Jump to content
IGNORED

Is there a lossy format for hires audio?


gaiusparx

Recommended Posts

MP3 can only do up to 48khz, but actually can do 24 bit. But Wavpack as suggested looks like the format you are looking for.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I don't really see the point of a specific compressed 24 bit format. I'd simply either have the high res or just convert it down to 16/44 MP3 or AAC, as you should either optimize sound or file size in my opinion. iTunes does this automatically when syncing to an iPhone, even for 24/192.

Link to comment

What on Earth would be the point?

 

Compression gets rid of things the software engineer thinks you can't hear. It doesn't put them back on replay.

 

You'd need an engineer with 2 brains to devise the algorithm, one sane enough to do the programming, the other crazy enough to think there's anything audible over 20k.

 

No offence, gaiusparkx, but the fact that a question like this can pass unremarked just shows how woefully inadequate is the technical expertise this forum draws on on a regular basis.

Mike zerO Romeo Oscar November

http://wakibaki.com

Link to comment
What on Earth would be the point?

 

Compression gets rid of things the software engineer thinks you can't hear. It doesn't put them back on replay.

 

You'd need an engineer with 2 brains to devise the algorithm, one sane enough to do the programming, the other crazy enough to think there's anything audible over 20k.

 

No offence, gaiusparkx, but the fact that a question like this can pass unremarked just shows how woefully inadequate is the technical expertise this forum draws on on a regular basis.

 

I guess that Barry Diament is wasting his time then, recording genuine musical content to at least 57kHz in his 24/192 recordings ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

It is an interesting question and I was asking myself a similar question having just watched the video of Andrew Scheps speaking at Google.

 

The baseline for Lossy compression is 44/16 and is referenced as a combination of the CODEC and the bit-rate (e.g. MP3 @ 320 mbps). But what happens if you base lossy compression on 96/24 or 192/24 files?

 

Obviously the knee-jerk reaction is that "It's lossy, what's the point?", but I still can't help asking the question "How would a lossy file based on a higher resolution lossless source compare to a lossless 44/16 file?"

 

If 44/16 WAV/AIFF streams at 1411 kbps and a lossy version streams at 320 kbps... how would a lossless 192/24 WAV/AIFF file compressed down a comparable amount, to say ~2116 kbps, compare to the 44/16 lossless version? Sure, you're losing something, but you're starting with more.

Link to comment
It is an interesting question and I was asking myself a similar question having just watched the video of Andrew Scheps speaking at Google.

 

The baseline for Lossy compression is 44/16 and is referenced as a combination of the CODEC and the bit-rate (e.g. MP3 @ 320 mbps). But what happens if you base lossy compression on 96/24 or 192/24 files?

 

Obviously the knee-jerk reaction is that "It's lossy, what's the point?", but I still can't help asking the question "How would a lossy file based on a higher resolution lossless source compare to a lossless 44/16 file?"

 

If 44/16 WAV/AIFF streams at 1411 kbps and a lossy version streams at 320 kbps... how would a lossless 192/24 WAV/AIFF file compressed down a comparable amount, to say ~2116 kbps, compare to the 44/16 lossless version? Sure, you're losing something, but you're starting with more.

 

Why do you say that the baseline for lossy is 16/44? You can convert any format into AAC and MP3. Actually, even the ITunes Store starts

with 24 but highres files which get converted to AAC256 (see the notes on "Mastered for Itunes")

Link to comment
I guess that Barry Diament is wasting his time then, recording genuine musical content to at least 57kHz in his 24/192 recordings ?

 

Well, yes, Alex. He's wasting his time.

 

As far as I can see there's nothing that's considered beyond credibility on this forum. This troubles me. It suggests to me that things have got a bit out of control. No reasonable person does not accept that there is flim-flammery being done in the audio industry. An unceasing flow of uncritical reviews only undermines the credibility of the reviews.

 

What you have to remember is that there is still a mainstream engineering model of audio, and beyond that of electronics, that very many things are based on it, such as the compression used in mobile phones, and that it has been in no way overthrown.

