Article: Is It Time To Rethink Lossless?

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

ducktolled

Ducktolled it is. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, ecwl said:

I often find there is always an obvious loss of subtle details if you're listening for it, and much more significant changes to timing/transient accuracy.

 

This is of course if you have a known version that's then converted using a lossy codec. I'm right there with you. For example, a CD to 16/44.1 WAV to 128 kbps MP3. 

 

When there is no original source or we don't know which version is considered the original, things get sticky. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, ecwl said:

To me, the bigger question at hand it sounds like is that if you have a master that was in lossless Dolby Atmos, is it better to hear it in lossy Dolby Digital Plus Atmos with the preserved spatial audio design or is it better to hear it in lossless stereo where you lose the spatial audio information that was originally intended in the master. I presume that'll depend on the music and the listener. Because the philosophical question becomes: are stereo recordings "lossy" because it doesn't capture the spatial audio information.

 

I certainly hear you on this one, and thank you for bringing it up. I've done this listening countless times in the last couple years. As a music loving audiophile, I want the "best" version! 

 

You are 100% correct in that it depends on the music and the listener, and I'll add the playback system. I've even hear albums that sound best, to me, on headphones in Atmos. Yes, the headphone Atmos mix was better than the speaker Atmos and all of the high resolution stereo mixes. Crazy. 

 

The theoretical question about stereo being lossy without the spatial info is interesting as well. What I've found is that stereo sounds synthetically crammed into the confines to two channels compared to an immersive soundstage. So, in a way it isn't lossy because all the elements are present, but they are all coming from the front two channels. 

 

I look at it this way: stereo and Atmos are different ways to experience the wonders of music. As much as I love Atmos, I would never advocate for it to replace stereo because I know people that love stereo more than anything. 

 

I could discuss this stuff for days. It's interesting and I value all the perspectives. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, ecwl said:

That said, I listen to music for music first. So I'd always prefer lossy music to no music at all.

 

Absolutely. In addition, I'll take my favorite music on an AM radio over something I dislike at 24/384. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, danadam said:

Sure, but that's not what the example is showing. It shows that the result of subtracting the up- and downsampled version from the original file is a digital silence. This means that each and every sample in the up- and downsampled version is the same as in the original file.

In essence, it’s like you added a paragraph to the end of a text file then removed it. Not that your example is wrong, it’s just a very simple, if not unrealistic, exercise. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

WAV is lossless because it was never compressed

Lossless to what? What about an album that available as 24/192 and 16/44.1 WAV, where high frequency content from the 24/192 version couldn’t be contained in the CD quality version? Both WAV files. 
 

 

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So, is it too simplistic to think that lossless means no loss of information due to a compression process and relative to the source being compressed?

What source? 
 

Is loss of information due to resampling OK?

 

Are CDs lossless, even though by definition they can’t be if the source contained information above 22.05 kHz?

 

I’m not asking to be confrontational, just asking to see where you loosen the definition from its strict meaning. All with good intentions and interest in your answers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, firedog said:

At least a label like NativeDSD tells you what the recording format was, so you can judge for yourself. When I buy from them, I ususally buy whatever the recording format was, and not a "conversion". (Even though I won't claim I hear differences between them). 

I love this transparency from NativeDSD. even if it doesn't tell us much in the big picture, it's honest and straight forward.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I have just always thought (assumed) lossless relates to a codec, compression and decompression without loss of any information, whether that be perceived as important or not.

 

23 minutes ago, danadam said:

I agree.

 

 

23 minutes ago, danadam said:

Following from the previous, I'd say that "lossless"/"lossy" is just not applicable for WAV 🙂

 

 

It's a little stickier in my opinion because lossy MQA was packed in a FLAC container. Lossy compared to the other versions released for download and other streaming services, but in the big picture, all of them could be lossy compared to the master. 

 

I think the focus should be shifted more toward people and sound quality and away from classifications and numbers. If Bill Schnee recorded it and Doug Sax mastered it, the chances are very high it will sound great in all but the smallest bit rate MP3 that nobody releases anyway. Then there are artists and producers who prefer to squash dynamic range, which will sound good to them, but terrible to many at any sample rate, bit depth, bit rate, lossless container, etc...

 

Lossless should be used in terms of file conversions (compression or not). Using it in other places is outside of its definition, in my view. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, danadam said:

I thought that was the premise of the question, can you get back the 16/44 original from the 24/192 upsample. The assertion was (and apparently still is) that it's never possible, I showed that it sometimes is. I can agree that steep anti-imaging filter (99% bandwidth, the "-s" option) is probably not something that would be usually used, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant by calling it simple.

 

I certainly hear you. I think we should also consider the bigger picture as well, not just a lab type environment, even if the original premise was it can "never" happen. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just remembered that Apple is also touting lossless audio for AirPods Pro with the new Vision Pro. But, the sample rate is 20 bit / 48 kHz. Not sure I’ve seen a 20/48 source yet :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, bogi said:

... and it is hard to believe a tape will be lossless 500 years after a recording was done.

