Does compressed audio really need to exist anymore(music)?

[BLindsay]

So I've been thinking, I remember when mp3s were first popular I thought they were great because at the time I was on dial up and it saved a lot of time downloading and the space of a CD compared to a hard drive back then was much smaller. But now I look at those and think to myself do we really need it anymore? I can download an entire uncompressed CD in under 2 minutes and I can store about 30,000 CD's. With services like iTunes and CD's dying out where will we get our high quality audio. I feel like we have taken a step backwards in audio quality. What's the point in spending thousands on an audio setup only to run compressed music through it. On the Mp3 player front as flash memory gets cheaper we are going to see even larger mp3 players that could hold a lot of music even at cd quality. I wonder if we will ever see a service like iTunes that will offered full cd quality tracks?

Thoughts?

[pagemaster]

Yes it does.

[crackinhedz]

I don't think compression is the exact problem...because even Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are compressed.

[BLindsay]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Yes it does.

Care to be a bit more specific

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I don't think compression is the exact problem...because even Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are compressed.

Yeah I was thinking more in terms of buying music, I thought about it for movies but I imagine if you start having multiple uncompressed 7.1 tracks (different languages etc) those start to add up space wise. Also I imagine the compression used in Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA is better than what's used in your typical iTunes song?

But as far as buying a song from something like iTunes with storage and speed the way it is now why do we need some crappy 256kbps audio file still.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by BLindsay

But as far as buying a song from something like iTunes with storage and speed the way it is now why do we need some crappy 256kbps audio file still.

Explain "crappy." Is that anything more than an assumption? I am not trying to promote lossy audio. Rather, I am just trying to understand how it is that many with little to no understanding of digital signal processing or experience with controlled listening tests come to these sorts of conclusions.

As for "why" lossy audio may persist, many US consumers have to rely upon inadequate Internet infrastructure, not to mention, Apple and consumers still have to pay Internet connection bills. And 256 kbps AAC runs about one half to one third of the bit rate of losslessly compressed 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio.

AJ

[BLindsay]

Originally Posted by WiWavelength

Explain "crappy." Is that anything more than an assumption? I am not trying to promote lossy audio. Rather, I am just trying to understand how it is that many with little to no understanding of digital signal processing or experience with controlled listening tests come to these sorts of conclusions.

As for "why" lossy audio may persist, many US consumers have to rely upon inadequate Internet infrastructure, not to mention, Apple and consumers still have to pay Internet connection bills. And 256 kbps AAC runs about one half to one third of the bit rate of losslessly compressed 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio.

AJ

Explain it? I'm sorry I don't fully understand the technical aspects of compression but I can hear it which when it comes down to it all that really matters. I can play the same song on my system purchased from iTunes and hear the difference against the cd version and again vs the SACD version. Heck when I demo'd some new speakers I brought in a disc with some iTunes songs and the first thing the person asked when we starting playing it is where I got the songs from and I said iTunes and we ended up using a demo disc of his instead. Compression is not designed to make audio quality better, its designed to save space...

These are not the days of dialup anymore (which I know some people still have, but the majority don't) even a low end dsl connection is quite capable of downloading cd quality audio. It doesn't cost anymore to download a 6MB AAC file then a 40MB wave. And even for those that don't a company like apple should be quite capable of offering a couple versions of the song, they have no excuse they don't pay per MB.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by BLindsay

Explain it? I'm sorry I don't fully understand the technical aspects of compression but I can hear it which when it comes down to it all that really matters. I can play the same song on my system purchased from iTunes and hear the difference against the cd version and again vs the SACD version.

As has been recently discussed in the "Can you tell the difference between Lossless and compressed?" thread, your comparisons may be apples to oranges. The iTunes, CD, and SACD tracks may all really be different versions (levels, mixes, EQ) of the same song. Unless you ripped the AAC version from the CD yourself, you cannot know for sure. And, of course, there is no easy way to rip the SACD from DSD to LPCM or AAC.

So, I would open the possibility that you are hearing truly different versions. And different levels, mixes, EQ will be far more audible than most lossy data compression (or lack thereof). In fact, iTunes standard lossy data compression (256 kbps AAC) will be demonstrably audible to few people in few instances.

