Lossy v Lossless

[DrasticPlastic]

If you switch between the lossy and the lossless tracks on certain discs, you can most definitely hear a difference.

[FendersRule]

This thread really fails.

This is about as useful as a "8" Subwoofer vs a 12" Subwoofer", "VHS vs DVD", or "CoreDuo vs Core2Duo".

Lossless is simply better, period. It seems the question Afrobean is trying to assess is one that is not even worth arguing about- the perceived difference. People don't know better until they've experienced better. DVD was beautiful and "just fine" until Blu-ray came along. Lossy sounds GREAT for people who have not heard lossless...get the point?

Do most people have a setup in which they can actually process lossless to be able to hear the difference? No. Most people are probably using their TV speakers..haha.

For the people that can process lossless, put in any reference grade Blu-ray or HD-DVD, and just swap back and forth from the Lossy and Lossless tracks. Do it during music, and do it during some real action. The difference is easily heard, even with cheap speakers.

There have been a few times where I'll play a movie, and I'll wonder what is up with the audio. "Man, this audio doesn't seem that dynamic and it's just not ringing with complete clarity". Turns out, whatever I was watching was using a Dolby Digital track. I have never made any false alarms as of yet, and that should tell you a lot right there....

[Freekman]

I agree. I have yet to hear true lossless audio, as I have an old receiver without the use of HDMI for audio. I certainly believe lossless is a world better than lossy, but I cannot have any offense against it until I have actually experienced it.

[Rob J in WNY]

Lossless audio benefits most from higher quality masters, but to me, all lossless audio will exhibit a sonic advantage over lossy formats. To hear lossless audio from a more recent movie, with a well-produced soundtrack, is to die for. Where action movies tend to dominate the most dynamic audio samples, even lower-profile movies, such as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Baraka exude exceptional definition, clarity and richness. I count both titles as reference-quality in the audio department (and video as well), though it's not likely going to be my first choice for an exciting audio demo.

What I notice most about lossless/uncompressed PCM is the more natural sound - even on older recordings - free of coloration/artifacting. Lossy audio tends to collapse spatial soundfields, and muddle vocal dialog a bit. To be fair, lossless audio can suffer the same, but again, the quality of the master recording is always a factor when it comes to the final result.

This subject makes me think of Speed Racer, with it's incredible video, but lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Even a standard DTS 5.1 track would have made an audible improvement. I can only imagine what this movie would sound like with lossless audio! Maybe Warner Brothers will step up to the plate on this one.

With Blu-ray, we have reached the era of bit-for-bit audio, and it is the next logical technological step up.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Freekman

I agree. I have yet to hear true lossless audio, as I have an old receiver without the use of HDMI for audio. I certainly believe lossless is a world better than lossy, but I cannot have any offense against it until I have actually experienced it.

And unfortunately, there's not much way you can go lossless until you upgrade your AVR, especially since the HT-DDWG700 has neither HDMI nor 8-channel analog inputs.

Since you have a "fat" (i.e., pre-Slim) PS3 and a Sony HTIB, I suggest replacing the latter with the Sony HT-SS360. It's about the only HTIB in its price range ($300-350) that has full (instead of "passthrough") HDMI inputs; it doesn't have lossless decoders (TrueHD or DTS-HD MA), but you won't need those with your PS3 as it decodes those to uncompressed multichannel LPCM (basically the same thing), which the HT-SS360 will handle.

I have an 80GB "fat" PS3 and the HT-SS360's predecessor, the HT-SS2300; lossless audio definitely sounds better to me, though I haven't done any side-by-side tests.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Lossless is simply better, period. It seems the question Afrobean is trying to assess is one that is not even worth arguing about- the perceived difference. People don't know better until they've experienced better. DVD was beautiful and "just fine" until Blu-ray came along. Lossy sounds GREAT for people who have not heard lossless...get the point?

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying it as "lossy is good if you've never heard lossless", I'm saying that a typical person's sense of hearing is likely not sharp enough to truly tell a difference, at least as large of a difference as objectively exists (or as large of a difference as many here hear).

