That kind of thinking makes my skin crawl, but maybe I'm as guilty as anyone else. I insta-upload all my photos to Google Photos and delete the local copy on my phone (to save space), so there is really only that one copy.
On the other hand, my music is stored locally on my PC, synced to Google Drive, backed up to a NAS and uploaded to Google Play Music. I do not ever want to rip everything by hand all over again.
Perhaps I really should follow the same philosophy with my photos.
You clearly do not understand the concept of double-blind testing (such as ABX and MUSHRA), which is specifically designed to perform objective testing on otherwise subjective inputs, by reducing the user response to positive or negative on whether they hear a difference. The detail comes from multiple repeated tests with varying stimuli.
It is a well-established and respected method of testing for audible differences, and your complete disregard for double-blind testing betrays your complete lack of knowledge and experience in this field.
I am actually completely disregarding your unproven subjective assertions, which seem to be based only in reading a list of technical limitations in the MP3 format, and not in any kind of actual controlled double-blind listening tests.
As I wrote before, I have yet to see adequate proof that anyone can distinguish between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source, in a controlled and verified double blind test. If hearing the difference is as easy as you claim, why have you not provided any kind of proof?
All you've done is draw conclusions based on tech sheets, but you haven't actually proven that these limitations are actually audible.
No, you have not. Please provide adequate ABX proof that your can distinguish between high-bitrate MP3 and loss, or shut up.
It's one thing to read a list of shortcomings in the MP3 format and go "mmm yes, I can definitely hear the pre-echo, higher noise floor and fuzziness that I just read about on Wikipedia", but it's a completely different thing actually hearing it.
Like I wrote above, so far no one has apparently been able to distinguish clearly between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source, with ABX logs to prove it. The only ones who claim to be able to hear the difference seem to be woo-woo audiophiles who reject all forms of objective proof in favor of pseudo-magical bullshit "explanations".
It's not that relevant that I could not detect a difference at a specific quality setting, that just means I've found my personal quality level for transparency.
What is relevant is that no one seems to be able to detect a difference between something like 320kbps MP3 and a lossless source. Certainly not anyone willing to prove it by supplying verified ABX test logs showing that they can indeed hear a difference.
So please, go ahead and post proof at the Hydrogenaudio forums that you can detect any audible difference between high-bitrate MP3 and lossless, when testing with music.
Put up or shut up, as they say. If you cannot prove your assertions, they are worthless.
It's part of the normal process of LP mastering, the master itself isn't different. It has all the brickwall limiting and clipping that the CD version has, there's just an extra step to kinda-sorta mitigate it a bit, so you don't burn out the motors in the cutting lathe with a square wave.
By "higher quality than CD", do you mean better mastered audio, or so-called "high-resolution" audio?
Because the latter is bullshit of the highest order. There is absolutely no audible difference between a hi-res audio file and a CD-quality resample of that same file. None at all.
But if you mean better mastering, I'm 100% with you on that one. The loudness war kills good music.
By a specially licensed driver, driving a specially constructed truck with all kinds of approvals and safety mechanisms. Not some guy with a bunch of jerry cans in the trunk of his car.
For anyone who doesn't quite understand the insanity of keeping gas cans in your trunk, gasoline vapor is significantly denser than air, and will collect in low places, including the trunk of your car, and by extension the cabin as well, as it is usually not completely closed off.
That's why you should never fill a gas can while it's sitting in your trunk or in the bed of a pickup. Always put it on the ground when filling it, then place it back in the trunk or bed, to prevent spilled vapor from collecting.
People are generally way too thoughtless in their handling of gasoline. Usually there isn't a problem with just one gas can, even in the trunk of a car. But when you have 20 or 30 gallons divided over multiple cans, that's a whole new situation. Do you really thing the average Independent Fuel Delivery Contractor is going to put every individual can on the ground and fill them up separately? Hell no.
His point was that DSD is completely pointless, as every single DSD file or SACD ever released was actually PCM for most of the audio processing chain before it was converted to DSD and released. So the "purity" of the format is tainted right from the beginning.