 

All you guys chatting here together, finding support and agreement, are nevertheless simply enabling each other in a 'folie à plusieurs', or mass hysteria as it is less kindly called. Remember when hysteria used to be associated with the womb? Now it's the ears.

 

A few of you started claiming that you could hear benefits from HD audio, and you've taken the volume of unverified observations (not that many actually in a world of 7 billion) as proof conclusive that it's true.

 

I understand you want it to be true, but it's when you most want it to be true that you have to be most careful not to deceive yourself, and you guys aren't careful, you jump into any crackpot theory with both feet.

 

We've got a wide range of impossibilities being touted, and it seems that someone who believes in one impossibility will readily believe in another unrelated impossibility, and someone who can never recognise when there is insufficient evidence for a conclusion is missing an essential element in their mental toolbox.

 

This is not to say that there are no reasonable posts, but the reasonable posters struggle to make their voices heard.

 

I don't want to disagree with your pet producer, but pet producer is what he is, and he panders to the audience he finds here, as do several pet 'experts', who, not to put too fine a point on it, know which side of their bread is buttered. They're gonna say anything that they think is going to play popular with the mob. And of course some of those 'DSP' guys can never get a regular job, if the prospective employer gets wind of their doubts about Shannon/Nyquist.

Mike zerO Romeo Oscar November

http://wakibaki.com

Link to comment
What on Earth would be the point?

 

Compression gets rid of things the software engineer thinks you can't hear. It doesn't put them back on replay.

 

You'd need an engineer with 2 brains to devise the algorithm, one sane enough to do the programming, the other crazy enough to think there's anything audible over 20k.

 

No offence, gaiusparkx, but the fact that a question like this can pass unremarked just shows how woefully inadequate is the technical expertise this forum draws on on a regular basis.

 

Well to be fair, the OP did write: "Just curious and pls don't shot me down."

 

So the answer could take a few forms. One being what you alluded to in we can't hear beyond 20 khz. So lets say you have a hirez recording perhaps not available in another format. Lossy conversion to 48/24 MP3 would loose nothing vs. some sort of compressed version at 192/24. Hence simply no need. If he is curious, the reason would be primarily that codecs for human consumption aim to use modeling of human hearing abilities to know what usually won't be missed. Using such models more than 48khz isn't needed.

 

I don't happen to know if Wavpack rolls everything over 20khz or not. Maybe it is useful for researchers composing sounds for dogs, cats or bats. ;)

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Why do you say that the baseline for lossy is 16/44? You can convert any format into AAC and MP3. Actually, even the ITunes Store starts

with 24 but highres files which get converted to AAC256 (see the notes on "Mastered for Itunes")

 

The baseline of comparison for lossy files I typically see is to 44/16 lossless rather than anyone comparing lossy files directly to lossless high-res files (44/24 and up). Now I know that storage and bandwidth are so inexpensive that it's more or less irrelevant, but I guess the question is can a lossy rip of a high-res file sound better than a lossless 44/16 encode at a bit-rate equal to or moderately greater than that of the lossless 44/16 file?

Link to comment
Well, yes, Alex. He's wasting his time.

Interesting. Because despite my age (75) I can readily hear differences between the 24/192 and 16/44.1 Format comparisons supplied by Barry. Neither do I need any of those self serving DBTs so beloved of crusty old engineers. The differences aren't minor, they stick out like the dangling bits of a stud bull through a good system.

I would suggest to you that it's the rise time of the waveform that matters, not just how high a sine wave we can hear, and 16/44.1 is simply NOT capable of fully representing very fast transients. Even the human sneeze has been shown to have frequency components that extend past 30kHz.

You will find references to more recent research in this area scattered through the forum.

There are many forum members who can and do ,appreciate the high resolution formats, including the latest DSD formats.

