Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Didn't mean to be cruel... -- smc2911 http://www.last.fm/user/smc2911/ smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
I work pretty close to the rocks and from our 43rd floor I have and excellent view of the Opera House. See photo taken on phone... Whoops. Right OT now! +---+ |Filename: SydOperaHouse.jpg| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4595| +---+ -- smc2911 http://www.last.fm/user/smc2911/ smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Shoot. Didn't think about that ==:-O No, seriously, it always pays to be paranoid and do your backups.. Touch wood because of this I never lost anything, many friends and colleagues have, but if you're serious about backups. It pays in the long run B.T.W. I love your opera house! The most fantastic building I've ever seen Looks even better in real life than in pictures.. And I can't wait to get back to the rocks. -H :-)) -- haraldo Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop / SC7 -> SB3 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Krell KAV400xi -> Meadowlark Kestrel2 / Duntech PCL-15 Everything is difficult before it's easy haraldo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Maybe we are both mad... -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
smc2911;279741 Wrote: > I have two copies of my entire FLAC collection and one copy offsite > (which reminds me, it needs to be updated for a few recent purchases) > and I've started an S3/Jungle Disk backup in the clouds. So yes, I'm > paranoid and FLAC helps! Thank god, I'm not mad :-) -- haraldo Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop / SC7 -> SB3 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Krell KAV400xi -> Meadowlark Kestrel2 / Duntech PCL-15 Everything is difficult before it's easy haraldo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
I have two copies of my entire FLAC collection and one copy offsite (which reminds me, it needs to be updated for a few recent purchases) and I've started an S3/Jungle Disk backup in the clouds. So yes, I'm paranoid and FLAC helps! -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
seanadams;279470 Wrote: > In addition to halving the streaming rate, it also effectively doubles > the buffer size. > > Also if you have to copy a music collection from one hard drive to > another, even if space is free, drive throughput is quite limited and > having it half the size makes it much more manageable. > > Basically there is every reason to use FLAC and no reason not to use > it, even if storage were free. The CPU cost is negligible but the > bandwidth savings and metadata support are huge advantages. This is significant... Are you guys doing backup's. I'm paranoid when it comes to backup of my stuff on the hard drives. If you have a few thousand CD's and you want to do a backup of the whole collection to an external drive for safekeeping, this takes a long time Using flac effectively doubles the efficiency of the backup. I don't want to wait forever for a backup to complete. -H -- haraldo Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop / SC7 -> SB3 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Krell KAV400xi -> Meadowlark Kestrel2 / Duntech PCL-15 Everything is difficult before it's easy haraldo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13472 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
If all recordings are so commercial and compromised , why even use high end equipment? In fact the transporter with it's superior dac is overkill... You may think all is perfect but then the same was said when CD's came out , perfect sound foreverwasn't the case. I have many many recordings which sound wonderful and I would never advocate converting them to some lossy format. There are many artists and recording engineers who still value good sonics. I converted a lot of stuff to 320 mp3 using lame and EAC for my car and I can plainly hear the difference tween em and the original cd , especally in the bass, however I'm prepared to compromise for the sake of convenience in my car. As to converting to any other format than native , I still maintain its a bandaid to cover present day shortfalls in both storage and bandwidth, at some stage both of these wont be issues and there will be no reason to do so. Even the SB and transportersm are to some extent bandaids , once solid state storage has reached a critical mass in terms of capacity and cost , things will once again change. -- Rodney_Gold Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's TP/Meridian DSP5000's "The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is...the feeling you get when you stop" Rodney_Gold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14618 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
I have no doubt *whatsoever* that FLAC encoded files will sound like the original. In fact I use my SB as a DA converter, and when I feed FLAC files into it from the SB there is no difference in the sound - I equally enjoy them and can listen for long periods without any fatigue. And I have never heard the difference. However, I think most commercial music these days can be safely converted to 320 or even 256 MP3 without suffering much. Fact is most music has not been recorded with audiophile values in mind. I buy my commercial stuff on Itunes. My last CD purchase has been Stanley Clarke's "The Toys of Men", which got dutifully converted to FLAC. I do think in these audiophile sound wars we sometimes forget that often the source is very compromised from a recording point of view. I don't necessarily see why I'd honor such a recording with encoding it as FLAC. It's supposed to be commercial, so I think handling it as an MP3 has symbolic value. ;-) -- pablolie pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;279579 Wrote: > However the one thing you said he said was that mp3 was inferior and > that he never stated. Did you read the article?? John Atkinson Wrote: > > The reason is simple: Although they are universally described in the > mainstream press as being of "CD quality," MP3s and their > lossy-compressed ilk *do not offer sufficient audio quality* for > serious music listening. > ... > But lossy files achieve their conveniently small size by *discarding > too much of the music to be worth considering*. > ... > Yes, this kind of signal is very much a worst case, but this result is > *-not- "CD quality."* > ... > Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured > spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point > in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment > if you are going to play *sonically compromised*, lossy-compressed > music on it. > (my bold). And by the way: JA Wrote: > > The degree of this degradation depends on the data rate. Less bits > always equals less music. This is false, period. He really doesn't know what he's talking about. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;279475 Wrote: > The point is, file size is not a good measure of how much information > was lost. His factor of 10 is close to meaningless. > > I don't think I'm misunderstanding him - I think he doesn't understand > that. (If he did and still wrote that, he's being disingenuous.) You are correct it is not, and I do not think the author really meant that correlation. He was writing to an audience that is not programmers, he is writing to audio enthusiast. So he made a jump in trying to explain and in real music examples you can not currently get 10:1 compression with lossless and I do not consider silence music unless it is from a child. However the one thing you said he said was that mp3 was inferior and that he never stated. -- m1abrams m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;279302 Wrote: > I am sorry but I do not think you understand his quote. He says that an > mp3 MUST loose data in order to have such small file sizes. You can not > argue that fact, that is the definition of a lossly compression. Which > is all you quoted was someone describing a lossly compresson method. > Also he never says or implies that mp3 are distorted, but the fact is > they do not contain all of the original data. The point is, file size is not a good measure of how much information was lost. His factor of 10 is close to meaningless. I don't think I'm misunderstanding him - I think he doesn't understand that. (If he did and still wrote that, he's being disingenuous.) -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Rodney_Gold;279387 Wrote: > With cheaper storage and greater bandwidth is there any advantage to > compressing files at all these days? > Even if the compression is lossless , it still introduces an extra > processing step. Will any of these formats be that relevant in 5 years? > The only reason to cater for them will be legacy applications and the > only reason they exist now is as bandaids. >From my perspective as a person who has to deal with the storage requirements for large scale computer systems. It's ALWAYS good to think about efficiency. FLAC is designed to be reasonably cheap on the decompress side just like mp3 is. All the compression work is on the encoding side. Even fast mode FLAC compression is better than nothing when it comes to storage requirements, network bandwidth, decoding buffers (as sean pointed out) and any other system that has to handle the moving stream. Why be wasteful when being efficient is very very low cost. -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
chill;279410 Wrote: > In marginal wifi situations, the reduced bandwidth required for FLAC > transmission might just be a benefit. In addition to halving the streaming rate, it also effectively doubles the buffer size. Also if you have to copy a music collection from one hard drive to another, even if space is free, drive throughput is quite limited and having it half the size makes it much more manageable. Basically there is every reason to use FLAC and no reason not to use it, even if storage were free. The CPU cost is negligible but the bandwidth savings and metadata support are huge advantages. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
chill wrote: > Apart from the reduced storage requirement for FLAC over WAV, another > good argument for FLAC is that the same benefit is seen when it is > transmitted to the Squeezebox. In marginal wifi situations, the > reduced bandwidth required for FLAC transmission might just be a > benefit. Its really not a question of 'might be' flac files are typically half the size of wav/pcm so they much more likely to work under marginal WiFi conditions. And sadly, marginal WiFi are common. Something as trivial as a neighbor adding a WiFi access point can mangle the WiFi in your house. Crudely, cutting the traffic in half will eliminate half the mangling. In practice, its much better than that. Smaller packets sneak through without being clobbered, and can be retransmitted more quickly. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Apart from the reduced storage requirement for FLAC over WAV, another good argument for FLAC is that the same benefit is seen when it is transmitted to the Squeezebox. In marginal wifi situations, the reduced bandwidth required for FLAC transmission might just be a benefit. On the other hand, if we are to hope that data transmission speeds will increase at a similar rate to storage, then this point is also moot. -- chill chill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10839 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Rodney_Gold;279387 Wrote:
> With cheaper storage and greater bandwidth is there any advantage to
> compressing files at all these days?
Interesting point.
One of the major motivations for moving from lossy is...there is a
convenient, widely accepted, tagging-friendly lossless alternative
welcoming them with open arms which has a quantifiable advantage
("doesn't lose stuff").
I don't see WAV as an equally great temptation for lossless users.
Tagging isn't so straightforward in WAV as I understand it, which
doesn't help. Lossless and WAV both don't lose stuff. Is the processing
a big enough difference? All codecs need to be decoded which is why
decompression is unnoticeable - it's just included in the processing at
play time. FLAC encoding is much quicker on my cheap Celeron than
ripping at 16x so I don't notice it at rip time either.
Given that CPUs are getting better just as fast, won't the processing
be as moot as storage? Just as the reason for using FLAC now is "why
not", the reason for staying with it might become..."why not"?
