Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Is lossless audio worth it? (Read 10300 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Quote
Quite plainly, it’s generally not worth it to pay for higher tiers of streaming services to access lossless audio. The vast majority of people are entirely unable to distinguish the difference between a lossless audio file and a compressed file encoded at a decently high bitrate, even in an ideal environment. Additionally, the audio data compression inherent to Bluetooth will render whatever gains you’re looking for moot over a wireless connection. However, lossless audio isn’t completely worthless. In a world where you can have the highest quality for a negligible increase in storage space (a matter of several hundred megabytes is much more trivial nowadays), why shouldn’t you? It’s certainly not worth paying for a higher tier just to achieve it, but if you’re able to find lossless files and play them on a setup that can actually take advantage of them, more power to you.
~ https://www.soundguys.com/is-lossless-audio-worth-it-83392/
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #1 –
That's basically my thinking on the issue.
I don't even listen to my FLAC files, I always play my lossy files. I know there are a few problem samples that I'd be able to differentiate if I focused on it, but I also know these are few and far between and knowing the possibility is there doesn't bother me.

I keep lossless files as backup, whether I purchased the lossless files or ripped from a CD.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #2 –
I've ripped all my CDs to FLAC. Storage is cheap these days so I made the decision a while back to store lossless.
My aging ears might struggle nowadays to hear a significant difference between FLAC and 320 MP3.
Anything above 16 bit though is a minefield IMHO. You'd have to look at the source of the music and make sure it's not just basically the same version as the 16 bit CD ...a lot of HD audio is just up-sampled from same source.
I prefer listening to lossless rips of my own albums....especially older ones (pre 1994) as a lot of remasters sound bad and these are normally the ones that the streaming services use  :'(

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #3 –
Quote
it’s generally not worth it to pay for higher tiers of streaming services to access lossless audio

I actually agree with this, but want to emphasize I'm strictly talking about streaming services.

If I'm buying music - doesn't matter if I can hear the difference or not, I want to get something lossless, I can always convert it to something lossy as needed. I don't want to run into a situation where I'm doing some kind of lossy -> lossy conversion because my audio device doesn't support the original format.

I'll admit though I probably won't run into that issue - seems like it's in the various services best interest to offer downloads in fairly-compatible formats, like MP3 and AAC-LC. But getting a lossless file guarantees I won't ever do a lossy -> lossy encode.

But for streaming services where I'm just renting the music and probably just listening in my car at highway speeds - I wouldn't bother paying for higher sound quality.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #4 –
Yeah, a single streaming listen isn't what I worry about. If I don't like what I hear, tune in on something else :)

For downloads, however, I keep what I get and am happier when it is in a checksummed format or can be compressed into one. But the audio I don't do anything lossy about (assuming it isn't too corrupted to play it straight out).

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #5 –
I would comit to a streaming service if i was not having so much fun visiting extremely fringe websites or the lost cloud storage of an artist to discover and manually rip embedded webstreams from.

At least thats how i found this repository of 800 free classical tracks: https://www.gardnermuseum.org/experience/music . Some real treasures in there. for example telemann overture, Akademie für alte Musik Berlin.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #6 –
I used to once have a huge collection of flac files before I realized most probably, my earphones were shit enough that it didn't matter. That was some years ago. Currently, I have the Doors albums in flac which sound noticeably better than the same rendered via streaming service at 320 kbps. However, I tried the same with Clash' "London Calling" and even if someone put a gun to my head, I probably couldn't tell the difference.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #7 –
streaming / online radio /  casual listening on earbuds or in the car who cares, no point in requiring lossless, but at the same time internet speeds and unlimited data even for mobile makes this irrelevant, its not like we are in the dark ages anymore, compression was vital when connectivity was poor/expensive (56k modem days!)

listening on good a DAC with good equipment, then why not have the highest quality source? this isnt 1995 anymore where your 386 PC with a 20GB maxtor hard drive is the norm.

Today hard drive storage & NAS devices are dirt cheap is simple to backup..... and home internet / mobile 4g/5g unlimited mobile data costs buttons.







Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: kC_ on
(56k modem days!)

56k?  You were lucky!
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: kirk781 on
Currently, I have the Doors albums in flac which sound noticeably better than the same rendered via streaming service at 320 kbps.
Are you sure the difference you're hearing is from lossy compression and not from different mastering techniques? I'm sure those albums have been remastered at least once.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #10 –
No streaming for me, i'm too cheap, instead, i find myself wandering through music and thrift stores looking for audio treasures i rip lossless and resell on discogs because why not?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: 2tec on
No streaming for me, i'm too cheap, instead, i find myself wandering through music and thrift stores looking for audio treasures i rip lossless and resell on discogs because why not?