The previous modelling of human hearing in your dusty old textbooks is well and truly out of date.(wink)

As for esldude, I notice that he has quietly in recent times extended the goalposts to 48kHz. He never admits he is wrong about 16/44.1 , just quietly moves the goal posts !

.

Kind Regards

 

Alex

 

P.S.

 

Fred

Just to raise your BP a few points.This is in addition to confirming reports by Martin Colloms and quite a few others.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/linear-powered-rips-and-flash-drives-sound-better-alex-was-right-22116/

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Interesting. Because despite my age (75) I can readily hear differences between the 24/192 and 16/44.1 Format comparisons supplied by Barry. Neither do I need any of those self serving DBTs so beloved of crusty old engineers. The differences aren't minor, they stick out like the dangling bits of a stud bull through a good system.

I would suggest to you that it's the rise time of the waveform that matters, not just how high a sine wave we can hear, and 16/44.1 is simply NOT capable of

fully representing very fast transients. Even the human sneeze has been shown to have frequency components that extend past 30kHz.

You will find references to more recent research in this area scattered through the forum.

There are many forum members who can and do ,appreciate the high resolution formats, including the latest DSD formats.

The previous modelling of human hearing in your dusty old textbooks is well and truly out of date.(wink)

As for esldude, I notice that he has quietly in recent times extended the goalposts to 48kHz. He never admits he is wrong about 16/44.1 , just quietly moves the goal posts !

.

Kind Regards

 

Alex

 

P.S.

 

Fred

Just to raise your BP a few points.This is in addition to confirming reports by Martin Colloms and quite a few others.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/linear-powered-rips-and-flash-drives-sound-better-alex-was-right-22116/

 

The wonderful fantasy world of Sandyk. Extending my goalposts you say. More fantasy. The question was lossy formats. MP3 works up to 48khz hence my mentioning 48khz.

 

As for the rest, I am sure Waki has no use for the twaddle. Whether the oft repeated fable of audible ultrasonic rise times at higher rates or confirmation by Martin Colloms.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I don't happen to know if Wavpack rolls everything over 20khz or not. Maybe it is useful for researchers composing sounds for dogs, cats or bats. ;)

 

I know, I been using this software from beginning of this century (from Ver3. @1999, if I remember correctly :)). Wavpack don't cut or rolloff anything from sound spectrum. I measured this behavior myself. XLD has Wavpack built-in, so everyone can test it out now.

When I experimented with lossy mode, I found that in CD resolution transparency is achieved from ca 550-600 kbps and up. Today I use only lossless mode when needed, and btw I prefer Wavpack to FLAC, the later sometimes gives some weird errors occasionally.

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
As for the rest, I am sure Waki has no use for the twaddle.

 

Of course he hasn't. He is as deaf as you are ! (grin)

Sooner or later, you are going to have to accept that far more C.A. members prefer the high resolution formats , including recent DSD, over RB CD , than those that keep insisting that RB CD is as good as it gets.

Most also appreciate the more recent research by Miska about the very audible advantages of DSD with it's much wider frequency range than RB CD.

You probably don't appreciate the added clarity of 4K video over 1080P either ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

1080P? SVGA is where it's at - yea baby :)

Analog: Koetsu Rosewood > VPI Aries 3 w/SDS > EAR 834P > EAR 834L: Audiodesk cleaner

Digital Fun: DAS > CAPS v3 w/LPS (JRMC) SOtM USB > Lynx Hilo > EAR 834L

Digital Serious: DAS > CAPS v3 w/LPS (HQPlayer) Ethernet > SMS-100 NAA > Lampi DSD L4 G5 > EAR 834L

Digital Disc: Oppo BDP 95 > EAR 834L

Output: EAR 834L > Xilica XP4080 DSP > Odessey Stratos Mono Extreme > Legacy Aeris

Phones: EAR 834L > Little Dot Mk ii > Senheiser HD 800

Link to comment
...accept that far more C.A. members prefer the high resolution formats , including recent DSD, over RB CD , than those that keep insisting that RB CD is as good as it gets.

