Lossless audio - is it really that important? - Yes it is!

[stevei]

Just saw this news article today:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/04...quality_claim/

The survey it refers to is around 10 years old, but it found that 128kbps AAC audio is, for most people, indistinguishable from CD quality. This means that there would be little advantage in listening to lossless audio vs 64kbps per channel encoded with AAC.

Now, DD 5.1 at 640kbps is over 100kbps per channel, admittedly not AAC encoded, but I would be surprised if it performed worse at this level than AAC at 64kbps per channel.

So I find this hard to reconcile with the claims I've read from people that lossless audio sounds so much better. I've never personally had a problem with the quality of 448kbps DD 5.1. Now I've heard 640kbps DD 5.1 I think it might sound a little bit better, but would be far from certain I could tell the difference in a properly conducted scientific experiment.

If you believe you can tell the difference between 640kbps DD 5.1 and lossless / uncompressed DD, do you also believe you can tell the difference between a 224kbps mp3 and the original CD?

[phranctoast]

I can tell the difference in the music for sure. I think I could at least go up to 360kb/sec, and still tell. You could tell when the volume is higher.

[Shin-Ra]

By catering for the people that can tell the difference, with PCM 5.1 to 7.1 audio, a studio pleases everyone.

[stevei]

Another test here:
http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

Two of the most interesting bits:

"So it isn’t those with perfect hearing, but those that deviate strongly from normal that seem to be especially sensitive to MP3 artifacts. Psycho-acoustic masking effects are at the basis of the MP3 encoding algorithm (the alarm clock goes on ticking even when it rings [but the algorithm doesn’t encode the ticking because it will be masked by the ringing anyway G.]; and the algorithm relies upon such effects also in the case of the generated normalization noises, which in general are supposed to be masked by the useful signals. But when a hearing impairment cause these noises to surface they will be much easier to detect."

So those who can discern a difference may actually have worse hearing than average, which is interesting.

"In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves."

[MatrixS2000]

You can easily test this yourself...rip a cd @ 128K then rip it again at 320K. Give it a listen...my bet is that you will notice a difference between the two and prefer the 320K version.

[stevei]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

You can easily test this yourself...rip a cd @ 128K then rip it again at 320K. Give it a listen...my bet is that you will notice a difference between the two and prefer the 320K version.

No, this isn't a scientific way to do the test, you need to arrange a way to have them played to you so you don't know which is which and preferably neither does the person playing them to you.

I once did a blind (rather than double blind) test with a friend where we did this; the person playing them knew which was which but the listener didn't. We could both tell 128kbps from the original but not 160kbps or above.

You could try this test here, though you have to email them to get the answers:
http://www.eclassical.com/eclassic/e...age=blind_test

[HDJK]

It depends on your audio setup. If you have nice speakers (in case they are passive, good amps), a room that is somewhat treated and a pair of ears to match your budget, you will definitely hear a difference

[Filterlab]

Originally Posted by HDJK

It depends on your audio setup. If you have nice speakers (in case they are passive, good amps), a room that is somewhat treated and a pair of ears to match your budget, you will definitely hear a difference

I couldn't have put it better myself HDJK!

[GoldenRedux]

We're talking 48kHz 24 bit multichannel audio here! Not even 44.1/16 2 channel which is compressed 11:1 at 128. How much do you think 640 is to 6.1 channels of 48/24? It's 10:1 just like 128 kbs mp3 is to CD. So DD+ is like 128 or 160 mp3. DTS is like 320 mp3, actually

Being an audiophile and a recording engineer myself, having worked with hi-res PCM and DSD and been present for DBTs comparing not only these many lossy codecs, but also lo-, mid-, and hi-res PCM, DSD and live orchestral feeds, I know there is a difference and I call BS on this whole thread.

Closed.