When is good enough *good enough*?

Topic: When is good enough *good enough*? (Read 3119 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

When is good enough good enough?

2003-04-04 08:49:17

I'm about to get myself in a sh*tstorm here, this being my first post and all, but why not go down with style.

Ok, I've been lurking around here for some time now and have learned so damned much about audio compression it's not even funny. I love keeping up with what's happening in audio compression and I'll say right up front that for me, LAME is just the best thing I've heard. I don't even waste my time trying MPC, Ogg, AAC, etc. because once I found LAME I got just what I was looking for.

My question (or point, as it were) is this: When is a reproduction of the original *good enough* as far as audio compression is concerned? I know this has been covered probably 500,000 times over bulletin boards across the Internet since MP3 and Napster were released on the unsuspecting Net population but damn, I still can't get a good answer. I don't want to get myself all riled up about it so I'm just here to ask the experts (and I consider ALL of you experts, especially the people actually in development of this fantastic software and related technologies).

Case in point: Let's say I have a 20GB iPod or some other hard drive based portable MP3 player (I don't concern myself with any other compression format, as mentioned above, so Ogg/AAC/MPC/etc support is irrelevant for this question). Now, forgive me if I'm a bit off in terms of accuracy, but even if I encoded every damned song on every CD I have at --preset insane settings I would STILL not come close to filling that 20GB drive - I don't have the CD collection that I used to have years ago (thanks again EAC and LAME).

I appreciate the ability to carry tons and tons of music around in something so cool and small that it draws attention to you just for having it on yourself... but geezus.

Here's a point I've thought about myself a lot: If we're SO interested in hearing that famed "CD Quality" audio why not just copy the WAV file data directly to the portable's hard drive? On a 20GB portable (and larger capacities are coming fast) this translates into about 30 complete CDs bit for bit (roughly). Am I alone here in thinking that sometimes maybe that's just the easiest and fastest thing to do? Around here, probably.

When is good enough *good enough*? Can you folks actually tell me (being honest here) that you can really hear that much of a difference in this stuff? I mean, I'm not a recording engineer myself, just a humble person that loves hearing great sounding music - and this is where LAME and EAC come into play. I used to use the old Xing encoder many years ago with AudioGrabber when that stuff first came out and then I lucked out and happened upon EAC about 2-3 years ago. Then came LAME. Boy what a difference.

I still encode everything at --preset standard these days since that's just perfect for me. Everything I want to hear is there and I hear it. I just last night came across the LAME 3.94 alpha 12 and tested out some of the new portable and portable1 presets they're working on. Great idea for some of us that have RAM-limited mp3 players (like the MuVo - great piece of hardware). And since it's still a LAME encoding format even 130Kbps from LAME sounds better than anything else for strictly mp3 encoding (not MP3Pro/AAC/etc).

I suppose what I'm really asking for is this: What is IT that we're looking for (or listening for, as it were) nowadays? Is it the best possible audio quality or is it the smallest possible files or some pseudo-mix of the two? What IS it we're aiming for now? How good is good *enough*? Think about it.

Just my two cents there but again I'd like to congratulate and thank the developers of EAC and LAME for giving us such wonderful stuff to listen to.

br0adband

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #1 – 2003-04-04 09:44:21

Quote

I still encode everything at --preset standard these days since that's just perfect for me. Everything I want to hear is there and I hear it...

I suppose what I'm really asking for is this: What is IT that we're looking for (or listening for, as it were) nowadays? Is it the best possible audio quality or is it the smallest possible files or some pseudo-mix of the two? What IS it we're aiming for now? How good is good *enough*?

I think you've answered this question for yourself... As you encode music with --alt-preset standard and it is perfect for you, why do you bother? I don't think you want to share your music collection with anybody else, so what's the point? Trust your ears... if you're satisfied with that, what you hear, stay with it. I personally think that quality must come first, the bitrate isn't as important, not today, when you can get devices like yours... But listening to wavs is definitely waste of space on portable devices with HD.

Just my 2 cents.

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #2 – 2003-04-04 09:57:42

No, don't get me wrong, I LOVE the way the music I encode sounds. I'm just curious to find out what's driving these people to do so much constant tuning/testing/listening/repeat ad nauseum. What makes them constantly go for even BETTER sounding encoders if we're so close to as-good-as-it-gets already?

