Slashdot Mirror

Last summer I wrote a program to compare two audio files, mostly to get an objective understanding of how sound degrades in a lossless format: http://andrewrondeau.com/blog/2016/07/deconstructing-lossy-audio-the-case-for-lossless

My conclusion is that, even at 320 kbps, formats like MP3 and AAC still screw with the sound. The newer Opus codec at 320 kbps is better than an 8-bit flac, though.

What happens with lossy audio is that it's more about "will someone notice an objectionable artifact" then "can someone notice the difference in an A-B test." Even then, the difference is usually in details that people don't pay close attention to. So, what you pay for in lossless is that the subtle echo in the fadeout sounds perfect, and that the equalization is always perfect, and that the cymbals and clicks of the guitar sound exactly like they do in the studio. Most people will never hear the difference, even in A-B testing.

In my very subjective experience, I find that AC3 has a certain dullness that lossless doesn't have. MP3 has a particular thinness that's noticeable compared to AC3. I personally don't have any opus files in my collection, so I can't comment there.

My experience with GWT is rapid prototyping. Overall, I like playing around with GWT. It's a great way to quickly dynamic web sites without wading through the mess that JavaScript is. Considering that I do other kinds of software on a day-to-day basis; GWT has a learning curve that's gentle enough to allow me to write powerful UIs as a weekend project.

GWT's integration with Eclipse; especially its debugger, is a significant advantage. Its compiler is also another advantage. I tend to shy away from JavaScript because I prefer compiled environments with rich debuggers.

I think GWT's long-term strengths could be its maintainability, although someone who is experienced with both JavaScript and GWT will be better off making such a judgment. I have not written a large, multi-developer GWT application; thus I do not know what kind of complexities arise in such an environment.

GWT has an odd deployment system that's designed to take advantage of HTTP caching. Compiled javascript files are named based on a hashing algorithm, thus a web server can be optimized to instruct the browser to only download code when a new version is compiled. This makes storage of compiled JavaScript difficult for some deployment scenarios, because the files always change.

I've been reading the mailing list for about a year, and in general, it tends to have a lot of novices and hard-core Java developers. There's a lot of talk about using various Java frameworks within GWT. I get the impression that, even though GWT is Java-based, using frameworks like Spring or Hibernate is like ramming a square peg down a round hole.

Some novices don't understand that GWT doesn't run under the JRE, or assume that GWT can somehow magically make their favorite library run in the browser. GWT compiles Java into JavaScript; it does not deal with Java bytecode (except in its debugger.)

There's also a lot of talk about using various RPC / Remoting protocols when served from a Java web server. It seems that some Java programmers like that they can keep a simple layer between code running in the browser and code on the server. I personally avoid these layers and stick with simple AJAX calls into PHP or my custom-written C# server.

I wrote this in GWT as a learning exercise: http://andrewrondeau.com/com.Memmexx.GearPod/GearPod.html

Now, you might think "wouldn't it be a cool idea to integrate an MP3 search engine into your demo?" I did, but it's locked behind closed doors because I don't want to get sued! (It turns out that the folks at Seeqpod got sued after I completed the version with the search engine.

Just to stay on topic: Radiohead's new album is the first that I will ever purchase for download-to-own, assuming it's a decent bitrate MP3 or AAC.

I've found that the air between my speakers and ears, combined with ambient noise, causes more "loss" then "lossy" compression. With the exception of bud earphones that can push an unmodified signal directly into the ear, all systems, includng my hand-built ultra-high-end system, will induce some form of loss.

Thus, one can conclude that the signal that hits your ears, even in $20,000 systems, has significant phase changes, harmonic distortion, and an EQ curve that is NOT flat. As a result, the human ear has tolerance for loss; granted, there is debate as to what these tolerances are.

Fully agree - but CD quality was never as good a vinyl through the right equipment. Bob Dylan had a lot to say about that a few months back. To his ears there just haven't been any CDs that have achieved what vinyl, with the right engineers handling the mix, used to.

That's probably because vinyl's imperfections tend to make certain styles of music sound "better". The crackle can add an alive feeling, and the warping gives a natural variety to rythm ensuring that each copy will sound slightly different as they age.

All the discussion of "lossless" misses the point that at the rates CDs are sampled there's already a high degree of loss. Music is inherently analog; digital has to get an order of magnitude better (at least) before it'll be so realistic that it's worth a premium.

It's also worth noting that the cutting lathe on vinyl cuts off high frequencies, low frequencies need to be filtered for longer playback, ect, ect. This web site, from a record pressing company, describes vinyl's limitations: http://www.urpressing.com/tips.html.

I personally have a sizeable vinyl collection. My thoughts on the medium are here.

