Mega Lossy v Lossless Test

In many aspects of life, and certainly in anything that you buy or use, someone somewhere has decided what is good enough. Why should the music industry be any different?

 

Hubsand, since you didn't take the test, nothing you say about lossless being definitively better than lossy holds any weight for me I'm afraid.

If you failed to spot the difference when tested, would you revise your thinking that lossless is clearly better?

Also, what if most people can hear a difference but 95% prefer lossy? Kind of like vinyl or valve amps adding something nice to the sound. You can't tell people who like that sound that the equipment is not better for their listening pleasure.

 

How do you know if these people are good listeners? because they tell you? because they claim to hear things you don't? because they claim their equipment is better than yours?

there were a fair proportion of good listeners in this test that failed to identify lossy lossless & some claiming no difference. How many just followed the pack vote not trusting their own ears?

Myths of the Placebo make beliefs genuine reality

 

I was not able to download the 2nd batch tracks - is this specific to me, or do others experience the same?

 

Do you mean the two classical pieces?

Should be ok but I'll check.

 

Mediafire tells me that all four files are no longer hosted there.

Is there a problem Rob ?

JC

 

The links failed for some reason - now fixed.

 

I've already commented on my experience of taking the test: for me (and everyone in my house) there were significant differences, although we only auditioned one track. I'll try to re-run the test tomorrow: my reference transport has been undergoing some upgrades over the weekend.

If the majority prefer the sound of lossy compression, that would be an interesting result indeed! In some ways it would be more plausible and satisfying than a null outcome.

 

'Good enough' is a hugely subjective idea. I can have a barrel of fun in the shower with a waterproof Mickey Mouse mono radio-cum-back scrub, but that has nothing to do with explaining what is 'lost' in 'lossy' compression.

iTunes has decided that compressed formats are 'good enough'. Record companies have decided that 16 bit is 'good enough': in reality, they're cynically exploiting public ignorance. We don't need more people saying these compromises are 'good enough': we should be shouting for them to improve their standards, and let consumers decide what is 'good enough'.

24/192 masters are as close as technology permits to the real thing. 16/44.1 (1411kbps) transfers are considerably degraded for CD release, even though the downsample is not consider lossy in the strictest sense. AAC or MP3 compression takes it a step further: subtly, or gravely, damaging it (according to your perspective).

Shouldn't we be arguing for subtly better, not subtly worse, file formats? Especially when storage space is becoming a non-issue?

Audiophilism is an obsession, but a fruitful, instructive and harmless one. Calling it a 'disease' seems that the lady doth protest overmuch . . .

 

There is no point in you or anyone else taking the test now the results have been released, it's not blind anymore.

 

16 bit is good enough (for home replay) - standards do not need to improve in this area. The biggest limiting factor is the quality of mastering, not the replay standards.
A good argument can be made for higher resolution at the recording and processing stages.

You can call for 'subtly better' (technically) as much as you like, the reality is that it won't happen. The public set the standards in the choices they make and they have chosen to actually move backwards away from lossless (CD) to lossy in their droves. We aren't gong to get the sort of standards you crave any decade soon.
That's not to say that we won't have the modern equivalent of the old well heeled audiophile with his £50k SOTA system with nothing but a pile of half-speed mastered Dire Straits albums to play on it.
If that sort of future appeals to you, fine.

 

Way too much information...

 

My vote on the post #150 samples is that version 1 is AAC.

 

Another wrinkle here is that the AAC has been re-converted to WAV: a necessary practicality to keep the test blind, but obviously not a real-world practice!

However, this has leveled the difference somewhat: real-time decompression during playback results in audible degradation: the upsampled-to-WAV AAC will perform better than the AAC left in its compressed form. Perhaps we could have a link to the unmolested AAC for comparison?

Another way to prove this is to rip a WAV 'losslessly' (but compressed) as a FLAC or ALAC, and spot the difference between the converted and original file. Both contain exactly the same data, but one is being unpacked on-the-fly. You'll have to get someone else to do the 'blinding' . . .

 

It was for me, and it can be for anyone who doesn't check the reveal. We're only playing scientist here, remember!

 

Would it be easy for participants to manipulate the outcome of this type of on-line test without using their ears?

For example, if the wav samples are compressed again, the smaller of the two resulting files could identify which one was originally compressed.

 

You're dangerously close to making quality judgments on behalf of all humanity again: if 16-bit is good enough for you, so be it.

But evidently it's not good enough the whole professional audio industry. Or digital mastering. Or, all the people who bought SACD players. Or all the people buying 24-bit downloads. Or all the people making 24-bit D-A converters. Or, frankly, anyone with functional hearing and a revealing system.

Yes, the last decade has witnessed the rise in popularity of lossy formats. OK, most music-lovers don't know the difference, and certainly aren't demanding better quality in sufficient numbers to exert leverage with the record companies, who are preoccupied with protecting their interests in a new digital age in which media is pulled freely from The Cloud.

But uncompressed 24-bit audio is more like the real thing: it's just funner to listen to. And why squash 16-bit files out of shape when a 2Tb hard drive is £80? I don't understand the mentality that says: 'give us rubbish, please: in fact, make sure everyone gets the same rubbish because some can't tell the difference anyway.'

 

Yes, 'Fraid so: very strictly speaking this test requires someone else to do the 'blinding' . . . or, actually, you could make a playlist of two and ask your player to select randomly from them. You would know the outcome is blind, but you wouldn't be able to prove it to a skeptic.

 

I think you are clutching at straws.
Decompression with current processors is a trivial matter as can be demonstrated with a tiny MP3 portable player costing perhaps £30.

What you are suggesting would only apply to extremely poor/old equipment.

I could equally argue that the AAC should sound even worse because it has been through another process by converting it back to WAV. I won't because that would be clutching at straws.

 

Do you actually read posts?

I said quite clearly that higher standards are useful for professional recording and processing. I am saying that 16 bit is good enough for home replay. The requirement for recording and mastering can be quite different to home replay.
I am also not saying that people should 'squash' 16 bit as you claim.
This test is about assessing the ability to hear lossy compression and it has nothing to do with how people store their music collection. Once again you are arguing with yourself.

On the adequacy of 16/44, test after test in frotn of listeners will confirm it, so no I'm not making a judgement on behalf of humanity I''m basing the comments on real observed experience.

Visit the Audiosmile room at the National show.
I'll put some high quality vinyl through a 16/44 ADC/DAC loop for you (blind).
See if you can spot the 'inadequate' processing......... if so you'll be the first.