This! I need to have a look through my CD collection and see what is worth selling though. I used to use Google Music but I seem to remember they stopped you uploading your own stuff, that was great, if they matched an album etc you didn't upload it. That said I don't listen to music as much as I used to.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: 2tec on
No streaming for me, i'm too cheap, instead, i find myself wandering through music and thrift stores looking for audio treasures i rip lossless and resell on discogs because why not?
I don't have a problem with buying second hand, I don't have a problem with ripping... but if you rip and then sell on you're ripping off the artists.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: fooball on
Quote from: 2tec on
No streaming for me, i'm too cheap, instead, i find myself wandering through music and thrift stores looking for audio treasures i rip lossless and resell on discogs because why not?
I don't have a problem with buying second hand, I don't have a problem with ripping... but if you rip and then sell on you're ripping off the artists.
Hardly, people have the right of resale and then to keep listening in Canada. The only thing I'm not allowed to do is to sell illegitimate copies or 'upload' (distribute) copyright material via bittorrent. That's all. As far as I'm aware no one has ever been charged, let alone found guilty of listening to the music they sold the source of legally. How about you post a link to such a case or the relevant case law?

Not only that but I often have to add my release to Discogs which promotes the artist and documents what's out there and that's a volunteer effort. Legally reselling used music products helps offset my investment, just like any other business.

Besides copyright law has been completely corrupted and there's a critical difference between exploiting an artist and enjoying their efforts. Furthermore, if anyone is ripping off artists, and we consumers, it's the 'entertainment industry". Just saying.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #14 –
What's legal, illegal-but-you-can-get-away-with-it, and moral, are different things.

It's not the consumers' fault if the music industry shafts artists, although it can certainly be argued that it is the industry and not the artists who have to put up the capital and should therefore get a large chunk of the profit.

I can't speak for the legal position in Canada, but the idea that it is fully legal to sell a copy of something to which you do not own copyright seems very strange.  Selling the original having kept a copy is no different than selling a copy, and "recouping the original investment" is getting something for nothing.

Yes, I rip my CDs for convenience, but the original CD is my proof of ownership.

Just saying!
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #15 –
It's called "First Sale Doctrine" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Amazon, Discogs, E-Bay all have thriving resale marketplaces. Do you really think everyone or anyone is not listening to or reading what they legally purchased and have now resold? This allows people to buy what's 'out there' and what they can afford. Besides, I'm getting old, I'm not going to throw it away.

What people do in reality often is because people have a sense of right and wrong. I know that a thriving market helps an artist.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #16 –
I think artists these days make more money from touring and merch than they do from physical album sales.
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/how-musicians-make-money-or-dont-at-all-in-2018-706745/

I still like having physical copies of my music.  Some of what I like is rare or out of print, so buying new isn't an option.  I don't bother reselling to the stores I buy from since they only offer less than $1 for the CDs. 

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #17 –
In the US, your right to the music is tied to the physical object you bought. Under fair use, you can rip the CD and listen to the rip, but if you sell the CD, you also sell your right to the music, and legally you must delete all the copies you made. Buying a CD, ripping it, and selling the CD again is the same as just illegally downloading a rip that somebody else made.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
In the US, your right to the music is tied to the physical object you bought. Under fair use, you can rip the CD and listen to the rip, but if you sell the CD, you also sell your right to the music, and legally you must delete all the copies you made. Buying a CD, ripping it, and selling the CD again is the same as just illegally downloading a rip that somebody else made.
First off, how about you link to a credible reference to support your assertion?

Second, do you think anybody actually deletes the digital copy of a CD that they have sold?

Third, people cannot be singled out for prosecution for what is a common practice. Nor can people be prosecuted or sued for a monetary amount if there is no monetary loss involved. For a crime to have occured, there must be an actual and significant loss, not a theoretical one.

People can spout this Big Media corporate propaganda but I don't buy it for a minute. There's nothing unethical or illegal with selling a CD and continuing to listen to the music after one has sold it from my understanding of the copyright laws involved. The laws are intended to stop commercial rip offs, not to limit personal use or enjoyment.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: 2tec on
First off, how about you link to a credible reference to support your assertion?

I'd like to ask for the same where it says in Canada that this is all perfectly legal.

Quote from: 2tec on
Second, do you think anybody actually deletes the digital copy of a CD that they have sold?

Whether they do or not has nothing to do with whether it's illegal or not.

Quote from: 2tec on
Third, people cannot be singled out for prosecution for what is a common practice. Nor can people be prosecuted or sued for a monetary amount if there is no monetary loss involved. For a crime to have occured, there must be an actual and significant loss, not a theoretical one.

People can spout this Big Media corporate propaganda but I don't buy it for a minute. There's nothing unethical or illegal with selling a CD and continuing to listen to the music after one has sold it from my understanding of the copyright laws involved. The laws are intended to stop commercial rip offs, not to limit personal use or enjoyment.

Honestly, your understanding of copyright laws is pretty flawed.

I'm not going to weigh in on right versus wrong here. I'm not going to get into the weeds of "what people actually do" versus "what people should do." These are all distractions from the core issue - is it legal to sell a CD after you've ripped it?

By and large format-shifting is considered OK. You have a CD, it's perfectly fine to rip it to your computer, put it on your phone, and so on. Making your own backups and archives, also completely fine. That's all governed under Fair Use.

When you own a CD, you don't own the music. You own a copy of the music, you essentially have a limited-use license to the music, and any rights you have to it go away if you sell it to somebody else. All First Sale Doctrine means is you don't have to get permission from the publisher to resell it, you don't need to pay the publisher anything, etc. They don't get any say in how things are sold after the first sale.

It is illegal in most jurisdictions to keep any copies after you've sold the original, you're supposed to destroy any copies you've made, as you no longer have a fair use right to those copies.

It would be no different than photocopying an entire book then selling the original and keeping the copy to read. No different from say, buying a digital copy on bandcamp, then sending the digital copy to your friends. Either way you don't have the rights to distribute the copy. In one you're distributing a copy to yourself (photocopying the book, reselling the CD), in another you're distributing a copy to somebody else (sending files you bought on bandcamp). It's all the same.

Do people do it all the time anyway? Sure.

Will anybody ever really get in trouble for it? Probably not unless they're doing it on a large scale.

Is it wrong? I dunno, depends. I doubt there's really enough people doing this to hurt artist's bottom line, they make most money off merch and ticket sales over CDs. Doesn't sound like you're taking your rips and throwing them up on torrent sites or anything.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: 2tec on
There's nothing unethical or illegal with selling a CD and continuing to listen to the music after one has sold it from my understanding of the copyright laws involved.
What utter bollox.  Of course it is unethical to buy something, clone it, then sell it on.  Like I said earlier, that's getting something for nothing – effectively theft.  I wonder what you would think if somebody did that with something you expected to be paid for!

I cannot believe that Canada would be out of step on that.

It really would have been better just to keep your mouth shut.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: fooball on
What utter bollox.  Of course it is unethical to buy something, clone it, then sell it on.  Like I said earlier, that's getting something for nothing – effectively theft.  I wonder what you would think if somebody did that with something you expected to be paid for!

I cannot believe that Canada would be out of step on that.

It really would have been better just to keep your mouth shut.
A rip is not a clone. A burnt CDr is not the same as a retail CD nor does it have any value. Do you have a link to back up your assertions? Is your dismissive tone helping anyone understand this issue?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: jprjr on
Honestly, your understanding of copyright laws is pretty flawed.
Do you have a reference to backup any of your assertions that First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply here?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: 2tec on
A rip is not a clone. A burnt CDr is not the same as a retail CD nor does it have any value. Do you have a link to back up your assertions? Is your dismissive tone helping anyone understand this issue?

It's still a copy of the audio itself.  A copy is a copy regardless of how crappy that copy actually is.  It's like saying a crappy black & white photocopy from some office machine isn't a copy because it's crappy looking.  It doesn't have to be a perfect clone to be considered a copy.  People end up arrested and jailed for this kind of stuff.  You're the one who is being dismissive here.

Re: Article: Is lossless audio worth it?

Reply #24 –
It may be a perfect digital copy but it has no economic value. We are not talking about a financial gain here. We are not talking about selling the copy. Copyright prohibits copying for 'financial' gain. First sale doctrine allows a consumer to enjoy the 'product' once they have purchased it and they are legally allowed to resell the original media. When people buy a CD, they are buying the music, the CD is just a thing. My understanding is once people have paid for a copy of the music, they have the right to enjoy what they paid for. They also have the right to resell the original media. In any case, legalities and jurisprudence aside, it is the common practice.

There's no need to be dismissive. It's just a discussion. Just saying.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)