Having said that, who knows. :)
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1
Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Sean makes a good point about specialised compression/decompression algorithms being about to out-perform general purpose algorithms like zip. I like the gif/jpeg example. A more extreme, if rather contrived, example is that with the correct algorithm you'd be able to do a much better compression job than zip of compressing a file containing the first million digits of pi! -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Thats the only reason I rip to flac , is I cant tag wavsotherwise I wouldnt. -- Rodney_Gold Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's TP/Meridian DSP5000's "The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is...the feeling you get when you stop" Rodney_Gold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14618 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Rodney_Gold;279387 Wrote: > With cheaper storage and greater bandwidth is there any advantage to > compressing files at all these days? > Even if the compression is lossless , it still introduces an extra > processing step. Will any of these formats be that relevant in 5 years? > The only reason to cater for them will be legacy applications and the > only reason they exist now is as bandaids. I would say yes. You give me a bigger drive and I will fill it with new stuff. Plus do not know of any formats that have no compression and contain metadata, NOT that non exist just not familiar with them. Does AIFF have spec for metadata? -- m1abrams m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
With cheaper storage and greater bandwidth is there any advantage to compressing files at all these days? Even if the compression is lossless , it still introduces an extra processing step. Will any of these formats be that relevant in 5 years? The only reason to cater for them will be legacy applications and the only reason they exist now is as bandaids. -- Rodney_Gold Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's TP/Meridian DSP5000's "The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is...the feeling you get when you stop" Rodney_Gold's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14618 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
More food for thought: a file of pure silence would actually compress to a smaller size with FLAC than with MP3, because MP3 frames have a minimum bit rate of 32Kbps, whereas FLAC's run-length-compression block type should do better. Other less obvious examples could be contrived where a lossless codec would produce smaller output than a lossy one. As a more practical example, usually small line art graphics having only a few colors will be more compressible using (lossless) GIF than with (lossy) JPEG, because JPEG can't deal with that type of image as effectively. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;279310 Wrote: > Sean I did not mean to have that connection. Lossy means that you must > loose some of the original data (you can not get it back). This > usually has the benefit of better compression ratios. Is that better? That's right, but O's observation was quite correct (BTW I was contradicting him, sort of, only on a finer point about ZIPping a WAV file). -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
seanadams;279303 Wrote: > Incorrect. The compression ratio has absolutely NOTHING to do with the > definition of lossy vs lossless. The distinction is simply whether > decompressing takes you back to the original data or not. Sean I did not mean to have that connection. Lossy means that you must loose some of the original data (you can not get it back). This usually has the benefit of better compression ratios. Is that better? -- m1abrams m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;279302 Wrote: > He says that an mp3 MUST loose data in order to have such small file > sizes. You can not argue that fact, that is the definition of a lossly > compression. Incorrect. The compression ratio has absolutely NOTHING to do with the definition of lossy vs lossless. The distinction is simply whether decompressing takes you back to the original data or not. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;279208 Wrote: > Let's see: > > > > He is arguing that MP3 is distorted and inferior, and part of his > evidence is that the files are smaller. As I have demonstrated (and > you agree), that is an invalid argument since two files of different > size may have precisely the same audio quality, and two files of the > same size may have different quality. > > Now, it's true that there is a connection between the smallest file > size a given amount of information can ever be compressed into and the > information content. But a better way to address that would be > something like this: take a WAV file ripped from a CD and zip it, then > compare that to a zipped 128 MP3 of the same track. > > -That- would give you a valid comparison, up to the limitations of the > zip algorithm, and it will not give you the factor of 10 he mentions > (it will give a factor that depends on the WAV file, for one thing). I am sorry but I do not think you understand his quote. He says that an mp3 MUST loose data in order to have such small file sizes. You can not argue that fact, that is the definition of a lossly compression. Which is all you quoted was someone describing a lossly compresson method. Also he never says or implies that mp3 are distorted, but the fact is they do not contain all of the original data. -- m1abrams m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;279208 Wrote: > > Now, it's true that there is a connection between the smallest file > size a given amount of information can ever be compressed into and the > information content. But a better way to address that would be > something like this: take a WAV file ripped from a CD and zip it, then > compare that to a zipped 128 MP3 of the same track. > > -That- would give you a valid comparison, up to the limitations of the > zip algorithm, and it will not give you the factor of 10 he mentions > (it will give a factor that depends on the WAV file, for one thing). Sorry, that does not make any sense - did you mean FLAC? Zip is a dictionary/window based algorithm which looks for duplicate strings of bytes, or a non-random distribution of byte values. It might get some amount of compression on a WAV file due to DC or low frequency content, but this is a poor indication of the actual information content of the WAV file. In any case, just because ZIP can't compress it does not mean it is incompressible. You have to use a compression algorithm that is suited for the data to be compressed. Conversely, FLAC would not be able to compress a .EXE file, which might be highly compressible by ZIP. Only a very poor compression algorithm (or one not suited for the input data) would output data that can be compressed by further processing using some other (lossless) compression algorithm. A couple of trivial example: if you generated a file containing just a triangle waveform, this would not be compressible at all by ZIP, but it would be highly compressible by FLAC. Silence would be highly compressible by ZIP, FLAC, or MP3. White noise would never be compressible by _anything_, as it is 100% entropy by definition. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;279132 Wrote: > Yes but if you read it that passage he is talking about data sizes and > not the output analog audio. So I see nothing wrong with his > statement. He does not draw any direct conclusions based on data rate, > other than one is smaller. Let's see: John Atkinson Wrote: > As a CD plays, the two channels of audio data (not including overhead) > are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 kilobits per > second. A typical MP3 plays at less than a tenth that rate, at 128kbps. > To achieve that massive reduction in data, the MP3 coder splits the > continuous musical waveform into discrete time chunks and, using > Transform analysis, examines the spectral content of each chunk. > Assumptions are made by the codec's designers, on the basis of > psychoacoustic theory, about what information can be safely discarded. > Quiet sounds with a similar spectrum to loud sounds in the same time > window are discarded, as are quiet sounds that are immediately followed > or preceded by loud sounds. And, as I wrote in the February 2008 "As We > See It," because the music must be broken into chunks for the codec to > do its work, transient information can get smeared across chunk > boundaries. He is arguing that MP3 is distorted and inferior, and part of his evidence is that the files are smaller. As I have demonstrated (and you agree), that is an invalid argument since two files of different size may have precisely the same audio quality, and two files of the same size may have different quality. Now, it's true that there is a connection between the smallest file size a given amount of information can ever be compressed into and the information content. But a better way to address that would be something like this: take a WAV file ripped from a CD and zip it, then compare that to a zipped 128 MP3 of the same track. -That- would give you a valid comparison, up to the limitations of the zip algorithm, and it will not give you the factor of 10 he mentions (it will give a factor that depends on the WAV file, for one thing). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Pat Farrell;278170 Wrote: > > In any environment that you will do serious listening to the music, you > > don't need to compress the hell out of it. So don't. If you are riding > a > New York subway, or in any car short of a Rolls Royce or big Mercedes, > > it doesn't matter. > > Store your files long term in something like FLAC, transcode them to > suit your PMP to something like 386KB VBR, and be done. Further > optimization is silly. > > All IMHO, but this is audiophiles +1!!! It's quite hard for me to hear the difference between 256k WMA and 128K AC3 when listening to music on the plane, through my noise canceling headphones. And that's an understatement. :-) It's quite easy for me to batch convert my flac files to 128K AC3. But I'd still like to see a real comparison between those formats, WITH blind listening tests. Just because I'm curious. -- jmourik jmourik's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7123 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;279011 Wrote: > And yet its output is identical to the WAV it came from. So the > statement is both imprecise technically, and, more importantly, the > implication he's trying to draw from it is just false. > > You can't measure audio quality by the size of the audio file. Yes but if you read it that passage he is talking about data sizes and not the output analog audio. So I see nothing wrong with his statement. He does not draw any direct conclusions based on data rate, other than one is smaller. -- m1abrams m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
smc2911 wrote: > Does the SB make use of the CRC check and re-request a dodgey frame, or > just drop it? I'm guessing, but I would suspect not. The audio data is transmitted over TCP/IP, which has it's own integrity checks. I don't know if the firmware that decodes FLAC does any checks (that's one for Dean/Sean). R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Does the SB make use of the CRC check and re-request a dodgey frame, or just drop it? -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
DogOfDooM wrote: > A question: > > If in a FLAC file "Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data > for detecting transmission errors." > > How does a .wav file perform against this. Does a .wav file have a > method for detecting error transmissions? No, it doesn't. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
A question: If in a FLAC file "Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data for detecting transmission errors." How does a .wav file perform against this. Does a .wav file have a method for detecting error transmissions? -- DogOfDooM DogOfDooM's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=16035 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;278896 Wrote: > > He was referring to the mp3 data rate, not the audio signal it is > converted to. Yes a FLAC file has a data rate of about half of pcm. And yet its output is identical to the WAV it came from. So the statement is both imprecise technically, and, more importantly, the implication he's trying to draw from it is just false. You can't measure audio quality by the size of the audio file. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