Below are two formal studies that you and many others should read. The first compares MP3 to LPCM, the second compares SACD and DVD-A to 16 bit 44.1 kHz LPCM (i.e. CD quality). In the first study, participants had a very difficult time distinguishing 256 kbps MP3 from the original, and in the second, participants had an equally difficult time distinguishing full resolution SACD and DVD-A from SACD and DVD-A that had been passed through a CD quality A/D/A loop.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=27324
http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Originally Posted by BLindsay

These are not the days of dialup anymore (which I know some people still have, but the majority don't) even a low end dsl connection is quite capable of downloading cd quality audio. It doesn't cost anymore to download a 6MB AAC file then a 40MB wave.

Not true. The opportunity cost (in both time and resources) to download a 40 MB file is much greater than that of an equivalent 6 MB file. That is particularly true for those whose ISPs impose monthly data transfer quotas.

Originally Posted by BLindsay

And even for those that don't a company like apple should be quite capable of offering a couple versions of the song...

With that much, I agree. And iTunes eventually will offer lossless downloads as an option.

AJ

[richteer]

Certainly, lossy compression (in the form of MP3, AAC, and so on) for music needs to die.

Lossless compression still has its place, I think, for online music distribution, although I personally would choose uncompressed over lossless compression any day. As you say, there's no point spending mega bucks on a decent audio system if all you're gonna play through it is crappy MP3s and the like.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by richteer

Certainly, lossy compression (in the form of MP3, AAC, and so on) for music needs to die.

Lossless compression still has its place, I think, for online music distribution, although I personally would choose uncompressed over lossless compression any day. As you say, there's no point spending mega bucks on a decent audio system if all you're gonna play through it is crappy MP3s and the like.

Is there a legitimate reason why you prefer uncompressed over losslessly compressed audio?

As for your other statements, judging by your signature, I would suggest that you might possess a cognitive bias that prevents your objectivity on the matter of lossy compression.

AJ

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by richteer

Certainly, lossy compression (in the form of MP3, AAC, and so on) for music needs to die.

I personally like to convert my CD's to 320kbps MP3, simply to save space while quality is still very good. Plus the MP3 format is almost universal, so not having to worry about compatibility or playback issues from multiple devices.

To an extent I agree with your position, but only in the aspect that online distibutors should offer best quality for your money, whether it be lossless compression or no compression...then as the end user, you are free to do as you wish in regards to conversion and compression.

Perhaps one day MP3 will become obsolete, but I forsee it to be a viable option for a very long time...at least for personal use and benefit.

I am no audiophile and do not expect concert hall quality, so compression to me is not a huge factor.

Edit: I wouldn't mind seeing FLAC being utilized more.

[BLindsay]

Originally Posted by WiWavelength

As has been recently discussed in the "Can you tell the difference between Lossless and compressed?" thread, your comparisons may be apples to oranges. The iTunes, CD, and SACD tracks may all really be different versions (levels, mixes, EQ) of the same song. Unless you ripped the AAC version from the CD yourself, you cannot know for sure. And, of course, there is no easy way to rip the SACD from DSD to LPCM or AAC.

So, I would open the possibility that you are hearing truly different versions. And different levels, mixes, EQ will be far more audible than most lossy data compression (or lack thereof). In fact, iTunes standard lossy data compression (256 kbps AAC) will be demonstrably audible to few people in few instances.

Below are two formal studies that you and many others should read. The first compares MP3 to LPCM, the second compares SACD and DVD-A to 16 bit 44.1 kHz LPCM (i.e. CD quality). In the first study, participants had a very difficult time distinguishing 256 kbps MP3 from the original, and in the second, participants had an equally difficult time distinguishing full resolution SACD and DVD-A from SACD and DVD-A that had been passed through a CD quality A/D/A loop.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=27324
http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf



Not true. The opportunity cost (in both time and resources) to download a 40 MB file is much greater than that of an equivalent 6 MB file. That is particularly true for those whose ISPs impose monthly data transfer quotas.



With that much, I agree. And iTunes eventually will offer lossless downloads as an option.

AJ

Fine, ill take the original CD and rip the file to a 256kbps AAC file, yes ripping the SACD would be a pain lol

Unless you are on dialup the cost of downloading a 40MB file is negligible compared to a 6MB. Even if I cut my speed in half it would take me 1.5 seconds for the 6MB file and 10 seconds for the 40MB, hardly worth concern and I only have middle of the road Comcast. As far as caps I suppose that's possible but only really terrible ISP's have a cap that would be an issue, most caps if there is one are several hundred GB.

Well Lossless downloads would be a step in the right direction, would be nice if they at least offered that. My hate is directed mostly at lossy compression.

