Can you tell the difference between Lossless and compressed?

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Solo man

There are more intelligent ways to reply and not a great way to get along with others. You could have went with your own DBT results showing them here before calling out bs. Maybe your upset nobody told you back then it is a subtle difference or none at all. Here is your words from another forum:



"I am not sure how interesting it is?

I wish it was all in one but with Dolby Digital laserdisc, DTS HD, PCM from LD...just would not work with one receiver unless I bought a demodulator, but that would just add up.

I have at least 150 Dolby Digital laserdiscs, I want to use them wherever I want and get my money's worth. I also wanted DTS MA for my new movies..I also happened to have an Elite reference player, so that is hard to give up.

The only issue I have noticed is that my new Yamaha does not seperate LD PCM into four channels, it reads it as two channels. So, all LD sound (except DTS ld) goes into my Elite, then into the Yamaha."


I guess your still enjoying your laserdisc days and there is nothing wrong with that but I mean why waste energy on DTS MA. Move on or educate others in a civil manner why there is no difference. I am sure Prerich got offended when you called bs and we are all adults here. BIslander's approach was a lot less antagonistic and I respected him for that.

Anyways, I had fifth element on laserdisc but sold that equipment along with the laserdisc but I will admit that that viewing of the movie on that format got me hooked to HT. I might not have the best system out there but always trying to improve.

No probs Solo, being a Klipsch-head, I'm familiar with PWK's infamous yellow button - and you are right, I did appreciate BIslander's method much more. I wonder though, people don't understand how a sonar tech can distinguish like sounds, or that people can identify transmitters by ear, listening to multiple trasmitters simultaniously and picking each one out....these are not audiophile myths - but real, specialized humans doing this. They have a tendency to bring these talents into their civilian lives, especially if they've done it for over 10 years. These are not average listeners, they are trained to listen critically...and they tend to do it for everything -unless their hearing goes first. Every small detail is listened for, and sometimes it can be a curse - it makes it hard to just listen, or to not be nosy when hearing private conversations in public - it becomes instinct.

I thank you for your statement, and Pagemaster has flipped the Yellow button on me...but PKW, when he flipped it he had a face to face with the person he was calling out and he was also aware that every now and then - you come up on an exception to the average. It's rare out of the norm...but they do exist, people would be amazed at what I've seen done in my day, and as a matter of fact, I've amazed a few people myself

[raygendreau]

The question is can you tell the difference with your ears on your equipment using a random sample (ABX) . This article contains links to both MAC and Windows dowloadable apps. I suggest you use Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a source. Perhaps you can answer the question is DTS HD MA or Dolby TrueHD better while your at it.

http://techland.time.com/2012/03/02/...d-lossy-audio/

[prerich]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

The question is can you tell the difference with your ears on your equipment using a random sample (ABX) . This article contains links to both MAC and Windows dowloadable apps. I suggest you use Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a source. Perhaps you can answer the question is DTS HD MA or Dolby TrueHD better while your at it.

http://techland.time.com/2012/03/02/...d-lossy-audio/

I can answer the TrueHD vs DTS HD MA right now....I can't telll. The app you've referenced requires me to install foobar2000, I currently use jriver. This is interesting - abx testing to my system (as the article states no to earbud while jogging ).

[Lutra]

God didn't bless me with discerning ears. I've never been able to hear a difference in lossless vs relatively low lossy AAC files for music. 130kbps is transparent to me. Same goes for movies....lossless...lossy just give me something that works. I'm certainly happier than those who fret about lossless audio or the lack thereof on their blu-rays.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Lutra

I've never been able to hear a difference in lossless vs relatively low lossy AAC files for music.

You won't be able to hear the difference for a movie if it is lossy vs lossless. Despite what some in this thread claim, they will not be able to hear the difference in a blind test.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Lutra

God didn't bless me with discerning ears. I've never been able to hear a difference in lossless vs relatively low lossy AAC files for music. 130kbps is transparent to me. Same goes for movies....lossless...lossy just give me something that works. I'm certainly happier than those who fret about lossless audio or the lack thereof on their blu-rays.

Originally Posted by pagemaster

You won't be able to hear the difference for a movie if it is lossy vs lossless. Despite what some in this thread claim, they will not be able to hear the difference in a blind test.

The majority of the posts that have been coming from the both of you over the last month or so have been very antiblu-ray. I just can't help but wonder what you are doing here if all you are going to do is be negative and proceed to always tell everyone how in your opinion that the majority of blu-rays don't offer any benefit in both the audio and visual departments

[Geert711]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

You won't be able to hear the difference for a movie if it is lossy vs lossless. Despite what some in this thread claim, they will not be able to hear the difference in a blind test.

I think that depends on the test. I once did a test with music, and could discern the difference, but only if I really knew the song. For an unknown song (or movie), I think it will be very hard to tell the difference other than the increased loudness.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

The majority of the posts that have been coming from the both of you over the last month or so have been very antiblu-ray. I just can't help but wonder what you are doing here if all you are going to do is be negative and proceed to always tell everyone how in your opinion that the majority of blu-rays don't offer any benefit in both the audio and visual departments

I honestly think it's a way to convince himself that DVD is good enough since he's said multiple times he can't afford to get all the blu-rays he wants...

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Geert711

I think that depends on the test. I once did a test with music, and could discern the difference, but only if I really knew the song. For an unknown song (or movie), I think it will be very hard to tell the difference other than the increased loudness.

For a song, yes the difference can be heard. As for a movie, if the film is played at close to reference level and assuming that there are no changes to the mix, a Dolby 5.1 vs Dolby True HD will sound too similar to notice any difference.

[CantonMan]

I notice a big improvement in Dynamic Range, accuracy of dialogue reproduction, and LFE in Lossless tracks compared to the compressed version. In Lossless tracks dialogue is very lifelike, Dynamic range is startling and lastly the LFE Track is way more potent then the same Movie but on a DVD.

[BIslander]

Once again, the important comparison is not between lossless and DVD. It's between lossless and the higher bitrate lossy versions on Blu-ray.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Once again, the important comparison is not between lossless and DVD. It's between lossless and the higher bitrate lossy versions on Blu-ray.

So many seem to disregard this though, and they assume that DVD lossy and blu-ray lossy are the same thing. I agree, it's not hard to hear the differences between DVD lossy and blu-ray lossless, anyone with decent hearing should have no problems being able to easily hear those differences if they actually pay attention. It's comparing the higher bitrate lossy tracks to the lossless tracks on blu-ray discs of the same film that is much harder to determine. Though there are good examples out there where the differences can easily be heard (just like there are also good examples where it's virtually impossible to hear a difference), such as with the Mission Impossible Trilogy. I recently purchased the Mission Impossible Scandinavian discs with lossless audio, and compared them with the lossy discs which is what is currently available in most countries for these films, and you can straight away hear the differences, no question.

[Goat1]

I can't even believe there is a debate on lossy very lossless formats.
How can you not tell? Everything is smoother,more detailed,bass is punchier,the surrounds are more active. Are there a few stand out titles in lossy format that excel,yes,but most,if you have a decent setup aren't in the same league as lossless,at least to me anyhow. Everything is just clearer and has that in the room feel to it.
Going from music like 320k to Flac is another matter..

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by Goat1

I can't even believe there is a debate on lossy very lossless formats.
How can you not tell?

How can you tell? Have you done any blind, level matched tests? If not, then you really do not know. You only *think* that you know because you want to believe.

I could present you with two tracks -- one lossy, one lossless -- with a slight level difference in between them. And I could tell you that the lossy one is lossless (and vice versa). If you could reliably tell them apart, you would almost certainly say that the "lossless" one sounded superior simply because of the mental suggestion that it was lossless.

Folks, unless you are at least an advanced amateur with some experience in audio and/or electrical engineering, you cannot make these comparisons at home. Your unmatched, sighted comparisons do not mean jack squat.

AJ

[sonic_debauchery]

Mp3 vs. WAV - Music Quality and Mp3 Artifacts - YouTube

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by sonic_debauchery

Mp3 vs. WAV - Music Quality and Mp3 Artifacts - YouTube

If you are somehow trying to prove with that YouTube clip that lossless audio is audibly superior to lossy audio, you both succeed and fail. And the creator of the clip both succeeds and fails.

First, lossy audio transparency is largely predicated on encoder/decoder complexity and bit rate. Does the creator of the clip ever reveal the bit rate of the MP3? If not, that smacks of an attempt to stack the deck against lossy audio.

Second, the point of lossy audio compression is not to reproduce all of the received audio signal. No, the point is to use psycho-acoustics and perceptual coding to reproduce only what you can actually perceive from the recording. If you think that you perceive all of the audio information in a lossless recording, you are wrong.

If anything the signal subtraction test only goes to show how much information is embedded within a lossless audio signal that we simply cannot perceive. And, yes, I have performed a similar signal inversion test myself.

AJ

[Redneck9]

Anyway, I think DOLBY DIGITAL Pulse Code sounds better than DVD.

read this topic.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=213543

[sonic_debauchery]

Originally Posted by WiWavelength

If you are somehow trying to prove with that YouTube clip that lossless audio is audibly superior to lossy audio, you both succeed and fail. And the creator of the clip both succeeds and fails.

First, lossy audio transparency is largely predicated on encoder/decoder complexity and bit rate. Does the creator of the clip ever reveal the bit rate of the MP3? If not, that smacks of an attempt to stack the deck against lossy audio.

Second, the point of lossy audio compression is not to reproduce all of the received audio signal. No, the point is to use psycho-acoustics and perceptual coding to reproduce only what you can actually perceive from the recording. If you think that you perceive all of the audio information in a lossless recording, you are wrong.

If anything the signal subtraction test only goes to show how much information is embedded within a lossless audio signal that we simply cannot perceive. And, yes, I have performed a similar signal inversion test myself.

AJ

Thanks for your insite. However, there is an audible difference between the two. What i hear is fuller sound between the two.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by Redneck9

Anyway, I think DOLBY DIGITAL Pulse Code sounds better than DVD.

There is no such format as "DOLBY DIGITAL Pulse Code." That is a simply a name that you have made up as part of your incomplete understanding.

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by sonic_debauchery

Thanks for your insite. However, there is an audible difference between the two. What i hear is fuller sound between the two.

A "fuller sound" on the YouTube clip? Nothing is lossless on that clip. The audio and video are both subject to aggressive lossy compression. So, the "MP3" audio has been subject to lossy compression at least twice, while the "WAV" audio is also now lossy.

AJ