m1abrams;278896 Wrote: > > He was referring to the mp3 data rate, not the audio signal it is > converted to. Yes a FLAC file has a data rate of about half of pcm. I know that's what he -meant- to say - but it's not what he said. Furthermore (and it sounds like you agree) the implication he drew from it is false. The size of the file is not directly related to the quality of the sound it produces, which is obvious from the fact that FLAC and WAV produce identical outputs despite being different sizes, or from the fact that I could decode a 64kbps MP3 to a full-sized WAV file. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;278296 Wrote: > Where in the world did that come from? > is misleading to the point of being just wrong. MP3 files "play" at > exactly the same rate as CDs - for example you could simply decode one > into a 16/44.1 WAV file and then play it, and that's actually what at > least some (if not all) decoders/players do. That semantic quibble > aside, the underlying logic is more seriously wrong, because by > precisely the same reasoning you could say "a FLAC file plays at less > than half the rate of a CD...", and yet FLAC and WAV playback are > identical. > Actually that is not wrong, you are confusing data rate with sample rate and bit depth. Data rate is how much data per second is moved which for uncompressed is exactly 16bits * 2 * 44100. He was referring to the mp3 data rate, not the audio signal it is converted to. Yes a FLAC file has a data rate of about half of pcm. -- m1abrams m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
SuperQ;278862 Wrote: > If I remember correctly, this failure was caused by switch packet buffer > memory corruption. Switch would get a packet, check the CRC, store it > in memory sans CRC, the bad ram in the switch would corrupt the > packets, and then send the packet out with a new CRC. > > I think the CRC removal from the packet was due to the packets coming > in with 802.1q vlan tags that needed to be removed, so the CRC had to > be re-calculated anyway. OK - but I refuse to become paranoid over the possibility that once every ten years I might get a corrupt TCP packet to my SB :o). I worry more about being hit by gamma rays or meteors (or bits of old spacehips...actually that is a real possibility) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X with Good Vibrations S/W - MF X-DAC V3/X-PSU/X-10 buffer (Audiocomm full mods)- Linn 5103 - Linn Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Phil Leigh;278731 Wrote: > But what about the CRC in the Ethernet frame? If I remember correctly, this failure was caused by switch packet buffer memory corruption. Switch would get a packet, check the CRC, store it in memory sans CRC, the bad ram in the switch would corrupt the packets, and then send the packet out with a new CRC. I think the CRC removal from the packet was due to the packets coming in with 802.1q vlan tags that needed to be removed, so the CRC had to be re-calculated anyway. -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
SuperQ;278680 Wrote: > Exactly.. except I would say #1 is only valid for things like TCP/IP > transport with wav files. You get the TCP checksums, but it's not > inherent to the audio encoding like FLAC. > > So just to make the audiophile community twitch a bit. The 16bit > checksum used by TCP is not exactly the best. It catches most errors, > but I have personally seen corruption happen in live networks. Of > course this was a network switch handling many many gigabits of > traffic, and the error rates were so bad that it was causing 50% of > packets to be dropped because the checksums didn't match.. but when > you're doing gigabits of traffic and .0001% of the packets are corrupt > in some way but still pass checksums get through to the application > layer, you see strange things happen. > > Thankfully the likelyhood of this causing audible issues with the > squeezebox are very very low. But what about the CRC in the Ethernet frame? -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X with Good Vibrations S/W - MF X-DAC V3/X-PSU/X-10 buffer (Audiocomm full mods)- Linn 5103 - Linn Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
smc2911;278662 Wrote: > Good point. So I'd summarise in terms of three levels of redundancy: > > 1. You know it's there in principal, but it's not useful. > 2. You use it to identify a problem (e.g. CRC) but you can't do > anything about the problem. > 3. You use it to correct errors (ECC). > > 2 and 3 come in degrees depending on how many errors they can deal with > before they stop being useful. Exactly.. except I would say #1 is only valid for things like TCP/IP transport with wav files. You get the TCP checksums, but it's not inherent to the audio encoding like FLAC. So just to make the audiophile community twitch a bit. The 16bit checksum used by TCP is not exactly the best. It catches most errors, but I have personally seen corruption happen in live networks. Of course this was a network switch handling many many gigabits of traffic, and the error rates were so bad that it was causing 50% of packets to be dropped because the checksums didn't match.. but when you're doing gigabits of traffic and .0001% of the packets are corrupt in some way but still pass checksums get through to the application layer, you see strange things happen. Thankfully the likelyhood of this causing audible issues with the squeezebox are very very low. -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Good point. So I'd summarise in terms of three levels of redundancy: 1. You know it's there in principal, but it's not useful. 2. You use it to identify a problem (e.g. CRC) but you can't do anything about the problem. 3. You use it to correct errors (ECC). 2 and 3 come in degrees depending on how many errors they can deal with before they stop being useful. -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
smc2911;278631 Wrote: > Strictly speaking, there is redundancy in a WAV file (otherwise it would > be impossible to do lossless compression), however it is not "useful" > redundancy like a checksum that can be used to correct any errors in > transmission. As SuperQ points out, although mathematically FLAC has > less redundancy than WAV, it has enough useful redundancy that, > contrary to the article's author's suggestions, makes FLAC more robust > for streaming. Please be careful. There is a big difference between redundancy (ECC) and validation (checksums). CRC, MD5, etc are checksums that provide the ability to validate the content blocks. The only thing the decoder can do is to drop the block and play nothing. ECC and RS are redundancy systems that allow some percentage of bit repair. -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
egd;278557 Wrote: > AFAIK there is no redundancy in WAV files either. Contrary to the > author's assertion, compression has nothing to do with it.Strictly speaking, > there is redundancy in a WAV file (otherwise it would be impossible to do lossless compression), however it is not "useful" redundancy like a checksum that can be used to correct any errors in transmission. As SuperQ points out, although mathematically FLAC has less redundancy than WAV, it has enough useful redundancy that, contrary to the article's author's suggestions, makes FLAC more robust for streaming. -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
