• 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Is lossy outdated in 2019 & onwards?

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
605
Likes
448
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
#41
MQA was the answer to a problem that was already solved, file size for streaming.
Wasn't the problem that MQA was trying to solve the disappearing MLP licensing revenue for Meridian? DRM was the means to get the buy-in from the record industry...
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
19
Likes
2
#42
I think it's relative :

MP3 : transparent, less space and energy. Looks like something very efficient.

FLAC : add nothing more than MP3, took more space and energy. Looks like something less efficient.
 

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
5,767
Likes
3,241
Location
Central Fl
#43
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.
Maybe it's simplistic thinking but, if it sounds different than the what the engineer/producer,artist created at the mixing board how can it be better?
It may sound different but better doesn't compute. That's just marketing BS!
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
32
Likes
20
#44
With 4 kids all playing computer games, YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, homework we are constantly hitting our limit for data each month and we live in an area that has no other high speed internet options so streaming MQA does in fact help me get better sound without resorting to flac or lossless hi res. I absolutely hate our internet provider because of their throttling.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
605
Likes
448
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
#45
With 4 kids all playing computer games, YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, homework we are constantly hitting our limit for data each month and we live in an area that has no other high speed internet options so streaming MQA does in fact help me get better sound without resorting to flac or lossless hi res. I absolutely hate our internet provider because of their throttling.
MQA uses just as much bandwidth as FLAC.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
1,088
Likes
856
#46
Intellectually I prefer that the masters and the recordings performed lossless. Originals should be with lossless/ At the current price of electronics and storage I would almost ask for this to be mandatory, even for video ( I don't know if the original formats for films and TV are lossless, I doubt it but .. it would be nice). On the consumer side, choices would be given, such is the case today in most ways. Tidal for example has lossless streaming but because of my Internet issues, I have the lossy streams subscription (mp3 320 or equivalent) and can't find much fault to it ... then again I lost my Audiophile Golden Hearing when I started frequenting this ASR place :) ..
I am sure , I will bump my subscription up to lossless when the Internet issues are resolved in my Home Country. The benefits will be intellectual: I will be pleased knowing I am listening to lossless :) ... The soundstage will be wider, the background blacker, the sound more organic and fleshed-out ... etc ;)
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,465
Likes
2,718
Location
Milton Keynes, England
#47
I am playing a mind trick by ripping everything in FLAC, intellectually I know 320K MP3 is so close as to be indistinguishable for regular listening but just knowing a track is lossless fools me into thinking it must be better.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
1,088
Likes
856
#49
Well where I live mp3 320 saves the day.my current Internet shows 4 mbps. Tidal lossless regularly balks and stop the song. Not an issue with the 320 mp3 and it’s Spotify equivalent. There is a case for audibly transparent Codecs today.
 

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
5,767
Likes
3,241
Location
Central Fl
#50
I am playing a mind trick by ripping everything in FLAC, intellectually I know 320K MP3 is so close as to be indistinguishable for regular listening but just knowing a track is lossless fools me into thinking it must be better.
Kind of like buying a high res download of a 1960s analog recording. The big numbers make you feel better.

I do not see any reason not to use only lossless.
Yep exactly. I see no issue in listening to Spotify 320 streams, sound just fine to me.
But if your going to record anything or do a CD rip, why wouldn't you use at least a flac lossless stream at a minimum? Storage space is next to free now a days.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
5,362
Likes
2,203
Location
Seattle Area, USA
#51
I am playing a mind trick by ripping everything in FLAC, intellectually I know 320K MP3 is so close as to be indistinguishable for regular listening but just knowing a track is lossless fools me into thinking it must be better.
I do the same thing.

And given the cheapness of storage and broadband / wifi bandwidth speed, it's almost a waste to not utilize it by just going lossless all the time.
 

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
2,380
Likes
3,778
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
#52
Kind of like buying a high res download of a 1960s analog recording. The big numbers make you feel better.
1,411,200 bits per second (audio only bitrate for CD) is a big enough number for me...
 

Old Listener

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
278
Likes
159
Location
SF Bay Area, California
#53
My main library is almost all Flacs. I bought mp3s when I or my wife wanted a single song from the 50s/60s from a one hit wonder singer/group.

For music in the car or music while I'm exercising, I use a ~38 GB library of mp3s.

I'm pragmatic, not doctrinaire.
 

MattHooper

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
404
Likes
425
#54
I'm happy with CD quality - have been for decades. I have Tidal for streaming, but I also stream from a few internet radio stations in to my hi-end system and even though they are lossy - 192kps CBR to me they sound quite satisfying. (Mostly electronica music).

And yet I remember the sound of 128kbs digital files from iTunes back-in-the-day, though! And I still have a few of those files on my system. They tend to suck.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
605
Likes
448
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
#55
1,411,200 bits per second (audio only bitrate for CD) is a big enough number for me...
And if you use FLAC, you get away with 800 kbps or so with the same audio quality... :)
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
605
Likes
448
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
#56
And given the cheapness of storage and broadband / wifi bandwidth speed, it's almost a waste to not utilize it by just going lossless all the time.
Your local bandwidth may seem cheap to you, but wasting bandwidth causes a lot of load on the backbone networks and servers - that costs not only money, but a lot of power/energy too.
 

Julf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
605
Likes
448
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
#58
What qualifies as wasting bandwidth?
Transmitting useless bits (as in random ultrasonic noise) or using a very inefficient encoding are two applicable examples I can think of.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
88
Likes
80
#59
Ever since i switched to Flac wither on my PC or portable. I never understood the arguments by pro lossy users and even HA forums. Since they get super rude when lossy can't cover all music without issues even Opus still groans on some content.
Yeah 90% of the activity is them abusing TOS#8 when people pour in showing how easy they can break. To me AAC/Vorbis aren't even transparent at 256kbps with industrial music/experimental and metal music.
If it is so easy then what is so difficult in providing an ABX log? There are 3 threads recently active about lossy codecs producing audible difference:
I don't see any rudeness there (maybe I'm thick-skinned). But then again, the OP doesn't think it's beneath him to do an ABX test.
 
Top Bottom