Actually, Sgt. Pepper's is one of the most expensive rock records ever made (or at least it was when it first came out). On A Day in the Life, for example, they hired a 40-piece orchestra. So you could easily make an album for 10k, but definitely not Sgt. Pepper's.

Today most of the 40-piece orchestra would be replaced with synthesizers. Software synthesizers cost about $400, and rack-mounts can be had for less then $1000.

For example, listen to some of the pieces that I wrote in college. While they don't compare with the Beatles, I was able to get realistic orchestra effects using a consumer mac and a Kurtzweil rack-mount. The total value of the equipment was much less then 10K. http://www.andrewrondeau.com/music.html (Intro to Electro-Acoustic Music, Final Impression; and An Electronic Music Composition are the best examples.)

Something to consider: Vinyl can be read by archeologists; by looking at the groove under a microscope, they can infer that it's sound. CDs use a complex error correction algorithm that will take years to reverse engineer, and decoding an MP3 off of a hard drive will be even more difficult.

For more information, I've written an extensive study of the merits and drawbacks of vinyl: http://www.andrewrondeau.com/Writings/My%20Love-Ha te%20Relationship%20With%20Vinyl%20-%20Or%20-%20Wh y%20We%20Should%20Keep%20Making%20Vinyl.html

From my article about its limits:

1. Vinyl does a decent job at carrying two channels with proper mixing, but as the format war in the 1970s over quadraphonic audio on LP demonstrated, it doesn't carry much more. Many people, including myself, find that music in surround is much more natural and real then traditional stereo. Digital, on the other hand, can discretely carry as many channels as possible. (I've heard all the arguments against surround-sound and will only offer one counter-argument. Listen to a good concert, and try to recreate the experience with traditional stereo. You can't.)
2. During a school project investigating ski-base wear, I learned that all material surfaces, no matter how smooth, are rough and random at some scale. This point is where vinyl, no matter how good of a manufacturing process is used, cannot hold a high frequency or soft note. I do not know if anyone has performed any research into determining where this point is on vinyl. How can vinyl record "everything between the samples" if even it has a limited resolution? Once digital audio has a sampling rate and bit density that exceeds vinyl's resolution, any double-blind test will show digital's superiority. (Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if DVD-Audio and SACD do exceed the physical limitations of most vinyl used in record manufacturing.)
3. The size and shape of the cutting lathe causes sounds to be clipped off, although they may conceivably be written onto a record. Even if additional sound "between the samples" makes it onto the record, it's too small to be picked up by the needle and will never make it out of the speakers.

Really, the only thing "tech" about this project is that the enclosures are recycled macs. DIY projects for self-powered speakers that can be plugged into an MP3 player, Diskman, Gameboy, ect, are a dime a dozen. I did enjoy looking at the pictures.

How long until my speakers make it onto the front page? Perhaps I should do a write-up on my pair of subwoofers that are as a large as washing machines?

Look, I am a professional software engineer for a major player in the technology industry. I've hobnobed with successful technology entrepuneures and attended seminars on how to get new technology accepted. There is a very good chance that at some point in the future you will use a device that is touched by software that I've written. (If you would like my resume to back up my claim, send me an email. http://www.andrewrondeau.com/ I can say for certain that Linux does not meet the criteria required for it to make any kind of dent in the market of consumer operating systems.

If a PC manufacturer is pushy enough to get a Linux-based computer for sale in a store like Best Buy or Wal-mark, it won't be very successful even in its current state. The computer might be $100-$500 cheaper, but that won't make much of a difference. The IPod is kicking the Nomad's ass in sales, yet the Nomad does everything an IPod does for significantly less money. (I am a proud owner of a Nomad, but all of my non-technical friends laugh at me for being too cheap to buy an IPod.) The same applies for cars, (I'm assuming you're American,) even though manual transmissions are $1000 cheaper, so few Americans want them that they're even being phased out of budget cars. Spyware and Viruses will become a problem on any popular consumer operating system, and thus assuming that Linux doesn't have a malware problem or is immune to malware is irresponsible. Many of Linux's features over Windows (Unix-based, open-source kernel,) are already present on OS X, which is very successful in the consumer desktop market.

The only way for Linux to be able to make a dent in Window's market share is for it to have *unique* "must-have" features that Windows and Macintosh lack. The fact that Apple makes unique and desirable applications for the Macintosh is what keeps it in business. The real reason why the DOS-based PC became popular was because it had VisiCalc back in the early 80s, which no one else had. All of Linux's advantages are not important in the desktop market.

Look, Linux has been around for about 14 years, and I've been hearing the same arguments as to why it's the best thing since sliced bread for the last 8 years. (The person who first got me try Linux is now a proud Mac owner.) I think the fact that the first successful consumer desktop operating system based on an open-source kernel (OS X) used BSD says quite a bit.