DSD and SACD was nothing but a money grab and an attempt to introduce DRM into the music market.
It provides absolutely no benefits over PCM formats.
MP3 can't produce transparent audio at ANY bit-rate. It has many design compromises like the anti-aliasing which produces audible distortions, and besides that, it's a frequency domain codec, like AAC and most others, which makes them all incapable of true transparency:
If you want to prove your claims, please provide ABX test logs where you successfully detect any difference between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source. Because yes, MP3 is technically inferior to later codecs, but that doesn't make it useless, it just makes it less bitrate efficient for full transparency. And there are a couple of problem samples (not music) that it cannot achieve full transparency with, even at 320kbps, but those are only relevant for test purposes, they're very far from actual musical content. If you're not getting audible transparency on music, stop using an inferior encoder. LAME is the standard recommended encoder for a reason, it's vastly superior.
And I'm sorry, but if you think ATRAC is superior to MP3, you've obviously never used a Minidisc player.
Stop reading the haphazardly-edited dreck on Wikipedia (it's notoriously bad for technical subjects) and go join https://hydrogenaud.io/ instead. They would love if you could actually prove an audible difference between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source, in a properly controlled double blind test. You can start by reading their wiki page on MP3, which is a lot better than the one on Wikipedia: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/ind...
For my own part, I've done lots of ABX testing, and even with the toughest musical sample I could find (solo harpsichord), LAME-encoded MP3 achieved full transparency at -V3 VBR for me, and while I could ABX it with 100% accuracy at -V5, I would not be able to hear any difference in normal playback. It was only when I played back the same snippets over and over that I could actually detect a minute difference in the sharpness of transients, but it was extremely subtle.
Try disregarding your bias, and give MP3 a fair shake in a controlled listening test, instead of just reading the technical info and extrapolating. I think you'll be suprised at how good it actually is.
SACD was only introduced for two reasons: Patent royalties for Sony and copy protection to appease the record labels. They couldn't patent the existing PCM format for obvious reasons, so they came up with DSD, which is an absolutely idiotic format that you can't actually do anything with, other than straight recording and playback. To edit or even EQ the sound digitally, you have to convert back to PCM. That's what DXD is, by the way. A fancy new name for 352.8KHz 24-bit PCM, which is used the whole way through the mixing/mastering process. So all the talk about how DSD is supposed to be superior to PCM and "more pure" and "closer to analog" and whatever is just complete BS, since every single DSD recording out there was actually PCM all the way until the very last conversion to put it on an SACD or to a DSD file.
You're right, of course. It's basically EQ biased towards midrange with a bit of smooth roll-off compression on top, and a few other various effects, partly also because the output transformers absolutely murder the damping factor, leading to muddy and uncontrolled "warm" bass response.
It's all relatively easily recreated using a modern DSP, provided an adequate signal analysis of the original analog hardware.
Yeah, you can hear the difference between a solid-state amp and a SET amp, because the SET amp will sound like crap in comparison, with distortion and noise that is significantly higher than with the solid state amp.
And good luck actually hearing a difference between 320kbps or V0 MP3 compared to lossless. Try an ABX test, I think you'll be surprised at the result.
It's by far the largest industry in Germany with enormous lobbying power (both direct and indirect), of course they're going to do their best to accommodate the car manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, you're an expert. Suuure thing, buddy. I'm sure you graduated top of the class at Navy SEALs, too :-D
And yet you have not supplied a single shred of even halfway credible evidence of your wild assertions of audible artifacts in high-bitrate MP3.
Funny, that.
Fahrenheit or celsius?
That kind of thinking makes my skin crawl, but maybe I'm as guilty as anyone else. I insta-upload all my photos to Google Photos and delete the local copy on my phone (to save space), so there is really only that one copy.
On the other hand, my music is stored locally on my PC, synced to Google Drive, backed up to a NAS and uploaded to Google Play Music. I do not ever want to rip everything by hand all over again.
