Article on the trend towards computer storage/playback

dragon1952

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237727/How_big_is_the_sound_of_music_

There are actually people that call themselves audiophiles that admit that they feel there is no discernible difference between MP3 and, not only lossless, but hi-res?

txcoastal1

Well it still goes to
#1 How well the master recording was done
#2 How revealing is your system
#3 Does your system have synergy
#4 Which can actually be #1 do you give a crap and/or do you know what you are listening for

Thanks for posting

BlueFox

dragon1952 wrote: »

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237727/How_big_is_the_sound_of_music_

There are actually people that call themselves audiophiles that admit that they feel there is no discernible difference between MP3 and, not only lossless, but hi-res?

Good article on how on lossless files and HD files. I'm not sure what you are referring to since I did not see that in the article.

dragon1952

BlueFox wrote: »

Good article on how on lossless files and HD files. I'm not sure what you are referring to since I did not see that in the article.

OK...I guess they didn't specifically mention hi-res but ......
"I think the advantage is the flexibility," said Dan Gravell, who writes the Music Library Management Blog. "By getting the lossless files, you're investing in maintaining your music collection in the future."

"It's definitely been a trend gathering steam in the past few years," he continued. "In terms of the advantages of lossless, the main thing cited is the quality of the sound, and that may or may not be correct."
Gravell and others argue that the human ear is not sensitive enough to discern the differences between an MP3 file and a lossless audio file format. In fact, some blind tests have shown listeners can't tell the difference, Gravell said.
Music aficionado Michael Gogesch keeps all 938 of his albums in FLAC files; he's got a 4TB networked storage system that allows him to access his music over the Internet.
Flexibility for the future

Gogesch, who frequents the readers forum of audio magazine Audioholics, agrees with Gravell that there's really no discernible difference in audio quality between an MP3 file, a WAV file and a FLAC file. For him it's all about flexibility."

zane77

What are the listening on a 49 dollar RCA system

BlueFox

dragon1952 wrote: »

OK...I guess they didn't specifically mention hi-res but ......
"I think the advantage is the flexibility," said Dan Gravell, who writes the Music Library Management Blog. "By getting the lossless files, you're investing in maintaining your music collection in the future."

Okay. I missed those lines since the article is overwhelmingly about how much better sounding lossless files are compared to lossy files. I guess they have those two guys for some type of balance. It does not matter what aspect of audio is being discussed since there is alway a "flat earth" fool who will say something does not matter, or make any audible difference.

falconcry72

dragon1952 wrote: »

...There are actually people that call themselves audiophiles that admit that they feel there is no discernible difference between MP3 and, not only lossless, but hi-res?

I have no doubt that there are people who admit that. Those people are wrong, but I have not doubt that those people exist.

...the human ear is not sensitive enough to discern the differences between an MP3 file and a lossless audio file format...

Mine is. Maybe I'm not human? Or maybe the author of that statement is completely ignorant. That statement is so silly that takes all credibility away from anything else that person has ever said about digital media.

...there's really no discernible difference in audio quality between an MP3 file, a WAV file and a FLAC file.

Idiots. Such an ignorant statement... again. I don't think these people understand what an MP3 file is.


Let me play you a 16 kbps MP3 and see how it goes over. lol. it's all white noise because it has LOST so much of the original information. What about 32? 64? 128? .... oh I know! 320! That'll be just the RIGHT amount of degradation! People won't notice!


I guess everyone's ears are different, so at what bitrate of MP3 do YOUR ears stop perceiving the degradation?

There are (2) ways to deal with that question:

1) Conduct double blind studies with yourself until you figure out whether it's at 128 or 256 or 320.... or 2822...

OR

2) Go Lossless and KNOW that there's no degradation!!!


This is not complicated.

Habanero Monk

As I have seen bandied about: Storage is cheap. All my music is full bit rate 1411 WAV/PCM. It is amazing how much storage you can purchase for not a lot of $$.

I agree with article that certain formats serve certain purposes. Non-critical listening 320Kbps MP3 is probably fine.

satguy08

I don't have an high end system at all, and I can tell the difference in resolution between mp3 and a wave file.

tonyb

Habanero Monk wrote: »

As I have seen bandied about: Storage is cheap. All my music is full bit rate 1411 WAV/PCM. It is amazing how much storage you can purchase for not a lot of $$.

I agree with article that certain formats serve certain purposes. Non-critical listening 320Kbps MP3 is probably fine.

That's the key here, since most these days don't sit down for any critical listening nor do they even know what to listen for.

bmor

Easily heard the difference with a friend the other night listening to "Kiko and the Lavender Moon" on the 128 kbps stream from Radio Paradise playing on the SB Touch. Halfway through the song I switched to the wav file on the hard drive attached to the Touch. We both liked the wav version better, it had more definition, better detail, just seemed to flow better (if that means anything).

Gatecrasher

tonyb wrote: »

That's the key here, since most these days don't sit down for any critical listening nor do they even know what to listen for.

There is a slight noticeable difference that can be discerned if you play the two side by side on a good system. Enough of a difference to warrant going lossless for an audiophile.

However, if I were to sit you down in a chair in front of a good system and play a song by itself, you would have a very difficult time determining whether I was playing a 320kbps MP3 or a lossless audio file. At that point it would become more of a guess, especially if you had never heard the song played on that particular system before.

Another thing that throws some variables in that can confound test results are the different releases of older music. As technology improves, the remastered releases usually get better and better sounding.

I could take an older version of a classic rock CD and rip it to Wave and then take a brand-new remastered version and rip it to 320kbps MP3 and the MP3 would sound better. They are only as good as the original source so if you do take the "test" you have to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

There are variables in codecs and system specifics that can confound and bias comparisons of lossless formats vs each other so don't be 100% convinced that one lossless format is any better than another just from an unscientific test where everything hasn't been totally scrutinized to eliminate assignable causes for variation in the test procedure used.

sucks2beme

so much of modern music is so compressed and hot, I'm sure it sounds equally bad
in any format.

falconcry72

sucks2beme wrote: »

so much of modern music is so compressed and hot, I'm sure it sounds equally bad
in any format.

The bad stuff sounds bad in any format, that's true... but the good stuff sounds good and needs to be preserved in a good (lossless) format. 90% of the modern artists that I'm interested in have exceedingly high production standards, and many of these new albums sound as good as anything I've heard from any time period. Not compressed, not hot. It's not **** you'd hear on FM radio... but who listens to the radio anyway? :biggrin: