Loseless vs Lossy?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=59556
Printed Date: November 25 2024 at 08:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Loseless vs Lossy?
Posted By: Shot.By.His.Own.Son
Subject: Loseless vs Lossy?
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 21:13
|
Is it really worth having my songs in lossless format? Is the sound really much better or is it just a waste of space? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 21:32
|
Depends on what you're playing the tracks with. If you're playing on a small 16 bit mp3 player with little ear buds, then Lossless is a waste of space. If you're playing on a big, wide, 24 bit stereo system with top of the line equipment, then, there will be a difference. Beware though, most "audiophile" equipment is extremely over priced and the expected performance is advertised using pseudoscience. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 21:47
|
Vs. Flossy. THOSE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND HAVE AN INDIE/ASIAN-SHAPED HOLE IN THEIR HEARTS ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Evan
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 21:52
|
If space isn't an issue, go with lossless. If your short on space, try getting at least your favourite albums in lossless. With a good speaker system, and especially on decent headphones, you can tell the difference. It shows most clearly on certain sounds - acoustic guitar passages, cymbol crashes - but all and all there is a marked increase in quality. Granted, just because a lossless file will have 10 times the bit rate of a lossy mp3 doesn't mean it will sound 10 times better - the difference is of course marginal. Also, remember that the #1 factor in quality is always what occurs upstream. A poorly produced or engineered album will never sound pristine. Conversely, very well produced albums (Crime of the Century, Aja) sound great even when compressed. Lossless files are the same quality as CDs. Ever thought your CDs sounded better than your digital downloads? Go with lossless. Can't tell the difference? Many people can't, and if thats the case you may be perfectly happy with mp3s, especially those 192kpbs and up. However, i believe there is to some extent a placebo effect here - just having files in lossless makes you think they sound better. Another bonus to lossless files is that you can convert them around to other formats and burn the to CDs with no decrease in quality. Messing around with mp3s is like making a photocopy of a photocopy. |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 22:38
|
If you are asking this, then you can't tell the difference, by listening? If this is the case what diff does it make. All I would be asking is- do you have the resources to hold them all as lossless. If not opt for 320kbs mp3. also- this will get moved shortly
|
Posted By: Shot.By.His.Own.Son
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 23:44
|
Yeah I realized after I posted it that it was in the wrong spot, and I have yet to listen to a lossless track so I have no idea how they sound. -------------
|
Posted By: Evan
Date Posted: July 14 2009 at 23:53
Have you listened to an album on a purchased CD? If so, you've essentially listened to a lossless track. Try ripping a CD you know well to an mp3 file and play it alongside the CD and see if you can tell the difference in a blind test. |
Shot.By.His.Own.Son wrote:Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 00:32
|
There doesn't seem to be a point in going lossless if you can get a 320 kbps mp3 of the song, so long as you don't have somewhat high end equipment. But if you're thinking of lossless vs. 120 kbps songs and nothing in between, uh, hell yeah go for it. But go for FLAC for sure. Nothing plays APE files holy crap they're almost useless. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 01:21
|
http://www.heise.de/ct/Der-c-t-Leser-Hoertest-MP3-gegen-CD--/artikel/124391 - http://www.heise.de/ct/Der-c-t-Leser-Hoertest-MP3-gegen-CD--/artikel/124391 They used high end gear (B&W Nautilus 803, Marantz CD14, Marantz PM14, Straightwire-Pro cables, sonically perfect room), but still most contestants (many of them audio professionals) could not tell the original (CD) apart from 256kbps MP3. My recommendation: Go for MP3 instead of lossless ... but only at a discount. The MP3 should cost significantly less than the full CD. You can get reasonably priced MP3s at eMusic.com and Amazon.com, for example. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 01:24
That would not really be a blind test, since you would still know which is which. One possible solution: Have a friend burn you a CD which contains the same track in two versions - one ripped from CD and then burned to CD from the ripped WAV, the other one ripped from CD, converted to high bitrate MP3 (with a good codec) and then burned to CD again. Then you listen to the two tracks and try to tell which is which ... ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 07:15
| Actually, the CD itself is not really a lossless format. Of course for those who like LPs better, because they sound "warmer", the LP isn't really a lossless format since there's the whole needle noise and scratches thing. Basically all recorded music is an artificial reproduction anyway. When it comes to ripping of CDs for using in a digital player, I go with WMA 64K for space conservation purposes. Recognizing that I'll most like be listening in an environment where there will be extraneous noises anyway, you'll never get perfection. When I do want to sit down and concentrate on the music, I'll play the CD using a nice set of headphones. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 16:32
|
I can't tell the difference. However, a word of warning on MP3s, I have shied away from them as late because you can't always be guaranteed of a good rip and I've had a couple of terrible albums. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 18:21
|
Unless you REALLY care about the slightest bit of a difference, it doesn't matter. I don't care either way.