Let me put it this way. Blu-ray looks great to everyone. Basically every person with at least average eyesight should think Blu-ray looks just terrific. Now imagine a world where losslessly encoded 4K video is available on the same screen, viewed from a normal distance. Imagine how real the objective difference is (great), imagine how the TRUE observable difference is (none, really, except maybe for the most eagle-eyed persons), imagine how different many people will believe it looks (a lot). In this extreme example, the two examples would be observably indistinct (even if objectively vastly different), yet the biased person would believe they could see a large difference in the one they know to be objectively better.

What I'm trying to say is that in this case, the case of lossless high resolution audio, while the objective difference is large, the true observable difference is nowhere near as large and may be non-existent in some (or many) people. However, even with the difference observable being not that much, a person's preconceived notion and bias will affect the way they perceive it and understand it and the difference may feel enormous to them, even if the actual observable difference to their sensory organs may actually be very small.

I'd really love to read about some double blind studies on this subject if anyone can turn anything up. I searched a while back and I was only able to turn up much of anything worthwhile or in depth. I found one that appeared like it'd be a good read, but it required paid membership in a special technical journal or something.

ps something else worth noticing: lossy compressed audio on Blu-rays is beyond that of a similar DVD. If one wants to increase their ability to perceive the difference between lossy and lossless, their lossy example should be the DVD's lossy audio.

[Freekman]

If I were to upgrade my AVR, would I also need to upgrade my speakers to receive the full experience?

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying it as "lossy is good if you've never heard lossless", I'm saying that a typical person's sense of hearing is likely not sharp enough to truly tell a difference, at least as large of a difference as objectively exists (or as large of a difference as many here hear).

See, I think that is extremely incorrect though. The human ear is easily able to tell a difference between lossless and lossy, and not just a "small" difference. You would still have to utilize a within-subjects design if you wanted to test this, simply due to the fact that people don't know better until they've experienced better. It has more to do with that then whether you think the actual perceived difference is "greater than the actual difference". I bet many "average" people would fail on a Blu-ray vs DVD comparison video test too, because many of the subjects probably have never compared or cared about the two. This is why the "average person" argument fails.

One way to get around this is to recruit audio enthusiasts, but even then, it would be an extremely messy-ass study. This is why you don't see much studies of this, because there are individual differences with both vision and audio perception (I would bet you that there would be more variation with vision, which just provides more support that audio is more important for movies).

It's more correct to debate about compressed lossless vs uncompressed lossless. In THAT case you would be correct, no one can really tell the difference. But to imply that our hearing isn't "good" enough to really benefit fully from lossless audio is almost a laughing matter.

There's a reason why I deleted most of my 160 Kbp/s mp3s, and replaced them with 320 kbp/s mp4as ever since I got my new Polk system. I can easily hear a difference with even just this example, and these formats are both lossy formats.

Afro- Whenever I finish watching a movie (and I'm sure the same will be said by anyone with a sound system), I remember the audio FIRST, because the Audio brings the experience. The video is important, but the audio is the first thing that comes into mind when I think back on my experiences. I just watched Dawn of the Dead on HD-DVD, and I used the TrueHD track, and it was one of the most phenomenal AQ movies I have ever watched. The video quality? I guess it was pretty good, I didn't look too closely though because my heart was too busy hiding in my chest because of the bass.

If you want to do a double-blind study, do it on the person that matters- yourself. Go over to a friends house, and have him swap between lossy (if he doesn't have the DVD version, fine..use the Blu-ray version) and lossless tracks. I think you actually might be more surprised than you think.

See, I also have a music studio. I work with lossless formats (.wave) and lossy formats when I record. Believe me, that I can easily tell the difference between the two without having "bias" or "over-bloating" the difference. One of them sounds dynamic, clean, crisp, raw, open while the other one sounds flatter, quiet, and stale.

[CYMBOL]

Lossless is technically better and easily sounds better then lossy (Dolby Digital). I got a new receiver - my movies sound much better - the end. Not sure what the debate is about.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

I bet many "average" people would fail on a Blu-ray vs DVD comparison video test too, because many of the subjects probably have never compared or cared about the two. This is why the "average person" argument fails.

You'd lose that bet. Two large sized quality screens displaying high quality Blu-ray will allow a person to see the advantage. Whether they find the advantage desirable, particularly in regards to whether they'd buy it or not, is another question, but an average person can see well enough to notice which one is more resolved.

