99% Of Our Music Is Lossy

[Jsmith]

I am probably not answering Chris's original question correctly, but I have always viewed the terms lossless and lossy to relate to how I personally have manipulated the material once receiving it.

[ted_b]

I think Chris's main premise is great (that cd quality is compromised to the original recording as MP3 is to cd, too compromised now that we have the ability to listen to studio masters at their original resolution) but using the terms lossless and lossy to describe this compromise is too confusing, since the industry has already applied those terms to codecs that do or don't lose musical content during conversion (poor rough definition). I think terminology like "original", "studio master" or "cd generation", etc would work better. Obviously, terms like "original" have been misused in the past (MoFi's Original Master Recordings are available at any number of compromised formats) for marketing or branding reasons, but I think there is a real need to get to some standards and some uncomplicated provenance reporting. But yes, anything 16 bit is clearly a compromise, and we should begin to always think that way. Even if the majority of "originals" out there are simply 24/44, the jump from 16 to 24 is quite a huge one.

 

Digital is here to stay, and that means that we audiophiles and music lovers can easily examine digits. This detective work will continue, with or without great expertise, and will continue to uncover sugar-sweetened faux material, etc. It would be so much easier if we simply had nutritional info on the label.

[Perry]

Well, no doubt in my mind that anything that I possess in the way of music that is in a format less that what the music was originally recorded in would be considered lossy using the guidlines provided in this thread. I would think that for the confines of this discussion without regard to what the industry and codec terminology brings to the table, that is a very simple and easy answer. How much benefit that gives would be greatly altered by other factors pointed out here in this discussion.

 

The one question that I would have would be how you would define the term lossless with concern to analog music that was recorded on tape or other formats? There seems to be no reference concerning analog music transferred from (say) tape as once the music is digitized, any format could be considered lossy once a newer higher resolution format was used to transfer the recording to the digital realm. Would 16/44 be considered lossy compared to 24/192 with both recordings being directly digitized from the same analog source? Could we once day be making the argument that 24/192 is not very good compared to other formats that technology may lead us to in the future?

 

So if the digital recording was originally made on a digital source, then the answer would be easy to figure out if we were aware of the specifics. If it was made on an analog source, then the answer can become convoluted pretty quickly.

[Melvin]

Such a good question.

 

I probably have an outlier opinion on this, but I think the original recording specs should be specified, and any distribution with any specifications lower than that spec should be considered "lossy."

 

-Paul

 

I agree with you Paul and in the case of a studio master recording on analog tape, that should be specified as well.

[RankStranger]

Where should the lossless / lossy line be drawn and why?

 

It would depend on the context. In the wider world i.e. outside of audiophile circles I'm not sure that anyone much gives a crap about higher-than-CD resolution. It's hard enough getting the general populace to realise how bad heavy compression is. When dealing with the general public I think it's acceptable to set the lossless benchmark at CD quality and anything better can be classified as high resolution. To do otherwise, whether right or wrong, is to court further divisions between audio people and "normal people." (No, I'm not saying this matters)

 

If however, we are talking in the context of our community; be it the "audiophile" community, the online audiophile community, the online computer audiophile community or the online Computer Audiophile community, then I think lossless is really 24/192. But why? Is the point of the thread to attempt to set a new universal naming convention or just for shits and giggles? I ask sincerely.

 

RS

[Melvin]

If however, we are talking in the context of our community; be it the "audiophile" community, the online audiophile community, the online computer audiophile community or the online Computer Audiophile community, then I think lossless is really 24/192. But why? Is the point of the thread to attempt to set a new universal naming convention or just for shits and giggles? I ask sincerely.

 

RS

 

Because we are a bunch of obsessive/compulsive audiophools

[audiventory]

Most music isn't recorded at 16/44.1 but we've been willing to call it lossless.

 

Recording and processing at high sampling rates allow maximally save sound quality (losses).

 

When recording lose information (acoustic instruments) always.

 

Acoustic concert has losses too (room/hall distortions: reflexions, etc.). One acoustic orchestra will sound differently at different halls.

 

Resume: 100% of our music is lossy.