Lossless Audio, Speakers, and Psychoacousitcs

[prerich]

We all love the new codecs to some extent, but how many people are really hearing the real difference - not just a difference? One part of psychoacoustics is that a louder presentation usually sounds better to most people. Now the truth about all of this lossless stuff is that more detail should be revealed beause of the increased bit rate. The log-jam for this is the speakers used for reproduction. If you are using speakers that can't resolve this level of detail - doesn't the benefit of lossless audio become mute (kinda like listening to 192khz/24 bit music with cheap Dollar Tree earbuds ) this goes for all lossless.
Now that the Lossless codecs are here to stay, and LPCM is definately leaving - shouldn't movie fans concentrate of obtaining speakers capable of resolving such detail? We tend to focus on technology (DAC's - which component is doing the decoding but in the end - if your speakers are inept, weak, and well....cheap - I'm not saying inexpensive - there are inexpensive products that handle very well) doesn't it just kill the whole purpose of having lossless audio? It would be like telling someone with a Citation 7.0 system that your Lossless audio coming from your tv speakers sounds better that his rig thats only analog .

What is the next step in educating people in technology? I believe that tech for the sake of tech is just a toy, but tech that is maximized and properly implimented becomes useful, and easier to sell . Lossless audio without proper equipment at the reproduction statge (namely quality speakers) is just technology with unrealized potential. Don't just settle for - "It's louder so it must be better - or It's digital and lossless so it must sound better than any lossless analog system". Realize the true potential of your lossless surround by getting speakers that will resolve the detail and reproduce the enitre frequency range. Chime in and let me know how you feel.

[Big Daddy]

I agree with you about quality speakers and sufficient power to drive them. However, many people believe that lossless audio is over rated. Most people are more than satisfied with Dolby Digital & DTS Digital and have no idea what lossless means. It would help people to read this article about a group of experts that visited Dolby Labs and DTS headquarters and had a difficult time distinguishing between the different lossless and lossy audio codecs.

"Neither Geoff nor I could hear any differences between the original PCM track and the TrueHD version, which should be the case, as they’re bit-for-bit identical.

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."

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...PCM?page=0%2C0

[Barnum]

Speakers are important but don't under estimate the receiver/amp as a major player in the output quality. Many people look for the cheap receiver and speakers and you will get what you pay for. The cheap receivers add tons of harmonic distortion and clip at low levels of volume because of cheap power supplies in the unit. I don't mean to say that you need to spend your lifes savings but going cheap can and WILL sacrifice sound quality. I often find it entertaining when people state that their $350 Yamaha or Onkyo receiver sounds the same as a $2000 receiver made by Denon, Krell or others. There really are reasons for these to cost more money and name is not the main reason.

Then there is speakers. Just because the speaker says that it can handle power from a 300 watt am does not mean that it will do it well. I challange anyone to buy a $300 speaker system and say it sounds as good as 600 series B&W speaker system.

To really be able to hear a noticeable difference it is going to require a good investment in sound. HTIB is not the answer. I know that many can not afford more I still feel and reviews can defend this that HI-FI you get what you pay for.

[cravnsn]

Isn’t also incumbent on the listener to actually “listen” for the differences? I would say that for most people, if they can make out the dialogue and some sound effects, that’s all that matters.

Since I’m into photography (and worked many years of retail), I liken it to pictures. Most people take a picture of their kid, and if the end result looks like their kid, they’re happy. People who are really into it however will look at resolution, color balance, lighting, composition…etc.

Even if the high end speakers & equipment reveal the extra creaking of a floor board, if you’re not listening for it, you may miss it. If someone listens to a mid-fi system, and the same soundtrack on a high end system, they’re likely to report hearing no discernable difference. Alas, it is we “audiophile” types who strain to hear every last detail, and spend a lot of time & money to squeeze every last bit of resolution out of our equipment.
To be honest, I envy those who are OK with decent sound, and can actually enjoy the movie.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by cravnsn

Alas, it is we “audiophile” types who strain to hear every last detail, and spend a lot of time & money to squeeze every last bit of resolution out of our equipment.
To be honest, I envy those who are OK with decent sound, and can actually enjoy the movie.

Thats part of the enjoyment with me My wife is a lover of decent sound - (when she could operate my system and she would mess with a setting I could instantly tell - she thinks everything goes through the PC now {thats another good thing about a HTPC - its a good intimidation factor} now she doesn't even attemp to touch it ) I however, in the days before my PC, would have to stop a movie 30 seconds into it because a setting had been moved. She told me it sounds good to her but I couldn't take it!!!!
I see what you mean (but after being bombarded with sound geekness and singing in a choir with me - my wife is actually getting good ears and noticing things like me!!!! That's real fun !!!!)

[mdabb]

I'll have to reread that article as I only skimmed over it but I have a few of the same movies on both DVD and Blu and the difference is more than noticeable. Like "Pan's Labrynth" and the latest "Bond" for example.