SuperQ;278555 Wrote: > However, the original article is technically correct. There is no > _redundancy_ such as ECC(FEC) or Reed-Solomon encoding.AFAIK there is no > redundancy in WAV files either. Contrary to the author's assertion, compression has nothing to do with it. -- egd Internet forums: conclusive proof depth of gene pool is indeed variable, monkeys can be taught to cut code, and world peace is utterly unrealistic... egd's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3425 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;278298 Wrote: > Yeah, that's a good point. > > Since no one transmits FLAC -except- over a TCP/IP network, the > statement is nonsensical. It's like saying standard uncompressed files > are superior to zipped files because zipped files have less redundancy, > when the opposite is true - and the whole point! And even better is the fact that FLAC does contain checksum information. So in addition to TCP checksums, you get 16bit per FLAC frame CRC checksums. http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_format_overview.html However, the original article is technically correct. There is no _redundancy_ such as ECC(FEC) or Reed-Solomon encoding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error-correcting_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed-Solomon_error_correction -- SuperQ SuperQ's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
heh, willyhoops & this stereofool journo should write a joint article titled 'digital audio for dummies". A sure bestseller. -- egd Internet forums: conclusive proof depth of gene pool is indeed variable, monkeys can be taught to cut code, and world peace is utterly unrealistic... egd's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3425 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
smc2911;278287 Wrote: > However, there is one point no-one has mentioned that I would take > issue with: As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) SB uses > TCP/IP to stream, which means that it is error free. The only problem > you can run into is that if your bandwidth is so terrible that your > buffer runs out, but this would be more likely to happen with an > uncompressed format (although unlikely even then). So, long live FLAC! Yeah, that's a good point. Since no one transmits FLAC -except- over a TCP/IP network, the statement is nonsensical. It's like saying standard uncompressed files are superior to zipped files because zipped files have less redundancy, when the opposite is true - and the whole point! -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
ralphpnj;278272 Wrote: > Could someone please explain just where all the voodoo science is in the > following statement (taken from the article in question): > > > > Seems to all be based on good sound reasoning and hard scientific facts > not voodoo or magic. The only issue is whether or not one believes that > these changes to the musical waveform are audible and if they are > indeed audible then under what conditions will they be audible. After > that is only a matter of determining whether or not those conditions > where the changes to the waveform are audible are important to one's > normal listening situation. Where in the world did that come from? Who said anything about voodoo or magic? There are some problems with that passage, though. For example this: > > As a CD plays, the two channels of audio data (not including overhead) > are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 kilobits per > second. A typical MP3 plays at less than a tenth that rate, at 128kbps. > is misleading to the point of being just wrong. MP3 files "play" at exactly the same rate as CDs - for example you could simply decode one into a 16/44.1 WAV file and then play it, and that's actually what at least some (if not all) decoders/players do. That semantic quibble aside, the underlying logic is more seriously wrong, because by precisely the same reasoning you could say "a FLAC file plays at less than half the rate of a CD...", and yet FLAC and WAV playback are identical. It's also odd that he focuses on time-domain issues there, and yet all his plots are frequency domain. That's part of what I meant by my original comment about the graphs. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
smc2911;278287 Wrote: > So, long live FLAC! Well, quite. I believe CD and FLAC are all we need in terms of wide format acceptance, freedom from DRM and sound quality. Although high rate MP3 "might be" transparent my opinion is so what. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1 Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
ralphpnj;277930 Wrote: > If you take the time to read/scan through the thread you'll see that JA > takes all these things very seriously and does respond to forum posts. > As for the lack of comparison testing I can only guess that since JA > and Stereophile take the position that files made with lossy > compression are do not offer true high end sound quality, then why > bother to run all those tests. And while I completely agree that in > this day and age of cheap storage there is no reason to use a lossy > codec, it would still be nice to know which lossy codec to use in the > event that one has a need for it (think iPod).I'd tend to agree with this > observation. I think that the starting point (which is rather similar to my own position at home) is that since you can have lossless, why bother with anything else? As for the rest, it looks like he was having fun playing with graphs. However, there is one point no-one has mentioned that I would take issue with: > Something I have rarely seen discussed is the fact is that because all > compressed file formats, both lossless and lossy, effectively have zero > data redundancy, they are much more vulnerable than uncompressed files > to bit errors in transmission.As I understand it (please correct me if I'm > wrong) SB uses TCP/IP to stream, which means that it is error free. The only problem you can run into is that if your bandwidth is so terrible that your buffer runs out, but this would be more likely to happen with an uncompressed format (although unlikely even then). So, long live FLAC! -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