I'm just curious, to hell with what it did to the cat.

br0adband

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #3 – 2003-04-04 10:02:29

Twon factors:
1. codec quality isn't perfect yet. problem samples exist that sound pretty terrible in some cases.
2. the drive for smaller filesize. Not everyone will be using 20gb ipods for music. In the case of flashmem players, cel phones, or even very large collections on HD, filesize is important.

Current codecs are good, but each has room for improvement.

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #4 – 2003-04-04 10:08:56

Well, I think it's normal and natural for the mankind... We have faster cars, trains, aeroplanes, they are better and safer along. We have better and better mobile communication tools, faster computers, faster internet... we live faster, although not always better.

And I am convinced that things can always be better, even if a little bit... That definitely goes for codecs which still have their flaws, although very minor sometimes

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #5 – 2003-04-04 10:13:38

Quote

I'm about to get myself in a sh*tstorm here, this being my first post and all, but why not go down with style.

Ok, I've been lurking around here for some time now and have learned so damned much about audio compression it's not even funny. I love keeping up with what's happening in audio compression and I'll say right up front that for me, LAME is just the best thing I've heard. I don't even waste my time trying MPC, Ogg, AAC, etc. because once I found LAME I got just what I was looking for.

My question (or point, as it were) is this: When is a reproduction of the original *good enough* as far as audio compression is concerned? I know this has been covered probably 500,000 times over bulletin boards across the Internet since MP3 and Napster were released on the unsuspecting Net population but damn, I still can't get a good answer. I don't want to get myself all riled up about it so I'm just here to ask the experts (and I consider ALL of you experts, especially the people actually in development of this fantastic software and related technologies).

Case in point: Let's say I have a 20GB iPod or some other hard drive based portable MP3 player (I don't concern myself with any other compression format, as mentioned above, so Ogg/AAC/MPC/etc support is irrelevant for this question). Now, forgive me if I'm a bit off in terms of accuracy, but even if I encoded every damned song on every CD I have at --preset insane settings I would STILL not come close to filling that 20GB drive - I don't have the CD collection that I used to have years ago (thanks again EAC and LAME).

I appreciate the ability to carry tons and tons of music around in something so cool and small that it draws attention to you just for having it on yourself... but geezus.

Here's a point I've thought about myself a lot: If we're SO interested in hearing that famed "CD Quality" audio why not just copy the WAV file data directly to the portable's hard drive? On a 20GB portable (and larger capacities are coming fast) this translates into about 30 complete CDs bit for bit (roughly). Am I alone here in thinking that sometimes maybe that's just the easiest and fastest thing to do? Around here, probably.

When is good enough *good enough*? Can you folks actually tell me (being honest here) that you can really hear that much of a difference in this stuff? I mean, I'm not a recording engineer myself, just a humble person that loves hearing great sounding music - and this is where LAME and EAC come into play. I used to use the old Xing encoder many years ago with AudioGrabber when that stuff first came out and then I lucked out and happened upon EAC about 2-3 years ago. Then came LAME. Boy what a difference.

I still encode everything at --preset standard these days since that's just perfect for me. Everything I want to hear is there and I hear it. I just last night came across the LAME 3.94 alpha 12 and tested out some of the new portable and portable1 presets they're working on. Great idea for some of us that have RAM-limited mp3 players (like the MuVo - great piece of hardware). And since it's still a LAME encoding format even 130Kbps from LAME sounds better than anything else for strictly mp3 encoding (not MP3Pro/AAC/etc).

I suppose what I'm really asking for is this: What is IT that we're looking for (or listening for, as it were) nowadays? Is it the best possible audio quality or is it the smallest possible files or some pseudo-mix of the two? What IS it we're aiming for now? How good is good *enough*? Think about it.

Just my two cents there but again I'd like to congratulate and thank the developers of EAC and LAME for giving us such wonderful stuff to listen to.

br0adband

yup...

sorry dude...

this "statement" is the funniest thing
i ever have read..

can you prove this...!!

youre right about one thing..

"why not go down with style. "

the 1. april is long gone.. man... B)

>am not wrighting this to flame you.. honest....<

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #6 – 2003-04-04 10:25:12

Even if I don't "hear" improvements on codecs, I'd like my audio content to be encoded in the best quality possible, so MP3 is a no go, it's AAC, MPC and (save yourselves any dumb comments) WMA9Pro for me.