Most also appreciate the more recent research by Miska about the very audible advantages of DSD with it's much wider frequency range than RB CD.

You probably don't appreciate the added clarity of 4K video over 1080P either ?

 

I not only accept this, Alex, I allude to it and bemoan it in my previous post.

 

A lot of people here believe in a lot of weird things, which is OK, but it's spoiling things because it's standing in the way of making any real progress.

 

You need a hard core of mainstream experts, with common understanding of the body of engineering knowledge, not a bunch of flakes united only by their rejection of various aspects of that knowledge, if the forum is going to really contribute something useful to the community. Just to keep things going down the right track.

 

These guys don't want to be having to reject a load of demagoguery every time they make a commonsense assertion.

 

This forum has done a lot to upset what was accepted in the audiophile lore, that computers were second-class sources. People still think like that, but I have had nothing else for more than a decade. Now I no longer use the desktop, I feed my tablet through the TV HDMI and stream wi-fi from the NAS. You guys are all still playing catchup. Read the Tom's Hardware DAC review. Accept it.

 

Fred

 

Undoubtedly video resolution will eventually approach that of the human eye. Whether a video screen will then become indistinguishable from reality is moot, but I guess you can see the pixels even with 4k if you look close enough to the screen.

 

OP,

 

As esldude points out, you did ask not to have anybody jump down your throat. I don't really mean to do so, and I did really take advantage of your thread to make a point, please don't take it amiss.

Mike zerO Romeo Oscar November

http://wakibaki.com

Link to comment

Fred

I have sent you a PM in order to try and prevent this thread going further off topic. Not that you will believe anything I have to say though, as your Expectation Bias will prevent you from hearing any improvement over RB CD with 24/192, DSD etc.

 

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Guys, do you REALLY think this is the place for the 200th edition of the highres worth it yes/no discussion? How about we get back to the topic the OP actually asked about?

 

Alex is pestering me about off topic too, but this is absolutely germane. If you seriously want to discuss this topic then you have to have a model of human hearing against which to design your software. And that brings you right back to the question of audibility above 20k.

 

What else is there to say? Stupid question? That's what I'm trying to avoid saying.

 

You take your HD file, downsample it to 16/44k1, and present it to the compressor of your choice, MP3...

 

You tell me what more a custom HD compressor is going to do, and I'll tell you why it doesn't make sense.

 

The most obvious thing to do to reduce the size of an HD audio file with minimal (no) loss of quality is to reformat it for RBCD, since at the very least there's still no substantial agreement that HD is any better. You're operating on the presumption that there is, but then I'm guessing you don't have the skills to write said compression software, and I can't see persuading anybody with the skills to undertake such a crazy task, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover you've got some scammer offering to do it for you in a minute.

 

You didn't come down with the last shower of rain, did you? You can't just trust people. It's the internet.

 

And then there's the other weird stuff. This place is like a new-wave festival.

 

Some of them want to use you

Some of them want to be used by you

Some of them want to abuse you

Some of them want to be abused

Mike zerO Romeo Oscar November

http://wakibaki.com

Link to comment

The most obvious thing to do to reduce the size of an HD audio file with minimal (no) loss of quality is to reformat it for RBCD, since at the very least there's still no substantial agreement that HD is any better.

 

Weirdest thing I readed in this week... Because more than half week is left, I suspect more weird things are on the way...

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
Well, yes, Alex. He's wasting his time.

 

As far as I can see there's nothing that's considered beyond credibility on this forum. This troubles me. It suggests to me that things have got a bit out of control. No reasonable person does not accept that there is flim-flammery being done in the audio industry. An unceasing flow of uncritical reviews only undermines the credibility of the reviews.

 

What you have to remember is that there is still a mainstream engineering model of audio, and beyond that of electronics, that very many things are based on it, such as the compression used in mobile phones, and that it has been in no way overthrown.

 

All you guys chatting here together, finding support and agreement, are nevertheless simply enabling each other in a 'folie à plusieurs', or mass hysteria as it is less kindly called. Remember when hysteria used to be associated with the womb? Now it's the ears.