Perhaps I really should follow the same philosophy with my photos.
Boomer spotted.
Denmark still has some (AFAIK we're a net oil exporter), but we sold most of it to Norway. Yeah, not the best decision ever.
You clearly do not understand the concept of double-blind testing (such as ABX and MUSHRA), which is specifically designed to perform objective testing on otherwise subjective inputs, by reducing the user response to positive or negative on whether they hear a difference. The detail comes from multiple repeated tests with varying stimuli.
It is a well-established and respected method of testing for audible differences, and your complete disregard for double-blind testing betrays your complete lack of knowledge and experience in this field.
I am actually completely disregarding your unproven subjective assertions, which seem to be based only in reading a list of technical limitations in the MP3 format, and not in any kind of actual controlled double-blind listening tests.
As I wrote before, I have yet to see adequate proof that anyone can distinguish between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source, in a controlled and verified double blind test. If hearing the difference is as easy as you claim, why have you not provided any kind of proof?
All you've done is draw conclusions based on tech sheets, but you haven't actually proven that these limitations are actually audible.
The still, then.
No, you have not. Please provide adequate ABX proof that your can distinguish between high-bitrate MP3 and loss, or shut up.
It's one thing to read a list of shortcomings in the MP3 format and go "mmm yes, I can definitely hear the pre-echo, higher noise floor and fuzziness that I just read about on Wikipedia", but it's a completely different thing actually hearing it.
Like I wrote above, so far no one has apparently been able to distinguish clearly between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source, with ABX logs to prove it. The only ones who claim to be able to hear the difference seem to be woo-woo audiophiles who reject all forms of objective proof in favor of pseudo-magical bullshit "explanations".
It's not that relevant that I could not detect a difference at a specific quality setting, that just means I've found my personal quality level for transparency.
What is relevant is that no one seems to be able to detect a difference between something like 320kbps MP3 and a lossless source. Certainly not anyone willing to prove it by supplying verified ABX test logs showing that they can indeed hear a difference.
So please, go ahead and post proof at the Hydrogenaudio forums that you can detect any audible difference between high-bitrate MP3 and lossless, when testing with music.
Put up or shut up, as they say. If you cannot prove your assertions, they are worthless.
It's part of the normal process of LP mastering, the master itself isn't different. It has all the brickwall limiting and clipping that the CD version has, there's just an extra step to kinda-sorta mitigate it a bit, so you don't burn out the motors in the cutting lathe with a square wave.
That's a neat little trick to replace digital distortion with analog distortion, getting music on LPs kinda does the same thing, I guess.
We really should break the knee caps of everyone responsible for the loudness war, though.
By "higher quality than CD", do you mean better mastered audio, or so-called "high-resolution" audio?
Because the latter is bullshit of the highest order. There is absolutely no audible difference between a hi-res audio file and a CD-quality resample of that same file. None at all.
But if you mean better mastering, I'm 100% with you on that one. The loudness war kills good music.
None of these startups will be using that type of approved tank though, it'll be random guys in random cars with random containers.
By a specially licensed driver, driving a specially constructed truck with all kinds of approvals and safety mechanisms. Not some guy with a bunch of jerry cans in the trunk of his car.
Diesel is a lot less volatile and dangerous than gasoline, which could be one reason why diesel refilling trucks is accepted.
If they respect and adhere to the relevant fire and hazard regulations, then sure.
But just like with Uber, they'll shit all over the rules and laws and just do whatever they want, with no regard to safety.
For anyone who doesn't quite understand the insanity of keeping gas cans in your trunk, gasoline vapor is significantly denser than air, and will collect in low places, including the trunk of your car, and by extension the cabin as well, as it is usually not completely closed off.
That's why you should never fill a gas can while it's sitting in your trunk or in the bed of a pickup. Always put it on the ground when filling it, then place it back in the trunk or bed, to prevent spilled vapor from collecting.
People are generally way too thoughtless in their handling of gasoline. Usually there isn't a problem with just one gas can, even in the trunk of a car. But when you have 20 or 30 gallons divided over multiple cans, that's a whole new situation. Do you really thing the average Independent Fuel Delivery Contractor is going to put every individual can on the ground and fill them up separately? Hell no.
His point was that DSD is completely pointless, as every single DSD file or SACD ever released was actually PCM for most of the audio processing chain before it was converted to DSD and released. So the "purity" of the format is tainted right from the beginning.
DSD and SACD was nothing but a money grab and an attempt to introduce DRM into the music market.
It provides absolutely no benefits over PCM formats.
MP3 can't produce transparent audio at ANY bit-rate. It has many design compromises like the anti-aliasing which produces audible distortions, and besides that, it's a frequency domain codec, like AAC and most others, which makes them all incapable of true transparency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
BS.
If you want to prove your claims, please provide ABX test logs where you successfully detect any difference between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source. Because yes, MP3 is technically inferior to later codecs, but that doesn't make it useless, it just makes it less bitrate efficient for full transparency. And there are a couple of problem samples (not music) that it cannot achieve full transparency with, even at 320kbps, but those are only relevant for test purposes, they're very far from actual musical content. If you're not getting audible transparency on music, stop using an inferior encoder. LAME is the standard recommended encoder for a reason, it's vastly superior.
And I'm sorry, but if you think ATRAC is superior to MP3, you've obviously never used a Minidisc player.
Stop reading the haphazardly-edited dreck on Wikipedia (it's notoriously bad for technical subjects) and go join https://hydrogenaud.io/ instead. They would love if you could actually prove an audible difference between high-bitrate MP3 and the lossless source, in a properly controlled double blind test. You can start by reading their wiki page on MP3, which is a lot better than the one on Wikipedia: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/ind...
For my own part, I've done lots of ABX testing, and even with the toughest musical sample I could find (solo harpsichord), LAME-encoded MP3 achieved full transparency at -V3 VBR for me, and while I could ABX it with 100% accuracy at -V5, I would not be able to hear any difference in normal playback. It was only when I played back the same snippets over and over that I could actually detect a minute difference in the sharpness of transients, but it was extremely subtle.
Try disregarding your bias, and give MP3 a fair shake in a controlled listening test, instead of just reading the technical info and extrapolating. I think you'll be suprised at how good it actually is.
Both SACD and DSD are crap.
SACD was only introduced for two reasons: Patent royalties for Sony and copy protection to appease the record labels. They couldn't patent the existing PCM format for obvious reasons, so they came up with DSD, which is an absolutely idiotic format that you can't actually do anything with, other than straight recording and playback. To edit or even EQ the sound digitally, you have to convert back to PCM. That's what DXD is, by the way. A fancy new name for 352.8KHz 24-bit PCM, which is used the whole way through the mixing/mastering process. So all the talk about how DSD is supposed to be superior to PCM and "more pure" and "closer to analog" and whatever is just complete BS, since every single DSD recording out there was actually PCM all the way until the very last conversion to put it on an SACD or to a DSD file.
You should read Dr. Mark Waldrep's take on the format here: http://www.realhd-audio.com/?c...
And of course the idiocy of copy protection speaks for itself.
You're right, of course. It's basically EQ biased towards midrange with a bit of smooth roll-off compression on top, and a few other various effects, partly also because the output transformers absolutely murder the damping factor, leading to muddy and uncontrolled "warm" bass response.
It's all relatively easily recreated using a modern DSP, provided an adequate signal analysis of the original analog hardware.
SACDs are supposed to be thrown in the trash where they belong.
Yeah, you can hear the difference between a solid-state amp and a SET amp, because the SET amp will sound like crap in comparison, with distortion and noise that is significantly higher than with the solid state amp.
And good luck actually hearing a difference between 320kbps or V0 MP3 compared to lossless. Try an ABX test, I think you'll be surprised at the result.
It's by far the largest industry in Germany with enormous lobbying power (both direct and indirect), of course they're going to do their best to accommodate the car manufacturers.