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #7 – 2003-04-04 10:29:22

"Good Enough" is never being able to hear a problem.

I'd like about 1000 albums (CDs and other source material) on my PC, so lossless (especially .wav) is completely out of the question.

So, lossy it is.

And, if it's "Good Enough", then smaller is always better - so there will always be possible improvements. Lossy codec development isn't going to stop. Ever.

People talk about Moore's law making lossy coding obsolete. I don't think so - smaller is always better! Until my entire music collection fits onto a single 2cm disc, and can be sent to the other side of the world in less than 1 second, having smaller files (as long as they sound "Good Enough") will always be an advantage.

And by the time that happens (if it does), I don't think people will have "music collections" any more anyway - everyone will have access to all the music ever recorded on-line permanently, one way or another. Maybe I'll cache my favourites on my machine - but why store everything I might want to listen to when it's all "out there"? Some people may - it's human instinct to "collect". But most will be happy that it comes over the net "as they want it". No CDs to scratch or loose (or get stolen). If you hard drive crashes, so what - no music lost. Instant access to every song that's ever been recorded. Intelligent auto DJ (goodbye radio stations as-we-know-them). etc etc etc

Of course, I'll still be here with my wax cylinders, shellac 78s, vinyl LPs, plastic CDs etc etc, saying how great it was in the old days (I'm an old man before my time already!). But I think the world will move on. The nature of "software" (and music is software) will change. It already has - how many computer programs do you buy on CD/DVD? How many do you download? How many do you not even have to bother keeping because you know they'll still be available online after you reformat (e.g. Winamp, Winzip etc etc etc).

So, in conclusion, despite Moore's law: it will always be useful to store and send audio in smaller files, so audio codecs will continue to improve. To think that they're "almost as good as they're going to get" is foolish. It may be right - but technological predictions of this sought are usually very wrong.

Cheers,
David.

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #8 – 2003-04-04 12:50:13

Quote

Until my entire music collection fits onto a single 2cm disc, and can be sent to the other side of the world in less than 1 second, having smaller files (as long as they sound "Good Enough") will always be an advantage.

And by the time that happens (if it does), I don't think people will have "music collections" any more anyway - everyone will have access to all the music ever recorded on-line permanently, one way or another.

Nicely put man. Thanks for the reply too. But that stuff about music being online... yeah, I can dig it.

Anyone remember those Qwest commercials from a few years back about the guy who goes to the hotel and asks the Desk clerk, "Do you have movies in the rooms?" and she replies, "We have every TV station from every country playing ever movie ever made twenty four hours a day..." (or something to this effect). The guy just looks at her and says, "Cool."

I feel the same way actually. And no, I don't *own* an iPod but I'd damned sure like to get one. I'm looking at the Neuros portable right now and it seems like the one to get (although it is a tad large. The iPod is just so damned cool (kudos to Apple) but it's also just so damned expensive.

I keep looking for a hard drive portable that fills the bill for all the things I want and haven't found it yet. If Apple slaps an FM tuner and Line-In and Mic inputs on an iPod (iPod Extreme??) I'll be there. But I doubt it'll ever happen.

br0adband

When is good enough good enough?

Reply #9 – 2003-04-04 13:54:39

Quote

Here's a point I've thought about myself a lot: If we're SO interested in hearing that famed "CD Quality" audio why not just copy the WAV file data directly to the portable's hard drive? On a 20GB portable (and larger capacities are coming fast) this translates into about 30 complete CDs bit for bit (roughly).

For starters, you could use lossless compression. Now you have 60 CD's on your 20 G drive with
100% original sound. Or 2 "CD"'s worth on 1 physical CD.. or most albums would fit on a mini CD.

For the future.... if 6 or 7 channel catches on then compression is vital again.
As it is, my 48G Windows partition is starting to look pretty full.. Lots of that from Lossless compressed
audio I took off LP's (so a pain to re-rip compared to CD).

Back to "mp3 good enuff?" I don't have any portable, or player on one of the "real" stereos which
will play Ogg, mpc, etc, so anthing in those other formats is strictly for the computer or burned CD
mixes. Eventually I will have some audio appliance at the stereo which can fetch my compressed
music over lan or wan, and I have faith that at least Ogg will be supported on portables. Till then,
mp3 is the portable format.

Notice