Is lossy outdated in 2019 & onwards?

[Drone/doom]

Lame mp3 at 192kbps can cover a lot of music even on good headphones?. The only artifact i notice can be patched by using 192k AAC while others can be at V0 since i don't see a full lossless takeover until 2TB cards are out and get cheap.

 

[Cahudson42]

Hmmm.. I see the latest post pre-dates the Amazon HD/UHD Music service, and the little Fire 7 $30 (on-sale) tablet which can stream it lossless (to, say, a Topping D10 and an Atom) while accepting a 512gb sd card.. Or same w/o the D10 using an LG V20..

Sure is sounding 'lossy' is obsolete (ok, deprecated) to me.

Next? Bluetooth... Why have bt 2.4g streaming to a 'receiver' of any sort, when I can directly analog wire it via the 3.5mm on a $30 Fire 7 and remotely control it? Maybe bt headphones at the gym, or bt headphones for your kid watching TV.. But for 'serious music listening'? Why?

So, given these devices, and 5.0gb wifi, decent Internet, is bt obsolete for 'serious music listening'?

 

[yikky900]

Pitting lossy against lossless is idiotic, anyway. Do you see people comparing raw Y4M or FFV1 with AVC or VP9?

Because lossless video isn't even possible since even a 1080p video would be very large. Why would be people argue over a video codec that only seen in professional broadcasting and making videos?.

Very bad analogy.

 

[q3cpma]

The analogy isn't perfect since it is possible to use FLAC as your only codec and BDs already come compressed with a lossy format. But if you consider portable devices, I'd say it's spot on: unless you have an ant discography, you'll have to spend a lot on microSD cards to use lossless on it, as you would with HDDs and lossless videos (let's say, lossless compared to the source here).
Also, the analogy isn't only about practibility: it's only in audio that you see people strangely obsessing over lossless, while they're very happy with their often poorly encoded video streams. Comparatively small audio filesizes only make this obsession possible, not sensible.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Also, the analogy isn't only about practibility: it's only in audio that you see people strangely obsessing over lossless, while they're very happy with their often poorly encoded video streams.

Not so strange. I have no bandwidth/storage issues that require other than lossless for music audio and I don't really care much at all about video/HT including its associated audio.

 

[q3cpma]

Well, of course, this concerns only people treating their movies like their albums. Still, as I said, the size difference doesn't justify the obsession; only the interest in the material can (as in your case).

Personally, I treat both as archive material to allow encoding the way I want it, with the codecs I want: FLAC albums to Vorbis or Opus with replaygain applied and remuxed BDs to AV1 (when rav1e is ready) with Vapoursynth filtering as needed.

 

[yikky900]

Not so strange. I have no bandwidth/storage issues that require other than lossless for music audio and I don't really care much at all about video/HT including its associated audio.

Really have no idea why the pro lossy side ignores this?. It's 2019 a 5TB HDD is dirt cheap and the new 512GB micro SD i have was £57.50, It not 2005 were for a DAP it was 64GB and HDD's were 500GB. Yup a 5TB HDD on scan.uk costs only £117.

 

[Sal1950]

Yup a 5TB HDD on scan.uk costs only £117.

That's for a big, heavy, noisy, unreliable, antiquated spinner drive. Modern SSD's cost a bit more.
But really there shouldn't be a "side". Yep storage is very cheap today but there still exist situations where some
size reduction is very advantageous and a small loss of quality is acceptable.
YMMV

 

[yikky900]

That's for a big, heavy, noisy, unreliable, antiquated spinner drive. Modern SSD's cost a bit more.
But really there shouldn't be a "side". Yep storage is very cheap today but there still exist situations where some
size reduction is very advantageous and a small loss of quality is acceptable.
YMMV

Ehh its a 7200rpm modern HDD, Why would a SSD be better when they struggle reach above 1TB & cost more. That a bit bold when i was talking archiving lossless audio not what the best for hectic modern games.

 

[Sal1950]

Ehh its a 7200rpm modern HDD, Why would a SSD be better when they struggle reach above 1TB & cost more. That a bit bold when i was talking archiving lossless audio not what the best for hectic modern games.

Noise for one, unless you keep the drives remotely. Also things like read/write speed come in very handy when ripping and handling 5+ gigs of multichannel music files.

 

[scruffy1]

Noise for one, unless you keep the drives remotely. Also things like read/write speed come in very handy when ripping and handling 5+ gigs of multichannel music files.

i have a server for storage, so those "noisy" mechanical drives are in another room to my stereo system, and keep mostly flacs plus some archival mp3 that have had the original source long since move on

surely multichannel stuff is ripped from a (very noisy) dvd drive ?

as for unreliability of mechanical drives, that's why god invented raid, or secondary redundant storage

okay, maybe god didn't invent it

 

[yikky900]

Since I've got my 512GB card it feels fun to have 100% quality despite AAC - 192k being enough for 99% of my stuff but i really don't care about lossy anymore. Nice that i don't have to worry about 0.9% that can break lossy codecs.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

surely multichannel stuff is ripped from a (very noisy) dvd drive ?

Why would you assume they are any noisier than the ones used to rip stereo and why would it make a difference anyway?

 

[scruffy1]

Why would you assume they are any noisier than the ones used to rip stereo and why would it make a difference anyway?

it was meant to be a joke about hard drive noise - if the device is not local and making a noise when you are listening to digital storage, then it's as irrelevant as commenting on hddd ambient noise


sorry i was a bit obscure

 

[Kal Rubinson]

it was meant to be a joke about hard drive noise - if the device is not local and making a noise when you are listening to digital storage, then it's as irrelevant as commenting on hddd ambient noise
sorry i was a bit obscure

OK but I still don't get why multichannel is relevant, even in jest.

 

[scruffy1]

OK but I still don't get why multichannel is relevant, even in jest.

because sal initiated the comment "Noise for one, unless you keep the drives remotely. Also things like read/write speed come in very handy when ripping and handling 5+ gigs of multichannel music files. "

i'll be as quiet as an ssd now

 

[yikky900]

My PC's CPU fan is more noisy than my hard drives. lol

 

[scruffy1]

the fan in my nas is louder than the hdd, or the entire pc it sits on

but that's because i built the pc, whereas the nas was supplied as is

 

[yikky900]

HA forum built its entire core on lossy audio codec technologies and as such, doesn't want to hear that their time has come and gone.

I've noticed they get unreasonably hostile when ever lossy isn't transparent on set of samples. Not the best place since they assume 100% lossless on a DAP is audiophile woo and assume that there aren't any artifacts in the bass/mids region.

Like who cares about Lame or others when 400 and 512GB cards are now cheap?. lol

 

[Julf]

Like who cares about Lame or others when 400 and 512GB cards are now cheap?. lol

Those of us who stream music over the internet.