One way to get around this is to recruit audio enthusiasts

Having enthusiasts is almost a surefire way of introducing bias. Good studies should be conducted by learned individuals who have as little preconceived notions about the subject as possible.

But to imply that our hearing isn't "good" enough to really benefit fully from lossless audio is almost a laughing matter.

Eh. The whole point of high fidelity digital art is to bring up the resolution to a point where it is beyond a human's ability to notice the fact that it's digital. This is common between audio and video. The goal is to BREAK the threshold wherein a person cannot notice how digital it is anymore.

If you believe a person can FULLY appreciate from lossless audio, then the high resolution lossless audio we currently have (and that studios use for mastering and archiving) is not good enough. Compare the sample rates from high resolution audio on a good Blu-ray to the sounds you hear in real life: do you hear the points in which the sample rate cycles?

There's a reason why I deleted most of my 160 Kbp/s mp3s, and replaced them with 320 kbp/s mp4as ever since I got my new Polk system. I can easily hear a difference with even just this example, and these formats are both lossy formats.

What does this have to do with anything. Higher bitrate lossy compression in that range still offers a noticeable improvement for most listeners. What you're describing is almost like pointing out that broadcast 720p is better than broadcast 480i.

Afro- Whenever I finish watching a movie (and I'm sure the same will be said by anyone with a sound system), I remember the audio FIRST, because the Audio brings the experience. The video is important, but the audio is the first thing that comes into mind when I think back on my experiences. I just watched Dawn of the Dead on HD-DVD, and I used the TrueHD track, and it was one of the most phenomenal AQ movies I have ever watched. The video quality? I guess it was pretty good, I didn't look too closely though because my heart was too busy hiding in my chest because of the bass.[/quote]
You're an aurally driven person, clearly, but people more often focus on visuals, likely because of how weighted vision is in society's values. And film is, above all else, a visual medium. It is possible to do film without sound, but a film with any picture isn't really a film.

If you want to do a double-blind study, do it on the person that matters- yourself.

Since it appears that you never have, I suggest you do some learning on psychology and sociology.

Go over to a friends house, and have him swap between lossy (if he doesn't have the DVD version, fine..use the Blu-ray version) and lossless tracks. I think you actually might be more surprised than you think.

I wouldn't be too surprised I think. I already have a decent idea of the difference I am able to hear (which only further cements my bias).

See, I also have a music studio. I work with lossless formats (.wave) and lossy formats when I record. Believe me, that I can easily tell the difference between the two without having "bias" or "over-bloating" the difference. One of them sounds dynamic, clean, crisp, raw, open while the other one sounds flatter, quiet, and stale.

You're not a typical person clearly haha.

[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...

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

The whole point of high fidelity digital art is to bring up the resolution to a point where it is beyond a human's ability to notice the fact that it's digital. This is common between audio and video. The goal is to BREAK the threshold wherein a person cannot notice how digital it is anymore.

If you believe a person can FULLY appreciate from lossless audio, then the high resolution lossless audio we currently have (and that studios use for mastering and archiving) is not good enough.

You've missed the point. Even digital lossless audio is going to be converted to analog before it reaches the speakers. The sound we hear in the end is analog because our ears are analog, not digital and depends on how well your equipment converts the digital information into sound that you can perceive. It doesn't care if the source had been lossy or lossless. If lossless, the sound will have more depth, clarity, detail, openness, and simply sound more real, more like the original sound that was picked up by analog microphones and converted to digital by an analog to digital converter.

Lossless audio is good enough for me if it sounds as real as the original. That's all I care about. Yes, I can definitely tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio. Lossy audio doesn't sound as real. If you still notice how digital lossless audio sounds and that concerns you, then you need to get better digital processors and DACs.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

You'd lose that bet. Two large sized quality screens displaying high quality Blu-ray will allow a person to see the advantage. Whether they find the advantage desirable, particularly in regards to whether they'd buy it or not, is another question, but an average person can see well enough to notice which one is more resolved.

An average person in a room with audio samples from a reference grade movie being played with a 640kbps sample and a 5Mbps sample will also tell the difference as well. But here we go with the average person argument. The average person drives a Toyota Camry, eats at McDonalds, listens to Britney Spears, and watches DVDs. Any of those sound exciting?

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Having enthusiasts is almost a surefire way of introducing bias. Good studies should be conducted by learned individuals who have as little preconceived notions about the subject as possible.