[BLindsay]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I personally like to convert my CD's to 320kbps MP3, simply to save space while quality is still very good. Plus the MP3 format is almost universal, so not having to worry about compatibility or playback issues from multiple devices.

To an extent I agree with your position, but only in the aspect that online distibutors should offer best quality for your money, whether it be lossless compression or no compression...then as the end user, you are free to do as you wish in regards to conversion and compression.

Perhaps one day MP3 will become obsolete, but I forsee it to be a viable option for a very long time...at least for personal use and benefit.

I am no audiophile and do not expect concert hall quality, so compression to me is not a huge factor.

Edit: I wouldn't mind seeing FLAC being utilized more.

Yeah if we could download the original uncompressed file and then you could do whatever you want with the file that would be great

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by BLindsay

unless you are on dialup the cost of downloading a 40MB file is negligible compared to a 6MB. Even if I cut my speed in half it would take me 1.5 seconds for the 6MB file and 10 seconds for the 40MB, hardly worth concern and I only have middle of the road Comcast.

actually downloading a song would take you a bit longer than you are thinking as megabits per second is not the same as megabytes.

[prerich]

I use JRiver to rip my CD's to .ape files, I also use it to put a 320kbps mp3 on my jump drive for the car. In the car it's just background music - I'm not really listening, just passing time a trying to pay attention to the road. DSD files can be bitstreamed in JRMC 18 http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/DSD_Format

That's if your DAC can handle it.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I personally like to convert my CD's to 320kbps MP3, simply to save space while quality is still very good. Plus the MP3 format is almost universal, so not having to worry about compatibility or playback issues from multiple devices.

I don't think "MP3" and "very good quality" belong in the same sentence, unless there is a negative in there!

To an extent I agree with your position, but only in the aspect that online distibutors should offer best quality for your money, whether it be lossless compression or no compression...then as the end user, you are free to do as you wish in regards to conversion and compression.

Yes, that would be a good idea. Some independent record labels do offer users this choice.

I am no audiophile and do not expect concert hall quality, so compression to me is not a huge factor.

But that's the rub, you see. Once sound quality is removed (by conversion to MP3 or other lossly format), it can never be replaced. So everyone suffers with the worst possible sound quality.

But the download quality question is academic to me, because like I said, I rip my CDs to uncompressed AIFF files anyway.

[Almadacr]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I personally like to convert my CD's to 320kbps MP3, simply to save space while quality is still very good. Plus the MP3 format is almost universal, so not having to worry about compatibility or playback issues from multiple devices.

To an extent I agree with your position, but only in the aspect that online distibutors should offer best quality for your money, whether it be lossless compression or no compression...then as the end user, you are free to do as you wish in regards to conversion and compression.

Perhaps one day MP3 will become obsolete, but I forsee it to be a viable option for a very long time...at least for personal use and benefit.

I am no audiophile and do not expect concert hall quality, so compression to me is not a huge factor.

Edit: I wouldn't mind seeing FLAC being utilized more.

This is part of i do making a copy in FLAC and from the FLAC transfer to 320kbps for use in several devices .

I know a lot of ppl that wont ear a difference from FLAC to 320 and they really don't care since some of them just said to me that it sounds as the cd .

Some other factors also can also be said but one comes to mind... that if the original was already badly recorded ... it will sound bad it dosen't matter what format are we listening .

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by richteer

I don't think "MP3" and "very good quality" belong in the same sentence, unless there is a negative in there!

adjectives are subjective to interpretation...I could have used "excellent", "bit for bit identical", "superior" which MP3's are obviously not, so I chose "very good" because that is how I perceive them. Thanks for your obviously holier than thou opinion.

But that's the rub, you see. Once sound quality is removed (by conversion to MP3 or other lossly format), it can never be replaced. So everyone suffers with the worst possible sound quality.

You missed the point. The end user can do as they please with it. If I take my lossless audio and convert/compress to whatever I choose, that's my prerogative.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by prerich

I also use it to put a 320kbps mp3 on my jump drive for the car.

This is the majority of my MP3 music listening, while driving.

[BLindsay]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

actually downloading a song would take you a bit longer than you are thinking as megabits per second is not the same as megabytes.

I'm not confusing megabytes and megabits

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by BLindsay

I'm not confusing megabytes and megabits

geesh, what kind of speed do you have?? Id love to be able to download 6MB in under 2 seconds!

Im jealous.