Jump to content

Does lossless audio guarantee good sound?


DKT27

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

It took a long time for me to work up any enthusiasm for the original digital consumer format, the CD. Coming from an all-analog perspective, first-generation CDs and CD players in the early 1980s didn't light my fire. The problem wasn't that they sounded "bad," it was that CDs robbed music of its soul and emotional connections. LPs' sound engaged you; the CD's sound was too easy to ignore. People put music on, and started reading, talking, working, anything but actually listening to music.

That's why I waited six years to buy my first player, when the players and discs were much improved. Mind you, CDs were from the get-go uncompressed digital, but that didn't help matters. Six years later the CD was the same as it ever was, but the analog-to-digital converters used in recording/mastering, and the CD players' digital-to-analog converters were much improved. That's where most of sound improvements came from.

T0UvV.jpg

The CD, the original uncompressed consumer digital format.

By the early 1990s recording engineers and producers' aesthetic had evolved; they learned how to get the best sound out of digital. CDs were sounding good; not the same as analog, not by a long shot, but the CD was good enough to be embraced by the majority of audiophiles.

By the early 2000s the loudness wars started to erode digital's quality gains. The CD format was still unchanged, but the record companies were determined to crush the soft-to-loud dynamic range of live music down to almost nothing, so the sound was "loud" all the time. Dynamic range compression was all the rage, but the CD format's data was uncompressed.

In other words, while the format was the same as it ever was, the music's soft-to-loud dynamics were smashed flat before they were encoded to the disc. So by the time people were bemoaning the nasty sound of lossy MP3s, the recordings' sound quality was already compromised. And if anything, it's even worse now. If the original recording sounds bad, the potentially better-sounding release formats--CD, FLAC, and LP--can't sound any better.

When the record companies again allow engineers and producers to make the best-sounding records they can, we might start to really hear great sound. But listening to a recording as a FLAC or Apple Lossless file can't undo dynamic range compression or overzealous equalization. Sure, some good-sounding recordings are still being made, but the overall quality levels are low.

So while lossless audio compression (FLAC or Apple Lossless for example) can be "expanded" to produce an exact digital duplicate of the original audio stream, that's not necessarily the same thing as sounding exactly like an uncompressed WAV file or a CD. To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage. Please don't misunderstand, I think FLAC or Apple Lossless sound perfectly fine, just not on par with a CD, when played on a high-end audio system.

view.gif View: Original Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 32
  • Views 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
So while lossless audio compression (FLAC or Apple Lossless for example) can be "expanded" to produce an exact digital duplicate of the original audio stream, that's not necessarily the same thing as sounding exactly like an uncompressed WAV file or a CD. To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage. Please don't misunderstand, I think FLAC or Apple Lossless sound perfectly fine, just not on par with a CD, when played on a high-end audio system.

Now that was pretty stupid. Really stupid. Lossless audio is just a data copy of the digital 0&1 bits from the CD, so they are the same. I listened to stuff on both low/high-end system, it's part of my job to make sure they translate. I also have a better-ish stereo monitoring system at home (Yamaha HS80M/Saffire Pro 24) and CDs sound the same as properly ripped flacs.

This is just another audiophile type of crap, these guys just won't understand reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


His ears are probably faulty. :D

I am disappointed in him for making such an uneducated statement though. Technically it could sound different owing to the fact that the DSP, DAC, amp and other audio chips on a player might handle compressed audio differently from uncompressed audio but I strongly believe Steve is looking for attention with this one. FLAC is uncompressed before playback, the bitstream is identical to the uncompressed WAV file. The overall SNR might be different too depending on the input source so it could again sound different but that does not mean the file format is faulty, just the hardware/software used to render it. In a non faulty or shitty player, they will sound exactly the same. I have never seen any expert on head-fi say anything different on the matter. Lossless is lossless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


actually you are all right and wrong at the sametime. it you have bad or damage ears then you will not hear the difference in software and hardware. in the end you will jsut lighten your wallet some

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you have medical/age problems with your hearing you are in no position to make "savant" opinions about which format is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

I got to admit. I don't know more about lossless audio, well, because of lack of experience it, my HDD would have been full by this time if I had preferred lossless over lossy, and the wav's size almost frightens me like seeing a ghost. But looking at things again, you guys are right. There would be no possible notable difference between a FLAC and WAV. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You can think of FLAC as a WAV file packed inside a RAR file, it is always extracted to a buffer while playing; similar to how you would need to extract something from inside a rar file to make use of it. All the bits remain intact.

I only hear up to 17kHz ^_^ I'm long past being able to hear up to 20kHz.

The qualities he criticized does not have to do with compressed bandwidth of the sound so it's not a matter of what bandwidth he could hear, his words were "To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage.".

Clearly this is full of shit, how can you flatten the soundstage after recording is already done and both audio sources contain the exact same bitstream of audio? Not possible, except if he is playing it on some shit equipment or probably a software that is causing an effect to be added to the playback.

As for glare or edge, even more bullshit, glare or edge are artefacts caused by poor quality components or source media. You can't even get rid of glare or edge, you could minimise to unnoticeable levels by spending $20k on a Klipsch system or a tube amp system. Discrete components are most often the culprit for these artefacts in the sound so you would need a tube amp to really hit the spot. Steve is a complete moron, just using buzz words incorrectly in his shitty article. He probably made a poor quality rip with a buggy encoder in the first place and trying to blame it on the lossless formats. Steve is a double moron for comparing Apple lossless with FLAC, Apple lossless is really AAC with DRM and AAC uses a different mathematical equation from FLAC. If the FLAC was sounding bad and also the AAC was sounding bad then clearly his rips are shit. End of story.

When you think about it, this is probably one of those sellout articles to convince people to buy the audio cd instead of downloading lossless audio. The music industry is desperate these days, I won't put anything past them... idiots. Sadly this article of his will fool the masses and folks everywhere will want to buy the original cd because they think it sounds better than lossless audio formats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Yeah I read about FLAC being a compressed form of wav. I can easily hear above 20KHz (that as per a test I did on a website). :D

Let me tell you that Apple just sleeps with news sites these days because of their marketing. No offense to anyone but, most of the American sites, where Apple is most used at, only keep on printing Apple crap. I won't be surprised if they even have buttons on keyboard made only to type Apple or something crap about it.

It's after this article (and your opinions of course) that I've felt the need for some FLAC music. Just yesterday I saw a DTS audio codec movie, the audio was lossy, but the bitrate was 1,500Kb/s. There was a song in that movie, I compared it to almost original mp3 I had, and the movie's sound just owned, I watched/heard it in the headphones so can't say it was DTS's effect. ANW, just downloaded 3 FLAC of songs I like. :D But other than that, there aren't many songs that I fond and can be found in FLACs. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites


FLACs are everywhere this days. There are other lossless codecs too, like APE and VavePack (which is the best I think, in matters of compression efficiency and speed).

But to be perfectly honest, most of us cannot distinguish between properly encoded MP3 V0, 320 CBR and lossless. Put those who say they can always spot lossy compression in a blind test and you will prove them wrong. I had two mastering engineers I worked with that thought they can spot MP3s, and I proved them wrong, in their own studio that had KRK Expose monitors and professional sound facilities/acoustic treatment. Also, don't really bother on FLACs if you don't have a pretty good audio system (I'd say above 300 USD, and that's for Stereo, not 5.1). Also you need a soundcard OTHER than the onboard audio, but good converters come cheap these days. For those into 5.1/games/movies a Xonar is cool. If you just go Stereo like me, invest on some pro card instead of consumer, my first audio interface back in the days was a M-Audio Audiophile and it still goes strong. And I cannot say my new Focusrite Saffire sounds better... just different.

HiFi equipment WILL modify sound though, to make it more pleasant. If you want EXACTLY what is on the CD, you need a acoustic treated room/monitoring system. There are very good headphones around too, but a good Stereo is better, in my opinion.

You sure about that "above 20.000 Hz"? I can hear up to 18.000 at normal monitoring volume, but I need to be on a good audio system. To probably hear 20.000 Hz I think I need the speakers to full throttle, but cannot be sure even so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You have to have sound that is outputting below 20.. my EQ for Winamp will allow me to adjust to 16... and upwards of 20,000...and I know I can tell the difference.. Problem is that most producers and some musicians don't bother trying to create at that level as most average systems will not even produce noise below 40.. Live audio is even worse ... and to really produce it.. its best to go with servo drives... Open-air scenarios are even worse because of the many factors involved..Several other options but in some cases better with targeted amplification.. but again getting into some real music lovers and real money invested as well... and time.. point here being mastering of the original, as well as the original content itself..

If I only had money...LOL

In my opinion.. especially doing transcoding.. I have usually had better results done from 128 kbps MP3 and OGG output.. depending on your hardware the rate and method can be different for best results.. AAC is good for saving bandwidth but is also a different consideration all together...

I have found a few files that seems to sound okay with 192, and even more rare being 320... 192 seems to loose its lower end... and in some cases done incorrectly so will 320.. BUT doing my own experiments ... rendered varied results... especially when getting down to re-mastering and altering the files themselves beforehand.. There are more than likely easily explainable considerations but I am not that far in the field or area of expertise to really say what it is or is not..

I do know that I had rather.. personally have files which are uncompressed for sake of Resource usage and having something as close to the original as possible is always best.. If I load a file I don't like to see constant 90% CPU Usage while playing the file.. yet it has become more frequent than not...( especially on an older system.. )

If rip something here.. I always go with wave.. and encode to something else.. if I need it.. I try to stay with something that will retain the ID tags however...and the real thing here being that I don't try to make CD's really.. but just the opposite.. I hate them... digital versions for me.. usually don't do FLAC or the Apple Lossless.. w/e...still a little ol' school and off the board for transcoding for my iPod... complete crap as far as audio and video is concerned... in fact if I am transcoding for a particular device.. then its a copy from the original.. I would never ruin my data that way...

End game I think that the devices should be made to be able to accept all forms.. they can't get that under control.. then forget it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

I compared both FLAC and MP3 I have. The background of the music was very clear. The extra efforts that the composer had put was clearly heard. Of course it may not be possible with all songs nor I can identify between them unless I hear it a thousand times (that is what happened above).

This is the test I meant....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think thats BS.. I can hear the 21.1.. but the last one I hear nothing.. not even a tap on the headphones... So its says I am a dog or a mosquito ....and thast with ton of background noise here too.. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Select the last one and confirm it.

They have kept it empty. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So I wonder why I have such good hearing.. and 20/10 vision..( with contacts ) interesting.. I am not supposed to be able to hear those at my age...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Well I took it from a post of majithia, the member here having that kid simpson's avatar. I had posted it on other forums and many of them said that they were not able to hear above 16-18khz. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


May I ask what sound system you guys have? Soundcard/speakers/headphones. There are clicks when the sound wave stops/starts. These are not the sound you need to hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Well 16.7khz was the highest I could hear without any clicks....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


May I ask what sound system you guys have? Soundcard/speakers/headphones. There are clicks when the sound wave stops/starts. These are not the sound you need to hear!

I'd say, that high quality rip different formats is so less more important, than player and configuration used

I personaly rip sometimes using FLAC, but mainly using MP3 and can not feel the difference

My Audio set-up:

Speakers TDL G20-RTL; Sub Wharferdale 150W (true) and Sherwood AX 7080R, decent cables through, Player Techniks A518 (when not using PC)

difference as when I play CD and same track using PC with Foobar is ever so minimalvs Tech, would lie if I would say there is sound reproduction difference.

Maybe, just, but possible, format bigger differences, than my Hearing can be accounted for, but when I play same CD from PC- difference is quite clear (lesser purity), than from Ripped audio

Hope makes sense, what I said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well 16.7khz was the highest I could hear without any clicks....

That seems reasonable and humanly possible. Try 18-19 kHz with the volume up to full. You should still hear it as a very faint ultrasonic sensation, as I suspect you're young and healthy and have probably better hearing than most. That is my range, although it's not really fair to test it at full volume (I tested at "monitoring levels", +4dB).

Keep in mind that your speakers could well not reach 20kHz, if they are the "multimedia" 5.1 type, even if they are made by Creative or other known brands.

Another thing is that hearing, as all human capabilities, is better when it is trained. Sound/mastering engineers are some of the best in the league, and so are the guys testing new audio monitoring systems.

I wanted to get some Wharfedale monitors myself, but then I found the HS80M Yammies and really fell in love with them.

Maybe, just, but possible, format bigger differences, than my Hearing can be accounted for, but when I play same CD from PC- difference is quite clear (lesser purity), than from Ripped audio

This one, I tried to, but couldn't understand :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

If I pay really really close attention, I can hear till 18.8khz. But that's very very little in sound. Also, I use a cheap pair of headphones....

@Biz: Please explain the reason? :) You mean the quality that ogg offers in low bitrates when compared to mp3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

I had to search for a 128kbps mp3 on my system. Converted it. I still can understand the point. Well I opened both of them in audacity and I see ogg reaching slightly higher levels of sound :blink: .

Still please explain the point. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@DKT27:

Wow. I haven't noticed. Anyway, conratulations on reaching 10K post ^_^

Anyway, what are the other things you noticed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Thanks. :D So didn't I. ^_^

Really, I can't find anything else. I know it be something I may not be paying attention to. Please open the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...