switch https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME_Y_switch). Though the differences mostly remain in the realm of ABX competition, especially with VBR (always use VBR). But for Vorbis, AAC and Opus with decent encoder/bitrate, I doubt it. Baring killer samples like castanets showing pre-echo issues inherent to some MDCT based codecs.
- hylaride 2y ago
  > However the vast majority of the population has not had listening training. This pretty much means they don't need it. And even if they're all trained, there's still very much a good enough for many situations. I don't need to waste data on lossless if I'm streaming to my phone in a noisy environment, even with noise cancelling. Add to the fact that 99% of Bluetooth headphones are lossy anyways and you're left overoptimizing. Sitting on a beanbag at home with a pair of Hifiman Susvaras or some other overpriced headseat, that's maybe another story...
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    > Add to the fact that 99% of Bluetooth headphones are lossy anyways and you're left overoptimizing. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, Bluetooth headphones is actually a use case where lossless audio helps the most, as you're avoiding double-lossy compression. SBC XQ isn't that bad, but it gets much worse when what you feed it is already lossy.
    - Marsymars 2y ago
      I really like my 2.4 GHz RF headphones. Not portable outside of the house, but optical input to the base, lossless wireless transmission, and compared to Bluetooth, better range/interference/pairing/obsolescence. I like them so much I bought a second pair that I have as a backup for when the first breaks.
  - givinguflac 2y ago
    Right, and children shouldn’t be taught to name distinct colors and therefore they would not need it. Hot take there bud.
    - hylaride 2y ago
      I didn't say they shouldn't, but aren't.
timrichard 2y ago
Possibly, depending on the listener. But why would I bother recompressing when the various media players in the house can deal with the FLAC files just fine? On a typical home wifi network, a track probably transfers in about a second.
- shawabawa3 2y ago
  right but I was talking about in the context of low latency streaming, where the costs of sending FLAC over <insert modern audio codec here> are considerably higher (in terms of latency, bandwidth etc)