That depends on what you are studying. If you are running experiments on ways to reduce mental workload for airplane pilots using a high fidelity simulation, then you want to recruit people that have experience with such flight mechanics. With a low fidelity simulation environment, you can recruit anyone you want because flight skills are not required in order to measure the actual construct. For the current example, you would want trained, and experienced enthusiasts because the environment is a high fidelity environment. A proper double blind study would not incorporate bias, but experience. Like it or not, people are able to easily tell the difference between HD and non-HD audio.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Eh. The whole point of high fidelity digital art is to bring up the resolution to a point where it is beyond a human's ability to notice the fact that it's digital. This is common between audio and video. The goal is to BREAK the threshold wherein a person cannot notice how digital it is anymore.

The goal is to match whatever the mixer in the movie/music studio is experiencing.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If you believe a person can FULLY appreciate from lossless audio, then the high resolution lossless audio we currently have (and that studios use for mastering and archiving) is not good enough. Compare the sample rates from high resolution audio on a good Blu-ray to the sounds you hear in real life: do you hear the points in which the sample rate cycles?

This reasoning is a "surefire" way to fail at everyday Blu-ray life. What if 1080p isn't good enough? Besides, have you ever thought that the current technology of speakers may be a limiting factor, and not so much the bit-rate? As far as I'm concerned, we are "there" or "at the limit" with lossless audio.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

What does this have to do with anything. Higher bitrate lossy compression in that range still offers a noticeable improvement for most listeners. What you're describing is almost like pointing out that broadcast 720p is better than broadcast 480i.

And this means that Dolby Digital is far worse than TrueHD, DTS-HD, or PCM...got it?

Originally Posted by Afrobean

You're an aurally driven person, clearly, but people more often focus on visuals, likely because of how weighted vision is in society's values. And film is, above all else, a visual medium. It is possible to do film without sound, but a film with any picture isn't really a film.

We actually are all visually driven creatures. However, it is sound that brings the experience. This is many opinions, is the most important part.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Since it appears that you never have, I suggest you do some learning on psychology and sociology.

Actually, it appears that you have no knowledge of the two. If you did, then you would never group them together in such a way. They are completely different fields.

And it just so happens that I have a post-graduate degree in one of them. One of them that works on defining the human limitations....

Get a sound system. You are clearly experiencing guilt and remorse from not doing so, while providing really lame excuses on why you haven't took the dive yet. Your signature speaks of it. People with actual setups don't "watch" movies, but "experience" movies. I haven't watched a movie in 3 months, but I've experienced many in that time. There's nothing wrong with not having a sound system, but there is when you just on an HD audio/video forum, and exclaim that HD audio isn't worth it because "the difference is not enough". Sounds like a really lame and uninformed excuse.

[Hunter]

I'd really love to read about some double blind studies on this subject if anyone can turn anything up. I searched a while back and I was only able to turn up much of anything worthwhile or in depth. I found one that appeared like it'd be a good read, but it required paid membership in a special technical journal or something.

Here you go Afrobean:

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM

Here's one of the quotes from the article:

Next, we compared the original to the Dolby Digital Plus version (that codec is found on numerous BD titles, and like TrueHD, is fully backward compatible with regular Dolby Digital decoders). Even on this extremely high-end system, we couldn’t hear any difference between the uncompressed and the compressed. Then, we compared the higher bitrate (640 kbps) that is found on the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-rays to the original. "Golden Ears" Morrison was able to hear the difference, but I, and most others in the room with us, did not. Each of us had our turn in the prime listening chair, and couldn’t know the origin of the clips or their order of presentation.

The shocker came when we compared the lower 448 kbps Dolby Digital DVD bitrate to the original. There was an audible difference, but it was only ever-so-slightly noticeable (and this is with a high end audio system in an acoustically controlled environment that is so far beyond what typical home theater systems are capable of resolving). There was just the slightest decrease in presence with the DD version, not exactly a softening of the sound, but just a tad less ambience and a similarly small tightening of the front soundstage’s depth. Quite a remarkable result, I thought, and I was highly impressed with how much fidelity can be packed into such a relatively small amount of bitspace. If I was doing actual scoring, I would have awarded a 4.8 grade to the results I heard – the audible difference was that subtle.