You've said it yourself. The crucial bit is audibility, and that is the bit not addressed in the article and just assumed to be true. The listening test referenced was pretty weak and it makes me wonder. If the same method (ONE play, missing pertinent technical details - e.g. downsampling/dithering for red book - apparently they "looked at each other" which is taken to mean they all had identical impressions) had been used by "the skeptics" how conclusive would it be seen as? If anyone can show me some real evidence that CD isn't transparent, I will change my opinion of course. Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1 Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Could someone please explain just where all the voodoo science is in the following statement (taken from the article in question): > As a CD plays, the two channels of audio data (not including overhead) > are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 kilobits per > second. A typical MP3 plays at less than a tenth that rate, at 128kbps. > To achieve that massive reduction in data, the MP3 coder splits the > continuous musical waveform into discrete time chunks and, using > Transform analysis, examines the spectral content of each chunk. > Assumptions are made by the codec's designers, on the basis of > psychoacoustic theory, about what information can be safely discarded. > Quiet sounds with a similar spectrum to loud sounds in the same time > window are discarded, as are quiet sounds that are immediately followed > or preceded by loud sounds. And, as I wrote in the February 2008 "As We > See It," because the music must be broken into chunks for the codec to > do its work, transient information can get smeared across chunk > boundaries. Seems to all be based on good sound reasoning and hard scientific facts not voodoo or magic. The only issue is whether or not one believes that these changes to the musical waveform are audible and if they are indeed audible then under what conditions will they be audible. After that is only a matter of determining whether or not those conditions where the changes to the waveform are audible are important to one's normal listening situation. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice wrote: >> And while I completely agree that in this day and age of cheap storage >> there is no reason to use a lossy codec, it would still be nice to know >> which lossy codec to use in the event that one has a need for it (think >> iPod). > > But the issue is fast become irrelevant in any case - the latest > HD-based ipods have 160GB of memory, and the flash-based ones are > getting up there fast. I suppose the next debate will be over the > necessity of hi-res formats. The question was moderately interesting when folks used "56KB" modems to download stuff. But its really moot now. In any environment that you will do serious listening to the music, you don't need to compress the hell out of it. So don't. If you are riding a New York subway, or in any car short of a Rolls Royce or big Mercedes, it doesn't matter. Store your files long term in something like FLAC, transcode them to suit your PMP to something like 386KB VBR, and be done. Further optimization is silly. All IMHO, but this is audiophiles ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
RGibran;277928 Wrote: > > Thanks for the chuckles. > Glad to oblige. ralphpnj;277930 Wrote: > As for the lack of comparison testing I can only guess that since JA > and Stereophile take the position that files made with lossy > compression are do not offer true high end sound quality, then why > bother to run all those tests. But then why bother with the graphs, or the article at all, for that matter? > And while I completely agree that in this day and age of cheap storage > there is no reason to use a lossy codec, it would still be nice to know > which lossy codec to use in the event that one has a need for it (think > iPod). Yeah, it would be nice. And this is one case where subjective assessments are all you need. No one doubts that 128 kbps MP3 is easily distinguishable from redbook, so the question becomes which codec and settings are the least objectionable. But the issue is fast become irrelevant in any case - the latest HD-based ipods have 160GB of memory, and the flash-based ones are getting up there fast. I suppose the next debate will be over the necessity of hi-res formats. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Actually that particular Stereophile article is a direct result of a recent thread on the Stereophile forum. (http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=35494&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1) Note: I'm "jazzfan" on the Stereophile forum) If you take the time to read/scan through the thread you'll see that JA takes all these things very seriously and does respond to forum posts. As for the lack of comparison testing I can only guess that since JA and Stereophile take the position that files made with lossy compression are do not offer true high end sound quality, then why bother to run all those tests. And while I completely agree that in this day and age of cheap storage there is no reason to use a lossy codec, it would still be nice to know which lossy codec to use in the event that one has a need for it (think iPod). -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;277809 Wrote: > Then there are posturings like this: Quote: Originally Posted by John Atkinson Given the bigger bit budget at 320kbps, the AAC codec produces a result that may well be indistinguishable from CD for some listeners some of the time with some music. opaqueice;277809 Wrote: i]That[/i] would have been interesting, because what most people really want to know is which format to use and at what level of compression. This kind of vague cursory analysis and unsubstantiated statements isn't useful. Geez, isn't that what he said? opaqueice;277809 Wrote: Frankly, I very much doubt he would have been able to hear the differences between 320 MP3 or AAC and CD (at least not without lots of practice and choosing the test track very carefully), and after all the whining Stereophile has been doing recently that wouldn't look very good. Who's posturing now? opaqueice;277809 Wrote: I too use FLAC, and for the same reasons haven't paid that much attention to lossy formats. "HOWEVER MY IMPRESSION" is that the MP3 codec has improved considerably in recent years. One obvious thing is to use VBR (variable bit rate) rather than CBR. "AFAIK" VBR is always superior, and yet most MP3s don't use it. As for 320, "MY UNDERSTANDING" is that "IF" you know the weak points of the particular MP3 encoder you're using you can find of construct a track that will reveal them pretty easily. I've never seen a positive