Ok well I am a terrible contributor to this particular forum thread and you can label me as such. However, I think that hydrogenaudio.io has contributed a great deal to the DBT of lossy codecs. Do your tests "extend to the rest of the world?" Do any of the thing you do play a role in "mass market uses"? I think they do.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Is lossy outdated in 2019 & onwards?
- Thread starter Purpletrees
- Start date
Ok well I am a terrible contributor to this particular forum thread and you can label me as such. However, I think that hydrogenaudio.io has contributed a great deal to the DBT of lossy codecs. Do your tests "extend to the rest of the world?" Do any of the thing you do play a role in "mass market uses"? I think they do.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I'm not following.
MP3 (and successors) is lossy, originally designed to solve the problem of RBCD needing to be compressed over bandwidth/stored foo.
MQA is lossy-ish-maybe, originally designed to solve the problem of of high resolution need to be compressed over bandwidth bar.
As bandwidth is increasing, MQA will soon have no purpose, just like MP3 doesn't now.
We don't.
And that has been true not just in 2019 but since the big MQA push began. MQA was the answer to a problem that was already solved, file size for streaming. Really designed to introduce a layer between the real bit perfect master files and that which the consumer has access to. No longer will you be able get lossless files, only lossy MQA facsimiles of them. Just what the record labels have wanted all along, DRM without the nasty interpretation.
" Yes it's lossy, but it sounds better" or so they say.
Baloney.
Sorry my response was too strong.
My experience posting in HA forum was quite poor and those negative feelings get triggered from time to time....
Old Listener
Senior Member
Definition of obsolete
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: no longer in use or no longer useful
lossy audio files are still in wide use. Whatever mobile phone, tablet or music player you use, you can play mp3 files on it.
If you provide a streaming audio service, lossy files are efficient in using transmission bandwidth. And any device you stream to can play those lossy files (mp or the Apple equivalent in that universe.)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: no longer in use or no longer useful
lossy audio files are still in wide use. Whatever mobile phone, tablet or music player you use, you can play mp3 files on it.
If you provide a streaming audio service, lossy files are efficient in using transmission bandwidth. And any device you stream to can play those lossy files (mp or the Apple equivalent in that universe.)
I use lossless files on my server whenever possible, but not for sound quality reasons. I occasionally make videos or slide shows with music for my own enjoyment, which usually means re-compressing the music for the video. Starting with a lossless file means there’s only one compression.
Otherwise, I’m convinced that a high bitrate MP3 or AAC is transparent. Hell, even lower bitrate files are likely to be transparent, like 160 kbps, but I just can’t go there.
Otherwise, I’m convinced that a high bitrate MP3 or AAC is transparent. Hell, even lower bitrate files are likely to be transparent, like 160 kbps, but I just can’t go there.
RBCD is inherently compressed? I know the content can be but RBCD itself? It may be bandwidth limited beyond normal hearing frequencies but that is not compression.
Last edited:
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Huh?
No, of course RBCD isn't inherently compressed; MP3s are compressed.
Default RBCD is lossless.
I am completely lost and not following.
BillG
Major Contributor
I can hear subtle differences starting at 192 kbps with *.mp3, and by 160 kbps it becomes rather noticeable to me. However, that doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy the music...
Re-read post #22 re RBCD needing to be compressed. I think you mean the bandwidth of RBCD to fit a smaller bandwidth medium. I saw it as compression in RBCD spec.
Is this sorted?
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Re-read post #22 re RBCD needing to be compressed. I think you mean the bandwidth of RBCD to fit a smaller bandwidth medium. I saw it as compression in RBCD spec.
Is this sorted?
Yes.
Basically this. It's Xiph you should worship (or donate to, at least). I'd advise against putting formats and codecs in the same bag, the later being way more important in the final result (which is why x264 and LAME won't die easily even if AVC isn't the best format anymore and MP3 completely obsolete).
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,766
- Likes
- 37,625
BillG
Major Contributor
MP3 might not be the best psychoacoustic based compression format anymore, but obsolete? Hardly, when it's transparent at 320 kbps, and numerous commercial platforms, streaming and download, still use it...
It's obsolete technology because some other formats (and codecs, implicitely) do the same or better with half the bitrate. Same way MPEG-2 is obsolete (or deprecated, if you prefer) even if it works well given enough bitrate.
BillG
Major Contributor
I would have used superseded, as that's standard terminology in Information Technology when discussing these things. Anyway, we're on the same page now...
I am bit at loss (y) here ... When most people on planet Earth including all audiophiles with Vinyl and SET systems )), can't distinguish 320 kbps mp3 from lossless, why should lossy codecs be irrelevant today? I would venture for the most part we watch and listen to lossy/compressed content and we don't seem to suffer from it. Poor implementation, coding and recordings are the issues not the lossy codecs. These remain IMHO very much relevant in spite of the dropping cost of storage, 4 TB are sub $100 as of this writing, since we seem to consume most of our content from the cloud or will in the near future.
)), can't distinguish 320 kbps mp3 from lossless, why should lossy codecs be irrelevant today? I would venture for the most part we watch and listen to lossy/compressed content and we don't seem to suffer from it. Poor implementation, coding and recordings are the issues not the lossy codecs. These remain IMHO very much relevant in spite of the dropping cost of storage, 4 TB are sub $100 as of this writing, since we seem to consume most of our content from the cloud or will in the near future.
OP
Purpletrees
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 4
- Thread Starter
- #40
And that has been true not just in 2019 but since the big MQA push began. MQA was the answer to a problem that was already solved, file size for streaming. Really designed to introduce a layer between the real bit perfect master files and that which the consumer has access to. No longer will you be able get lossless files, only lossy MQA facsimiles of them. Just what the record labels have wanted all along, DRM without the nasty interpretation.
" Yes it's lossy, but it sounds better" or so they say.
Baloney.
And it's been done before as Wavpack hybrid which was in 2000. The sounds better bit is pretty rich when noisy/complex audio(1200Kbps flac) can break them very easily since there no real psychoacoustic model being used.
A CD quality lossless still better or even a V0 Lame encode.
Similar threads