[Anthony P]

only issue was that it was a badly run test by people that don't know the first thing about audio and compression (at least if they wanted a real evaluation). You can see that from the passage

Due to the masking of sounds that inevitably occurs during complex and bombastic passages, the best evaluation results are obtained using relatively simple program clips

it is exactly the opposite. You want, as he calls it "complex and bombastic passages" the lossy CODECs will lose more and more as the sound is complex, that is where it saves the bitrate. If there is 0 sound, not that it is what they tested, then 0 bits can represented adequately. If the sound is chaotic and needs 3mbps (compressed losslessly) to represent it correctly then 640kbps will lose a lot, if the clip only needs 100kbps for lossless then 640kbs if done right should represent it correctly.

Purposefully or not they biased the test heavily by picking clips where the lossy should perform the best, and even then people could tell the difference(as the article shows)

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

only issue was that it was a badly run test by people that don't know the first thing about audio and compression (at least if they wanted a real evaluation). You can see that from the passage


it is exactly the opposite. You want, as he calls it "complex and bombastic passages" the lossy CODECs will lose more and more as the sound is complex, that is where it saves the bitrate. If there is 0 sound, not that it is what they tested, then 0 bits can represented adequately. If the sound is chaotic and needs 3mbps (compressed losslessly) to represent it correctly then 640kbps will lose a lot, if the clip only needs 100kbps for lossless then 640kbs if done right should represent it correctly.

Purposefully or not they biased the test heavily by picking clips where the lossy should perform the best, and even then people could tell the difference(as the article shows)

Yep, Anthony is right here Afro, don't use that link to back up any of your assumptions. Besides, they are merely getting at "compressed vs uncompressed", which is a completely different topic.

The methods of that "study" are unknown. Doesn't look too empirical to me anyhow, and it certainly would not be publicized by any journals.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

only issue was that it was a badly run test by people that don't know the first thing about audio and compression (at least if they wanted a real evaluation).

The test was run by both Dolby and DTS, I highly doubt as you say they "don't know the first thing about audio and compression".

it is exactly the opposite. You want, as he calls it "complex and bombastic passages" the lossy CODECs will lose more and more as the sound is complex, that is where it saves the bitrate. If there is 0 sound, not that it is what they tested, then 0 bits can represented adequately. If the sound is chaotic and needs 3mbps (compressed losslessly) to represent it correctly then 640kbps will lose a lot, if the clip only needs 100kbps for lossless then 640kbs if done right should represent it correctly.

Purposefully or not they biased the test heavily by picking clips where the lossy should perform the best, and even then people could tell the difference(as the article shows)

They also tested music from Blue Man Group.

[progers13]

The comparison of CD-quality to MP3-quality is very relevant in this lossy v lossless discussion. About 10 years ago when Napster was in its prime, I downloaded hundreds of MP3. Those with lower bit-rates (128 kbps) didn't sound bad on my computer or even on my MP3 player. But when I burned to to a CD and played it in my car, there was clearly a difference and significant loss in quality. It wasn't as sharp and bass was drastically lower. I began downloading only higher bit-rate versions (192+) and when I rip MP3s today, I do it at a minimum of 320 kbps. If / when I burn them back to CD, they sound tremendously better than the 128 kbps songs.

I can't speak to the argument that only some people can hear the difference between lossy and lossless. All I know is I can.

[Chevypower]

When I first got my iPod Classic, I ripped all my CDs in to iTunes using MP3 at 320kbs. I could hear the compression, so I re-ripped them all in Apple Lossless, sounded much better, using a digital interface to the car stereo, sounded like having the CDs in the head unit. I also wanted to use the songs on my external hard drive on the programs on the computer, like iMovie, Final Cut etc. I don't know why, but some songs in Apple Lossless showed up in FCP, but not all. I decided to just go uncompressed. So I re-ripped all my CDs again in to iTunes using AIFF uncompressed. Haven't looked back since - though I would like a larger capacity iPod Classic!

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

You've missed the point. Even digital lossless audio is going to be converted to analog before it reaches the speakers. The sound we hear in the end is analog because our ears are analog,

We don't hear analog. We hear real audio. The word analog means representation - or specifically in this context, representation by electronic signals. It is true though that digital audio will be converted to analog by a D/A convertor before it is sent to the speakers.