ABX result for 320 MP3, but I wouldn't be surprised "IF" they exist. Actually I'd say "A GOOD BET" is a strongly asymmetric test tone. You can hear absolute polarity inversion with that pretty easily, and "I THINK" all these lossy algorithms completely destroy phase coherency, so that "SHOULD" manifest itself as a subtle change in the pitch of asymmetric tones. "NEVER TRIED IT THOUGH". Thanks for the chuckles. RG -- RGibran Transporter > PS Audio GCC-100 > Martin Logan Aeon I RGibran's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10220 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Nikhil;277815 Wrote: > > That's something I have been wanting to ask for a while. Just to be on > the safe side (future proof and archival value), and since storage is > becoming cheaper by the day, I have been using FLAC for quite a few > years now. I can certainly spot the limitations of 128 kbps mp3s and > very early in this game, I was very unhappy even with 256kbps encoded > mp3s. But in the several years since I bothered to test, the encoding > has obviously got a lot better. Are there any particular tracks that > can showcase the limitations of todays best mp3 encodings (ie, 320 kbps > or high VBR mp3s?) I too use FLAC, and for the same reasons haven't paid that much attention to lossy formats. However my impression is that the MP3 codec has improved considerably in recent years. One obvious thing is to use VBR (variable bit rate) rather than CBR. AFAIK VBR is always superior, and yet most MP3s don't use it. As for 320, my understanding is that if you know the weak points of the particular MP3 encoder you're using you can find of construct a track that will reveal them pretty easily. I've never seen a positive ABX result for 320 MP3, but I wouldn't be surprised if they exist. Actually if I had to guess I'd say the best bet is a strongly asymmetric test tone. You can hear absolute polarity inversion with that pretty easily, and I think all these lossy algorithms completely destroy phase coherency, so that should manifest itself as a subtle change in the pitch of asymmetric tones. Never tried it though. The best place I know of to ask questions like that is the hydrogenaudio forums - I think some of the designers of these codecs hang out there. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;277809 Wrote: > So he's claiming that by looking at a graph of this particular test-tone > he can tell whether or not these effects are audible on music. And yet > he didn't bother to do a listening test - in the time it took him to > prepare that article, he could have performed a whole series. -That- > would have been interesting, because what most people really want to > know is which format to use and at what level of compression. This > kind of vague cursory analysis and unsubstantiated statements isn't > useful. > > Frankly, I very much doubt he would have been able to hear the > differences between 320 MP3 or AAC and CD (at least not without lots of > practice and choosing the test track very carefully), and after all the > whining Stereophile has been doing recently that wouldn't look very > good. Yes, a typical JA article. This is the man who won't listen to a SET amp as he considers it a tone control, IIRC. It would be so easy for them to do a detailed blind test using a high resolution system; they could even highlight any changes in the results generated by the listeners getting familiar with the MP3/AAC artefacts. That would have been interesting! The vague 'ooh look at those charts' tone of the article is at best pointless, at worst misleading. Moral: don't expect investigative reporting in the hifi press! -- adamslim Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others SB+, EAR V20, Living Voice OBX-R2s plus some other stuff SB3, Charlize, Harbeth HL-P3ES adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
opaqueice;277809 Wrote: > While the graphs are kind of interesting, they'd be much more so if he'd > actually explain a bit more about -why- they look like that. It's not > like it's a mystery. > Indeed > > Frankly, I very much doubt he would have been able to hear the > differences between 320 MP3 or AAC and CD (at least not without lots of > practice and choosing the test track very carefully), That's something I have been wanting to ask for a while. Just to be on the safe side (future proof and archival value), and since storage is becoming cheaper by the day, I have been using FLAC for quite a few years now. I can certainly spot the limitations of 128 kbps mp3s and very early in this game, I was very unhappy even with 256kbps encoded mp3s. But in the several years since I bothered to test, the encoding has obviously got a lot better. Are there any particular tracks that can showcase the limitations of todays best mp3 encodings (ie, 320 kbps or high VBR mp3s?) -- Nikhil Nikhil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=993 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Nikhil;277800 Wrote: > Article from Stereophile about the age old argument, with lots of graphs > included. > > http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/ While the graphs are kind of interesting, they'd be much more so if he'd actually explain a bit more about -why- they look like that. It's not like it's a mystery. Then there are posturings like this: John Atkinson Wrote: > Given the bigger bit budget at 320kbps, the AAC codec produces a result > that may well be indistinguishable from CD for some listeners some of > the time with some music. So he's claiming that by looking at a graph of this particular test-tone he can tell whether or not these effects are audible on music. And yet he didn't bother to do a listening test - in the time it took him to prepare that article, he could have performed a whole series. -That- would have been interesting, because what most people really want to know is which format to use and at what level of compression. This kind of vague cursory analysis and unsubstantiated statements isn't useful. Frankly, I very much doubt he would have been able to hear the differences between 320 MP3 or AAC and CD (at least not without lots of practice and choosing the test track very carefully), and after all the whining Stereophile has been doing recently that wouldn't look very good. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
Article from Stereophile about the age old argument, with lots of graphs included. http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/ -- Nikhil Nikhil's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=993 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