 

A few of you started claiming that you could hear benefits from HD audio, and you've taken the volume of unverified observations (not that many actually in a world of 7 billion) as proof conclusive that it's true.

 

I understand you want it to be true, but it's when you most want it to be true that you have to be most careful not to deceive yourself, and you guys aren't careful, you jump into any crackpot theory with both feet.

 

We've got a wide range of impossibilities being touted, and it seems that someone who believes in one impossibility will readily believe in another unrelated impossibility, and someone who can never recognise when there is insufficient evidence for a conclusion is missing an essential element in their mental toolbox.

 

This is not to say that there are no reasonable posts, but the reasonable posters struggle to make their voices heard.

 

I don't want to disagree with your pet producer, but pet producer is what he is, and he panders to the audience he finds here, as do several pet 'experts', who, not to put too fine a point on it, know which side of their bread is buttered. They're gonna say anything that they think is going to play popular with the mob. And of course some of those 'DSP' guys can never get a regular job, if the prospective employer gets wind of their doubts about Shannon/Nyquist.

 

Wow!

(What's your real name? Is it Fred?)

 

Fred, I hope that little tirade made you feel a little better about yourself for a few minutes.

 

I won't argue about what you don't or can't hear, as I don't care.

What is really sad though, is that you don't know me at all, yet you feel comfortable offering a libelous assault as devoid of facts as your post is of humanity.

 

If you really think I make my living doing Soundkeeper and that I post what I think folks want to see, you live in a very sad world indeed and know even less than you appear to. It would seem the possibility that I do Soundkeeper to satisfy what *I* want in audio eludes you. I do it because it makes me happy Fred. Otherwise, it just isn't worth all the time, energy and blood involved.

 

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that I could sell a whole lot more recordings if I offered downloads and FLAC format (so downloads would be practical) and DSD for folks who want that. Or that I could make a lot more money mastering if I was willing to make records loud. You have no idea of how many folks I've advised to get the CD version of an album because their gear or their ears, according to them, do not show them any differences.

 

That's really the gist of it. You have no idea.

I wish you happiness Fred. Heaven knows, from the tone of your posts, it sure sounds like you could use some.

 

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment

Haven't you got something better to do, such as finding some nice carpet to complement that nice new polished floor ?

Or perhaps you like hearing the echo of your own voice ? (grin)

It looks very nice , BTW.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

 

If you really think I make my living doing Soundkeeper and that I post what I think folks want to see, you live in a very sad world indeed and know even less than you appear to. It would seem the possibility that I do Soundkeeper to satisfy what *I* want in audio eludes you. I do it because it makes me happy Fred. Otherwise, it just isn't worth all the time, energy and blood involved.

 

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that I could sell a whole lot more recordings if I offered downloads and FLAC format (so downloads would be practical) and DSD for folks who want that. Or that I could make a lot more money mastering if I was willing to make records loud. You have no idea of how many folks I've advised to get the CD version of an album because their gear or their ears, according to them, do not show them any differences.

 

That's really the gist of it. You have no idea.

I wish you happiness Fred. Heaven knows, from the tone of your posts, it sure sounds like you could use some.

 

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Certainly off topic Barry. But I wish you did FLAC downloads. I am skeptical of such issues as you know. But I will ask your opinion on the topic of such. Not with any intent to debate your choices just trying to understand what your thinking on them is.

 

You offer recordings in different formats and resolutions. Do you think a downloaded FLAC at 192/24 is worse sound than a redbook pressed CD? You offer 192 and 96 in wav and aiff as well as CD on some of your recordings. You have made clear your experience is only the 192/24 begins to get equal to the live mic feeds. Yet you offer customers the choice of lesser quality sample rates. I am trying to understand what your thinking behind this is. You could even offer wav and aiff at 192 for download if you wished to do so. So why not offer FLAC downloads even if you think them less good than a DVD of the 192 rates?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...