Jump to content
IGNORED

Is there a lossy format for hires audio?


Recommended Posts

Yet you offer customers the choice of lesser quality sample rates. I am trying to understand what your thinking behind this is.

 

Is that any different to what HDTracks and others are doing, other than not providing Downloads ?

Just because they also offer choices doesn't mean that they don't believe there isn't a further advantage with the highest resolution version, and not just because they can charge more for it. IIRC, even with RB CD pressings, Barry has been able to hear differences between CDs pressed at different plants, and carefully chooses the manufacturer based on things like whether the master was created at high speed or at a lower speed.

 

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
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?

 

Hi Dennis,

 

The reason I started Soundkeeper was to make recordings the way I want to make recordings and offer them in the best formats possible. To this end, I keep it at raw PCM only - in different resolutions to accommodate listeners' systems and other listeners' ears. I consider Redbook a special case in that many folks don't have a means of playing high resolution and many folks want something "factory made" instead of custom b.

 

I don't reduce any of the individual formats, which would be necessary to make downloads practical in the here and now. Sitting in my studio comparing an original file with a FLAC version of same, has consistently and repeatably (to me as well as every listener I've had make the blind comparison here) shown that this is counter to my whole reason for doing Soundkeeper.

 

And raw PCM as a download just isn't practical yet. It just takes way too long on all the systems I've tried. I understand some parts of the world have faster systems. When these become more widespread, I'll consider downloads.

 

This is not an easy concept to communicate if you say you don't hear the differences between say 24/192 and 24/96 and 16/44. If I had the same experience, I'd probably not find anything objectionable about FLAC either. But my experience is that the differences can be quite profound. Certainly, I can understand the positions of those who don't hear them. At the same time, Soundkeeper is a labor of love, for what music means to me and what audio means to me. It is about zero compromise, even if that costs sales. Sales are obviously not my priority. Music and sound are.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
For lossless Flac/AIFF file we have the option of AAC/MP3 lossy version. For hires 24bit 96/192 Flac/AIFF, is there a lossy format? I know this is audiophile forum and we should listen to lossless. Just curious and pls don't shot me down. Thanks.

 

What an interesting thread! Actually, I am not sure you ever told us what you wanted the lossy version for? That can make a difference I suppose.

 

But the easy answer here is sure there is - just covert your 24/96 or 24/192 file to MP3 or AAC. You will lose information in doing so, but you still have the original files. I do that all that time to load 320mbs MP3 files on my Jeep's hard drive.

 

If you are talking about to just transport them, then you can use the loosely compression programs available for your platform. Zip, WinZIP, Stuffit, RAR, etc. You would of course have to expand those files before playing them.

 

If you want compression on a storage medium without the bother, then just enable compression on your disk partition. That gives you the "best of both worlds" with automatic uncompression when the file is accessed.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
But the easy answer here is sure there is - just covert your 24/96 or 24/192 file to MP3 or AAC. You will lose information in doing so, but you still have the original files. I do that all that time to load 320mbs MP3 files on my Jeep's hard drive.

 

MP3 is max 48 kHz sampling rate. But AAC or Vorbis can do up to 192 kHz.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
MP3 is max 48 kHz sampling rate. But AAC or Vorbis can do up to 192 kHz.

 

thanks for the info Miska. I knew MP3 did 48khz and thought that the limit for OGG Vorbis. But just tried it and you are right. It even maintains full frequency response at the highest half of the quality setting option. One step lower in quality it chops everything above 40 khz. Then the lower quality settings it chops at 20 khz. Still interesting. At the highest setting it produces a full bandwidth file just slightly bigger than 20% of the original file size.

 

So Ogg Vorbis is probably the most likely such lossy compression scheme to work in wide variety of software and hardware for the OP.

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...