 

After talking to Grammy winning engineers who used tape to record some of our favorites, I've learned that the tape isn't even lossless by the end of the recording, mixing, and mastering process. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, Luposian said:

Lossless is lossless.  Full Stop.  Period.  The source doesn't matter.  Physical medium or a bunch of 1's and 0's on your computer or in the cloud or wherever.  When you encode an .MP3 into a FLAC (or other lossless format), the resulting file will be the exact same as the original.  You won't have lost anything more than the .MP3 gave you, to begin with.  Same as with a CD or any other medium.  All those "new numbers" that digital formats now have for Blu-Ray or whatever are just the resolution of the recording.

 

To me, there's nothing to rethink...

That’s a very simplistic approach and certainly one that makes thinking about it easy. 
 

However, in the real world we have to use real examples and compare the source to the end product. The term lossless was simple when we just ripped CDs. Now it’s used everywhere to describe something. 
 

Do you think the following should be described as lossless?

1. MQA in a FLAC container.

2. CD quality 16/44.1 streaming files in ALAC or FLAC where the master isn’t 16/44.1. 

3. A 24/96 WAV version of an album that has a 24/352.8 WAV master. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

28 minutes ago, Luposian said:

When you encode an .MP3 into a FLAC (or other lossless format), the resulting file will be the exact same as the original.  You won't have lost anything more than the .MP3 gave you, to begin with.

Looking further at this statement, it seems that you are totally fine if Spotify encodes its entire OGG Vorbis catalog into FLAC and calls it lossless. Is that what you said?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Deyorew said:

I actually never cared for the term lossless. You could take a 320kb file and copy it as “lossless” right? Which adds just enough compression to be able to decode back to 320kb.

 

this is all about where you draw the line of what is considered original source. So I would view lossless just as to what you as the copier is doing. And calling the source what ever source you are given before making the copy.

 

so again lossless to me is more the process or a verb, less so to describe a file. But I always went for aiff and wav as the files I wanted in my library.

 

I would  love to see an article about the best file formats today. Is FLAC still the gold standard for compatibility? I’m tired of my aiff and alac files not playing gapless on some devices like my car and oppo players. I’m considering converting to FLAC or WAV just not sure which is best. But I don’t like the term lossless so I tend to lean towards WAV

I like your thinking on this. 
 

Too bad all the streaming services advertise music as lossless. It really doesn’t tell the consumer much. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

What is SACD originated from ?

Same master as the CD ?

Can SACD be called hi-res ?

Its a giant bag of unknowns :~)

 

It’s why I like to focus on the people who create the music and I like to read what other people say about the recordings after they listen to them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, maxijazz said:

There are no loose definition in engineering and world of physics.

You are mixing 4 (maybe even more) different worlds into one, only because the same english word could (could it?) be used to describe them:

- data compression

- sample theorem

- data conversion algorithms

- marketing mumbling and related arguing among uneducated audiophiles  

The first 3 have strict, well defined meaning.

You might want to focus on marketing meaning, but please do not try or suggest the definition of the first 3 should be changed/extended.

 

The black and white world of engineering is very simple, but never translates to the outside world well. For all five people who still rip CDs or convert one format to another, the strict definition of lossless is critical. 
 

In the larger world of purchased downloads and streaming music, the term lossless is used daily without any meaning. This is the area on which I mainly focused in the article.

 

I know engineers think the world will end and the war on truth will go nuclear when people talk about rethinking concepts such as lossless, but I have no intent to wage such war. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, actuel audio said:

Until audiophiles get that, they are just being manipulated for profit.

It's amazing many audiophiles make it to work every day without someone looking out for them 😳

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 hours ago, Luposian said:

But, of course, you have to know what the meaning of “is”, is! 🤣 

I'm always in for a meaning of is is comment :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, Luposian said:

How about we just listen to the music/recordings and stop analyzing them, hmm?  Maybe good enough really should be good enough.  Lossless. Lossy. Who the (!!!) cares at some point.  Maybe we should all just shut up and  listen to the music.  Works for me. 

 

This is kind of what I was getting at in the article. We should use terms that have meaning and use them when they fit and actually tell someone something useful. Lossless if perfct when talking abotu ripping a CD or using dBPowerAmp to convert one format to another. After that, it's really misleading.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Luposian said:

Anyone still remember when CD’s used the AAD, ADD, DDD nomenclature?  I was always happy when I bought a CD with the DDD. 😁

Ah yes, the SPARS code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

 

Distinctions without a difference. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

SPARS codes had nothing to do with sound quality. Sound quality is about the people creating the album. If good people are involved, and they are free to create a good sounding album, they will. If unskilled people are involved or those involved are forced to crush dynamics, it'll sound terrible. AAD, ADD, DDD it doesn't matter.