I also agree "inexpensive" doesn't mean "cheap" but usually the better speakers do cost a bit more. I see a lot of people allocate more of their money to media than they do to equipment. DVDs and Blu's add up and a lot of people out there could have really nice gear if they thought about it. Instead the "this will do the job" approach is the way they go. This doesn't apply to people who don't have the "room" for proper speakers though. We all have to live inside a box and some boxes are smaller than others so restraint is varied. Then again there are some really capable bookshelf/monitor sized speakers out there.

I blame it on the convenience of the IPOD for the acceptance crappy sound. Ever since it came out all people care about is 50,000 songs in the palm of your hand. A lot of people listen to MP3's in the home as well. Music isn't music anymore so maybe the lossless Blu offers will rebound the audio lover in all of us. The AQ side of a movie will offer a better experience than the PQ side but they need each other.

Music is dead so all we have left is movies and those days seem limited. It is Art and we are lacking the appreciation and originality of it and the need for it.

[Intamin]

Originally Posted by mdabb

I also agree "inexpensive" doesn't mean "cheap" but usually the better speakers do cost a bit more. I see a lot of people allocate more of their money to media than they do to equipment. DVDs and Blu's add up and a lot of people out there could have really nice gear if they thought about it. Instead the "this will do the job" approach is the way they go.

That was me...the collecting lots of software, instead of getting the speakers. Fortunately, I came around

But yes, I agree with the idea that people should look into better speakers, and not just settle. But with the entire idea of instant gratification, I honestly don't see the current trend changing.

[prerich]

Excellent comments everyone ! Barnum (that's why I only use the Yamaha as a prepro it doesn't have the horse power to affectively run my home theater as I would like so I use outboard amps). Big Daddy excellent research! Cravnsn - good analogy!!! Mdabb, you are correct - but music is not dead yet. As long as there is someone who cares - we will still get good music (but it may come at a premium). And I too wish that people would allocate more money to their equipment. Having a bunch of BD's, most of which you won't watch more than once - being payed back on a mediocre system doesn't make fiscal sense at all. Why not have fewer BD's that you will watch over and over again - played back on the best system you can get?

How do we educate people to this principle, or as Cravnsn put it - there are people who are just satisfied. Do they need education? Is ignorance truly bliss? What started our audio obsession? Does the increase of knowledge bring sorrow or truth?

The subject of the lossless codecs can bring about an abundance of sonic truth - but many will not like the truth. The truth sometimes hurts. What do you guys think?.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by prerich

Is ignorance truly bliss?

Financially?? ABSOLUTELY!!

As far as "allocation of funds" For those who collect for the sake of collecting, the actually presentation of the movie isn't as important as how it looks on the shelf

I tend to buy a lot of movies, but I won't buy anything that I won't watch a minimum of 3 or 4 times.... and many get watched a lot more than that!

[cravnsn]

I’m always surprised when I’m browsing the aisle for the one or two movies I do want to buy, and there are people there looking through every movie asking each other “have you ever heard of this move – is it supposed to be any good?”

Are these people completely unaware that they can be renting instead of buying?

[richteer]

Originally Posted by prerich

How do we educate people to this principle, or as Cravnsn put it - there are people who are just satisfied. Do they need education? Is ignorance truly bliss? What started our audio obsession? Does the increase of knowledge bring sorrow or truth?

I think it is mostly a matter of education. Most people are simply unaware of the joy a high end audio system will bring, although judging by some readers' comments, some people would rather dismiss the notion that better sound is possible because of the expense and/or it conflicts with their limited views. *Shrug*

OTOH, there are people who, having heard a high end system, get the bug and realise that they can get so much more out of the music and movies. In other words, not everyone who is blissfully ignorant is incapable of approaching AV Valhalla (the home of the gods, not the Nordost cables!) once they've been shown the way. It is the job of us enthusiasts to do the latter.

[mdabb]

We need an "in order to realise list". Maybe a "Ten Commandments" in order to benefit from lossless audio.

People are always looking for a TV, BD player, and receiver capable of.......... but settle on speakers. In order to enjoy HD audio you need at least............??? when it comes to speaker qualifications. People know you need a display capable of 720P, 1080 i/P in order to take advantage of Blu-ray but seem to not realise you have to meet a certain criteria to realise the benefit of HD sound.

So basically you have a set/list of requirements for speakers. If there was as much emphasis placed on the audio requirements portion as there is placed on requirements for PQ on Blu-ray. It would help people make sense.

Manufacturers could specifically market speakers that meet the requirements for HD audio even though there are speakers out there that already meet those requirements. It would at least make the consumer realise you need to meet a certain criteria in order to hear that HD audio just like they do with HDTV's in order to see HD quality.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by richteer

I think it is mostly a matter of education. Most people are simply unaware of the joy a high end audio system will bring, although judging by some readers' comments, some people would rather dismiss the notion that better sound is possible because of the expense and/or it conflicts with their limited views. *Shrug*

OTOH, there are people who, having heard a high end system, get the bug and realise that they can get so much more out of the music and movies. In other words, not everyone who is blissfully ignorant is incapable of approaching AV Valhalla (the home of the gods, not the Nordost cables!) once they've been shown the way. It is the job of us enthusiasts to do the latter.

