• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Is lossy outdated in 2019 & onwards?

MRC01

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
467
Likes
340
For archiving, you're right, non-lossy is the way to go.
But use cases involving phones & Bluetooth have limited storage & bandwidth (and limited ability to discern sound quality, like the noisy environment of a car) which makes lossy more practical.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
6
I'm starting to wonder if HA is fudging results on Apple AAC & Vorbis transparency because V5 Lame sounds better to me than they do at 96 ~ 128kbps with ambient music?. No idea why places like Reddit take them seriously when a user on Doom9 found they were binning results that painted Nero AAC in a good light. Like getting 5's on all samples.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
603
Likes
444
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I'm starting to wonder if HA is fudging results on Apple AAC & Vorbis transparency because V5 Lame sounds better to me than they do at 96 ~ 128kbps with ambient music?.
So you trust your subjective perception more than their results?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
1
Yes they've been outdated since 2010 outside bandwidth limited cases. The issue i have is that struggle with complex music with revealing headphones or speakers. I gave up when i could ABX Lull's continue and need a bit rate of 170kbps to stop the ringing artifacts.
 

MRC01

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
467
Likes
340
Yes they've been outdated since 2010 outside bandwidth limited cases. The issue i have is that struggle with complex music with revealing headphones or speakers. I gave up when i could ABX Lull's continue and need a bit rate of 170kbps to stop the ringing artifacts.
With MP3, VBR is the way to go. It will use up to 320k but only if needed. LAME VBR quality 3 on full bandwidth complex music (worst-case scenario) averages around 175 kbps (higher when needed, lower where it can) and is about 5:1 smaller than the original WAV file. That 5:1 ratio can be useful when storage is limited, like on phones, and more than twice better compression than FLAC.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
603
Likes
444
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
With MP3, VBR is the way to go. It will use up to 320k but only if needed. LAME VBR quality 3 on full bandwidth complex music (worst-case scenario) averages around 175 kbps (higher when needed, lower where it can) and is about 5:1 smaller than the original WAV file. That 5:1 ratio can be useful when storage is limited, like on phones, and more than twice better compression than FLAC.
There are of course lossy encodings that are better than mp3.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
1
With MP3, VBR is the way to go. It will use up to 320k but only if needed. LAME VBR quality 3 on full bandwidth complex music (worst-case scenario) averages around 175 kbps (higher when needed, lower where it can) and is about 5:1 smaller than the original WAV file. That 5:1 ratio can be useful when storage is limited, like on phones, and more than twice better compression than FLAC.
That was AAC i was talking about. MP3 is pretty weak to my ears i can tell V4 - V0 on some samples, Even on 320kbps with prurient history of aids first track there a click that sounds wrong vs the lossless one.
 

MRC01

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
467
Likes
340
Sure, MP3 is not the best. But the point is, whatever you're using, even if it takes 200 kbps to make it transparent enough, that's still more than 5:1 compression from the original and less than half the space FLAC would take. Doesn't matter on a PC, but it can matter on a phone. And listening on earbuds or in a car, it's easier to get "transparent enough".
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
1
Sure, MP3 is not the best. But the point is, whatever you're using, even if it takes 200 kbps to make it transparent enough, that's still more than 5:1 compression from the original and less than half the space FLAC would take. Doesn't matter on a PC, but it can matter on a phone. And listening on earbuds or in a car, it's easier to get "transparent enough".
I get that but i have 256GB+ memory card which is why i went FLAC.
 

q3cpma

Active Member
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
121
Likes
98
Location
France
Well, you could have bought a way smaller one if using a lossy codec. Personally, my collection is 400GB and it's very nice to make it fit with no problem on a 128GB card.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
1
I don't use lossy since not even 256kbps enough for me on my collection, Even Opus sounds bad on 1 album. I can't stand the ringing/pixel artifact AAC gives or the fuzzy distortion MP3 gives on demanding stuff. Opus/Musepack have barely no support so no point chasing them.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
603
Likes
444
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I don't use lossy since not even 256kbps enough for me on my collection, Even Opus sounds bad on 1 album. I can't stand the ringing/pixel artifact AAC gives or the fuzzy distortion MP3 gives on demanding stuff. Opus/Musepack have barely no support so no point chasing them.
Would love to see your ABX logs.
 

Robin L

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
115
Likes
92
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I've got a dirt-cheap [Fiio M3K, $69] DAP loaded with 500gb of, mostly, lossless files. I can hear the difference on the few lossy files in on the micro sd. I don't want Lossy files.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
603
Likes
444
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I can hear the difference on the few lossy files in on the micro sd. I don't want Lossy files.
There is lossy and there is lossy. I am sure you hear a difference with 64 kbps files done with an old encoder. 320 k AAC or Opus is a different story...
 

Robin L

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
115
Likes
92
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
There is lossy and there is lossy. I am sure you hear a difference with 64 kbps files done with an old encoder. 320 k AAC or Opus is a different story...
Had a subscription to Amazon Prime Music. I don't know what Amazon Prime is pumping out, but when I had a CD [or an Apple Lossless of the same] to compare to a Prime music file, the lossless file would be better. It happens often enough on more than enough streams that I don't bother, even though I have the means.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
603
Likes
444
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Had a subscription to Amazon Prime Music. I don't know what Amazon Prime is pumping out, but when I had a CD [or an Apple Lossless of the same] to compare to a Prime music file, the lossless file would be better. It happens often enough on more than enough streams that I don't bother, even though I have the means.
Did you do a double-blind ABX? How did you match levels?
 

BDWoody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
603
Likes
752
Are you always like this?
He's just trying to save you money and stress...

If you are interested in learning more about why your impressions may not be reliable, feel free to explore why all these people are challenging your impressions...

The secret is the brain plays lots of tricks...we are all susceptible...don't take offense.

Cheers.
 
Top Bottom