------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 19:09
What is being discussed is lossless vs. lossy compression. The CD tracks are the source - their fidelity to the original music with metrics such as SNR or sampling rate is another discussion. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 19:34
| I have been wondering how much better 320 kbps is then 256 kbps, because my Pink Floyd file is taking up my undersized mp3 player ( only 8 gigs, and less than 700 songs) |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 19:52
I would say very, very marginal at best, I'd be surprised if most people could detect a difference. Everyone should be ripping to VBR, by the way |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 20:04
My point was that if you're already losing bits of the music when it's put into CD form, that you really shouldn't worry too much about even more at ripping lower lossy bit rates when you make a digital music file from a CD. I'd recommend getting a friend to help you with an experiment. Take a track you know well, rip it lossless and at various other bit rates and do a blind hearing test. See how low you can go before the track really starts to sound like it's missing something, then go with the next higher setting. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 20:07
|
I am about to do a cd/320/256 side by side comparison with "one of these days" to see how big of a difference they make. I am using a $20 pair of Sony headphones, so they're not perfect, I don't know how big a difference they will make. Edit: I don't notice any degradation, if there is it doesn't detract from the music. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 20:41
^^^^Here's someone to listen to. He's 18 and hasn't made to that point in his 20's where most people lose the ability to hear certain frequencies. Now take it into a store and try out some higher end audio equipment for us.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Shot.By.His.Own.Son
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 21:50
Through my Research I have heard that after 256 kbps the difference is not noticable at all and if it is existant its very marginal.
-------------
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: July 15 2009 at 23:45
Funnily enough, the other day I was depressed to find out that about the highest frequency I can hear is 16.7 kHz, and a few years ago I am sure I could hear 17.7kHz. It is spot on for my age, but I can't help but think that maybe I have listened to The Mars Volta too loud too often. BTW, on August 20 I will be 19, so I am hardly 18. http://www.ultrasonic-ringtones.com/ - Can you hear these ultrasonic ringtones? |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 09:50
...i agree, though i would listen to some before believing sweeping generalisations
 the ultrasonic ringtones test is very interesting, i could hear the first three ok but the fourth took great concentration to hear - many years of heavy rock gigs have taken their toll...
 i can appreciate quality sound, though based on soundstage and transparency more than high fidelity it would seem....some details appear solid hanging in mid-air, though distorted frequencies from the pc or ipod sounds i have listened to in the past are tiring and sometimes hurt
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: July 18 2009 at 13:47
|
Hey, don't forget about important thing with CD's. It's source, but what about old one vs. remastered version ? And when you have a lot of vinyls and you rip them to mp3 format, then you should have appropriate quality, right ? There's no point in making FLAC files from vinyl format. It's same when you make .AVI video from old VHS source. You can make it in 3000kbit/s quality, but it's real quality is about 500kbit/s or lower. Therefore, you have enormous file which is just not effective. I hope you will understand my point of view, it's quite a hard to think about everything. ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: July 18 2009 at 22:24
| If you can't tell the difference, then don't worry about it. If you can tell the difference, never settle for anything less than lossless. Simple. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 18 2009 at 22:45
I can hear 18.8 khz. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 00:04
|
I can only barely hear 16.7 khz. I used to have better hearing, and I don't even listen to that much music or very loud. :( ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 00:55
Everyone loses their hearing a bit over time. No worries.  |
Posted By: progvortex
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 00:18
|
The difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps is only noticeable (for me, at least) on decent+ equipment. The style of music also plays a role. A lot of straightforward rock n' roll is tolerable at 128 while classical music demands higher bit rates. Notes begin to take shape as you move to higher bit rates but if you're just listening to sloppy distorted guitar, who cares?
------------- Life is like a beanstalk... isn't it? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 01:05
|
Ironically it's usually the other way round: Classical music is often a lot easier to encode. Try it for yourself: Configure your encoder to use variable bitrate (VBR) and then rip a track of classical music and a thrash/death metal track with identical settings. You'll find that the encoder will go for a much higher bitrate with the latter ...
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |