Lossy v Lossless

[Stu123]

I read with lossy tracks they take out what cant be heard by the human ear.So they obviously put that back with lossless but if it cant be heard whats the point

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

I read with lossy tracks they take out what cant be heard by the human ear.So they obviously put that back with lossless but if it cant be heard whats the point

that is not true, lossy loses a lot of sounds that can be heard, it does not discriminate between can and can't be heard, it has a max bit bucket and everything must fit.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is not true, lossy loses a lot of sounds that can be heard, it does not discriminate between can and can't be heard, it has a max bit bucket and everything must fit.

Actually, there are plenty of people who would never know they were missing anything if they weren't told so. There are even people who can't even tell the difference between lossy and lossless.

Then there are those who think they can hear the difference, but it's really placebo more than them actually sensing the difference. Their hearing just isn't as sharp as they'd like to think it is, but because of the placebo effect they still "can hear" how much "better" it sounds to have high resolution lossless audio.

I would think people who legitimately could tell the difference unaided and with complete accuracy is a very small group of the total population. That's not to say that lossless audio isn't something we should all want to have, it's just that for many persons can't REALLY tell the difference on their own (especially average people, not the audiophiles or technically minded people here).

Notice also that hearing is a sense for which people aren't rewarded in normal life for having extra acuity. For vision, sharper eyesight can be extremely useful and very helpful in everyday life, but being able to hear so finely that higher resolution audio becomes apparent isn't a talent that will help a person in real life (nor is it something which can be "fixed" with something like glasses or corrective surgery).

But hey, the whole point of higher quality digital media is to push the boundary to the point where a human can no longer tell that it's digital media. I'm glad audio is to that point.

ps of the compression which does differentiate between "can be heard" and "cannot be heard", even that's not perfect. For a person with decent hearing, try playing a lower bitrate MP3 on a higher volume and you'll notice a lot of the places where sounds are missing due to compression.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Actually, there are plenty of people who would never know they were missing anything if they weren't told so.

true, but the issue is if you can't compare the two you can't know what is missing. Let me ask you this, before you saw your first BD you watched movies on DVD right? where you saying "man there is all this detail and richness I am missing in the PQ because of the way over compressed SD image". You where probably enjoying what you had oblivious to how much better it could look. Same here. Ignorance should not be the measure of anything. There have been tests with people conducted, not only is there a measurable difference between lossy and lossless but there have been people that can identify the difference between the two tracks.

Anything else is just garbage from people with agendas (i.e. less BW is good enough because you can fit more songs on a CD/HDD, very lossy music is good enough because then the DL will need less BW. her said lossy tracks just get rid of what can't be heard, now if the person is deaf then that is true but for the rest it is wrong. Studios don’t go around recording dog whistles and that is not the difference between lossy and lossless encodes.

[dhitoshi]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Actually, there are plenty of people who would never know they were missing anything if they weren't told so. There are even people who can't even tell the difference between lossy and lossless.

Then there are those who think they can hear the difference, but it's really placebo more than them actually sensing the difference. Their hearing just isn't as sharp as they'd like to think it is, but because of the placebo effect they still "can hear" how much "better" it sounds to have high resolution lossless audio.

I would think people who legitimately could tell the difference unaided and with complete accuracy is a very small group of the total population. That's not to say that lossless audio isn't something we should all want to have, it's just that for many persons can't REALLY tell the difference on their own (especially average people, not the audiophiles or technically minded people here).

Notice also that hearing is a sense for which people aren't rewarded in normal life for having extra acuity. For vision, sharper eyesight can be extremely useful and very helpful in everyday life, but being able to hear so finely that higher resolution audio becomes apparent isn't a talent that will help a person in real life (nor is it something which can be "fixed" with something like glasses or corrective surgery).

But hey, the whole point of higher quality digital media is to push the boundary to the point where a human can no longer tell that it's digital media. I'm glad audio is to that point.

ps of the compression which does differentiate between "can be heard" and "cannot be heard", even that's not perfect. For a person with decent hearing, try playing a lower bitrate MP3 on a higher volume and you'll notice a lot of the places where sounds are missing due to compression.

Unless someone is going DEAF they should be able to hear a difference. The easiest demo to use is the "Dave Matthews with Tim Reynolds live at Radio City" blu-ray since many titles only have a lossless track that is down-mixed by a blu-ray player if an AVR does not have decoders. That title has a 640 kbps Dolby Digital track & a Dolby TrueHD track. Switch between the two soundtracks and there is a night and day difference. ANYONE I have had listen to that demo is convinced that lossless audio is better sounding. The easiest comparison is digital photography, where a RAW file has all the digital data and JPEG is lossy compression. Once that data is gone it is not coming back. A Dolby TrueHD or dts HD Master track is comparable to a ZIP file where the compressed data is not lost when the file is opened.
This debate also remind me of the "EXPERTS" who have no background in audio/video at a professional level, but call everything "snake oil" that cost more than $9.99. Makes me think of the ignorant people that believe the Measles vaccine is "snake oil". I will agree that Monster Cable is a rip-off , but you take that cheap 12AWG Monoprice speaker wire (which is stranded just like Monster) and A & B it against the 16AWG Audioquest Type 2 which is their entry level solid-core speaker wire. The solid-core wire will have more detail and I have proven this at the store I work at with an easy demo on a stereo receiver with two pairs of the same model speaker and switch between the A & B speaker outputs. The ONLY variable is the speaker wire.
I will give credit to Monster Cable in that before them speakers were hooked up with lamp cord, so they did start the better built/sounding interconnect industry.

[Audiophile_At_Birth]

As my recording engineer professor always says, "I can't teach you how to hear."

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by dhitoshi

Unless someone is going DEAF they should be able to hear a difference.

There's a wide range between hearing excellently, hearing well, hearing average, hearing poorly, and being deaf.

The easiest demo to use is the "Dave Matthews with Tim Reynolds live at Radio City" blu-ray since many titles only have a lossless track that is down-mixed by a blu-ray player if an AVR does not have decoders. That title has a 640 kbps Dolby Digital track & a Dolby TrueHD track. Switch between the two soundtracks and there is a night and day difference.

I can't trust your statements on this, nor can I trust my own judgments on the matter of self testing. I'm as open to bias as anyone else and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of the difference I hear is thanks to placebo.

ANYONE I have had listen to that demo is convinced that lossless audio is better sounding.

Your friends likely all have great hearing, were being affected by placebo (especially by your guidance), or possibly were just humoring you.

The easiest comparison is digital photography, where a RAW file has all the digital data and JPEG is lossy compression. Once that data is gone it is not coming back.

Like I said, vision is something correctable and it is a skill which comes handy in spades in everyday life. With hearing as long as one can hear adequately, additional acuity doesn't help in everyday life. Thus, the people who are apt to have the sharpness of hearing are going to be the audiophiles or people with a natural propensity towards aural stimulation. And with vision, if a person suffers from below average eyesight, they can easily get it corrected with external lenses or surgery. The same cannot be said of hearing, except in extreme cases. A person with slightly below average hearing can't go to an ear doctor and get a device they can wear over their ear which will increase their aural acuity.

A Dolby TrueHD or dts HD Master track is comparable to a ZIP file where the compressed data is not lost when the file is opened.

I'm completely aware of how lossless compression works, but the point I'm trying to make is that often times lossy compression can be performed without being perceptible to some people. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who don't even notice the losses that come about from MP3 encoding. In this case, I am suggesting that an average person would likely not be able to tell the difference with a high level of accuracy in a double blind comparison. You may be able to, others here probably could as well, but an average person? I wouldn't bet on it.

And finally, no, I'm not saying it's snake oil. It's an absolutely good thing to preserve master level quality, it's just that the difference observed is often influenced by placebo heavily (or in the case of someone without particularly good hearing, entirely).

[Rob J in WNY]

Lossless audio is amazingly better - detail, clarity, open, natural sound - but that's just my opinion.

I think it all lies in whether a person actually cares about the differences. After all, there are still scores of people who feel standard-definition DVD video is just fine.

[Blu_Dude]

Originally Posted by dhitoshi

Unless someone is going DEAF they should be able to hear a difference. The easiest demo to use is the "Dave Matthews with Tim Reynolds live at Radio City" blu-ray since many titles only have a lossless track that is down-mixed by a blu-ray player if an AVR does not have decoders. That title has a 640 kbps Dolby Digital track & a Dolby TrueHD track. Switch between the two soundtracks and there is a night and day difference. ANYONE I have had listen to that demo is convinced that lossless audio is better sounding.

In a similar vein, 2L's Divertimenti BD uses all three lossless codecs (5.1 PCM, DTS-HD MA, and TrueHD) as well as DD. That would also be a good comparison tool.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Notice also that hearing is a sense for which people aren't rewarded in normal life for having extra acuity. For vision, sharper eyesight can be extremely useful and very helpful in everyday life, but being able to hear so finely that higher resolution audio becomes apparent isn't a talent that will help a person in real life (nor is it something which can be "fixed" with something like glasses or corrective surgery).

.

There are professions that reward you for better than average hearing - not just that many (I've been in several - one in the military). I have always said - if I had to lose one - I would prefer to lose my sight, the ability to hear is just so great!!! That's just my personal opinion. P.S. there are hearing aids (kinda like glasses for the ears wouldn't you say )

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by prerich

there are hearing aids (kinda like glasses for the ears wouldn't you say )

Hearing aides and surgeries are for extreme examples. An average person can wear glasses to correct their slightly below average vision, an average person cannot and should not wear a hearing aide to "correct" their slightly below average hearing.

The difference here is that the additional lens over a person's eye redirects the light to properly hit the healthy cornea. With hearing and ears, the sensory organ themselves isn't functioning at full capacity, so an electronic device digitally amplifies and boosts volume to a point of being more registrable in the person's ear (worth noticing that it probably reduces fidelity of the sound, sacrificing quality so that the person can simply hear at all). It's not that the sound "misses" the ear in the way light "misses" the cornea in poor vision. Totally different things.

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Hearing aides and surgeries are for extreme examples. An average person can wear glasses to correct their slightly below average vision, an average person cannot and should not wear a hearing aide to "correct" their slightly below average hearing.

The difference here is that the additional lens over a person's eye redirects the light to properly hit the healthy cornea. With hearing and ears, the sensory organ themselves isn't functioning at full capacity, so an electronic device digitally amplifies and boosts volume to a point of being more registrable in the person's ear (worth noticing that it probably reduces fidelity of the sound, sacrificing quality so that the person can simply hear at all). It's not that the sound "misses" the ear in the way light "misses" the cornea in poor vision. Totally different things.

Well, my mom has hearing aides. When I took her to the audiologist/hearing aides specialist, I couldn't believe the technological advances that have been made. Hearing aides aren't devices that just merely boosts or amplifies the sound. In fact the audiologist called them hearing instruments, correcting me for referring to them as hearing aides! They are very complex instruments with tiny computers and integrated circuits making it possible to hear in full high fidelity sound with full dynamic range for those having normal age related hearing losses which is what my mother has. They are expensive like $3000 to $4000/pair. Of course in a noisy restaurant or other noisy environments the hi fi setting isn't as effective. For that she sets them on noise reduction which effectively filters out the background noise and allows her to hear conversation just like anyone else. She has another setting which is like the A weighting on an SPL meter which would be for normal general purpose hearing. With those three settings she hears everything that I hear and just as well. And yes, when she's watching a movie with us, she definitely is able to tell a reference sound track from a poor one. I didn't A/B lossy/lossless audio with her, but I have no doubt that she would be able to tell the difference because she listens to music with discriminating ears. She loves opera, and she is spoiled by the Opus Arte Blu-ray operas that I have in my collection which put her collection of opera on CD to shame. I just want to make it clear that just because she wears hearing aides, doesn't mean she can't enjoy the full dynamic range AQ available on Blu-ray.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

I read with lossy tracks they take out what cant be heard by the human ear.So they obviously put that back with lossless but if it cant be heard whats the point

Not true. You lose a lot of detail in lossy. Imagine looking at a painting by Surat - Very beautiful and pleasing ... now go closer and look at it with a magnifying glass - he painted with dots - now you have an even greater apprecitation for what he was able to do because you can see the detail. With lossy - you may aprreciate a movie - but when you hear lossless (on a decent system) you will be in awe.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

I read with lossy tracks they take out what cant be heard by the human ear.So they obviously put that back with lossless but if it cant be heard whats the point

Just a direct reply to the first post here:

It's more about the quality.
Which sure, with lossy might "erase/destroy" some of the things you can barely hear.
But it's not about that, the quality and sound in general would just be more clear and detailed.
For example, lossy might also sound a lot more muffled, dull or "messy".
That's not always the case, but sometimes it just causes such issues.
Besides that, it also depends on the recording.
Like some really old or low-budget ones might not even benefit from a lossless transfer.

But honestly, people are flaming you here and there,
don't you just want a quality that's more like/than CD-quality rather than more towards MP3-quality?
I know many people don't even care about music (for example) being MP3-compressed.
Like myself, I do care for music, because that is all about the audio,
but sóme films I'm not quality-obsessed enough for to care if it's lossy or lossless.
Just depends how well the transfer is period and what type of film it is too.
Only, it obviously is just best to go with the least compression as possible.
That's the best way to get the best and closest to original transfer.
After all, that's what it's about, and too much compression doesn't help with that...

[nickdan05]

Will using the latest HDMI cable Vers 1.3a connecting a Blu-ray player (HDMI vers 1.3 with onboard decoding for True HD etc...) to a Receiver with HDMI vers.1.2 pass all the lossless compressed digital audio formats through the Receiver?

[osofast240sx]

Originally Posted by nickdan05

Will using the latest HDMI cable Vers 1.3a connecting a Blu-ray player (HDMI vers 1.3 with onboard decoding for True HD etc...) to a Receiver with HDMI vers.1.2 pass all the lossless compressed digital audio formats through the Receiver?

yes