And more truth!!!!

[Intamin]

Originally Posted by prerich

How do we educate people to this principle, or as Cravnsn put it - there are people who are just satisfied. Do they need education? Is ignorance truly bliss? What started our audio obsession? Does the increase of knowledge bring sorrow or truth?

I think it depends on the person, and not so much the education. My parents, for example, could care less whether the audio comes from high end speakers or from the tv. It's not a matter of money, they just don't care. My brother has a pair of Klipsch towers he picked up from BB, and to him, he couldn't be happier. Myself, I'm a collector, and a perfectionist. If better sound can be had, then I want to upgrade (within a budget). That's why once I bought my first set, I studied, found out more info, and am now trying to make up for my initial rush to complete a speaker set. I believe it's just based on the person, and the initiative of that person to learn.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Intamin

I think it depends on the person, and not so much the education. My parents, for example, could care less whether the audio comes from high end speakers or from the tv. It's not a matter of money, they just don't care. My brother has a pair of Klipsch towers he picked up from BB, and to him, he couldn't be happier. Myself, I'm a collector, and a perfectionist. If better sound can be had, then I want to upgrade (within a budget). That's why once I bought my first set, I studied, found out more info, and am now trying to make up for my initial rush to complete a speaker set. I believe it's just based on the person, and the initiative of that person to learn.

This is good when the converse of a statement can also be true. It does depend on the person greatly! You can put a person in Yale, but it doesn't mean that they will pass!

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Intamin

I think it depends on the person, and not so much the education. My parents, for example, could care less whether the audio comes from high end speakers or from the tv. It's not a matter of money, they just don't care. My brother has a pair of Klipsch towers he picked up from BB, and to him, he couldn't be happier. Myself, I'm a collector, and a perfectionist. If better sound can be had, then I want to upgrade (within a budget). That's why once I bought my first set, I studied, found out more info, and am now trying to make up for my initial rush to complete a speaker set. I believe it's just based on the person, and the initiative of that person to learn.

I think we're both right. A person has to be motivated in order to start investigating higher end stuff, but I think that a fair chunk of those people will be those who have been educated. You know, the sort of people who say "wow, I never thought home hifi could sound so good" and start investigating. Had it not been for that initial encounter, they might not have given high end audio a second look, err, listen.

[the Bass Mechanic]

First off, I'd like to say how glad I was to find a thread like this in the forum. Most of the disscusions in the news sections seem to quickly devolve into flame wars and 'gothca' tactics, rather than discussing things of real importance, and agreeing to disagree. Even some of the threads I've seen seem to focus too much on minutiea, rather than try to discern what it worth spending time on, and what is a matter of diminishing returns (at best).

I read the article the 2nd poster cited, and it reflects my experiences with controlled listening tests of audio codecs almost exactly (I did hear some of the 'precence' and 'depth' cues, but most of my "hits" came from barely audible 'squeks' ans 'squawks' that leaked out from beneath the edges of the 'masking curves'). There are differences with the older (DVD) versions of DTS and Dolby Digital, and even some with the higher bit rate versions on Blu-ray, but those differences are subtle at best, and non-existent with most (but not all) program material. As for Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD; I have not been able to particiapte in a proper listening test, but based on my knowledge of the codecs, and my experiences with their older cousins, I would have to say that they would be darn near 'transparent', but could still be tripped up with the right 'torture test' multi-tone signal, or specific program material. The informal tests I have done myself found no audilble 'compression artifacts', but of course that is hardly conclusive.

Of course, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio being lossless; (pure data packing, no 'perceptualy coded' data reduction) they should be, and (as far as I can tell from limited listening tests) are audibly indistinguishable from the LPCM masters. Of course the biggest benefit is that they preserve all of the original signal, while taking up a fraction of the disc space needed for LPCM audio. Even though I know that DTS and Dolby Digital (running at 1.5Mbps and 640kbps respectivley) are 'close enough' for 98.5% of all movie sountracks, I do prefer (and select them whenever they are available) the lossless versions so that I can put it out of my mind that there may EVER be any audible 'lossy codec' data reduction artifacts. (A great cure for "Audio-nervosa"!)

My main selling point, when someone asks me what the difference is, or why they should use the lossless version of the soundtrack; is that while the percievable difference may be minute, the lossless version IS 'technically' better, so why not use it, just in case they (or one of their guests some night) happen to be someone who CAN hear the occasional codec artifact on the lossy soundtrack. It will depend on how good their speakers are (the most important part of any audio system, followed closely by room acoustics) of course, and that can be another selling point; that getting better speakers will make the tiny (but real) difference between lossy and lossless easier to appreciate.