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: More misinformation (Read 111851 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #575 –
If you are using FLAC and space matters for you, then buying 44.1/24 is unreasonable. You will likely get just noise in the bottom bits, which don't compress well with FLAC. The result is more space consumption with no benefit.

The fact that greater resolution is being used in recording and mastering, does not mean that the product that results from it has anything useful in the extra bits. Most likely not.

You seem to derive some extra comfort from those extra bits, but that's your psychology.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #576 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
If I generally use FLAC lossless (even on one of my portables), 320 kbps MP3 is never overkill for me, considering space and no other aspects are significant for me on portable.
Obviously you still want to evade the fact that 256/320kbps lossy formats will not sound different by using 16 vs 24-bit source. It doesn't matter if you have a 64GB or 64TB portable player, it won't change the transparency.

Quote
Alright, at least recording and archiving (means also storing/backup on home network) is accepted :) That is one more reason for me why I would like to buy 24/44.1 instead of/in addition to 16/44.1, ideally at the same price (as for the studio 24 bit is the source, actually CD conversion is more work for them :) ).
Don't attempt to change the meaning of recording format to delivery format until you can ABX 16-bit vs 24-bit delivery format and until you understand what headroom in recording means.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #577 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
If I generally use FLAC lossless (even on one of my portables), 320 kbps MP3 is never overkill for me, considering space and no other aspects are significant for me on portable.
Obviously you still want to evade the fact that 256/320kbps lossy formats will not sound different by using 16 vs 24-bit source. It doesn't matter if you have a 64GB or 64TB portable player, it won't change the transparency.

I do not want to evade that, I know that audio transparency is OK regardless of the 16/24 bit source. But 320 kbps MP3 is highly comfortable for me on space I have at mine or my family portable, I do not have to reduce size further. If there are e.g. 400 kbps MP3, I would use them still.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #578 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
If you are using FLAC and space matters for you, then buying 44.1/24 is unreasonable. You will likely get just noise in the bottom bits, which don't compress well with FLAC. The result is more space consumption with no benefit.

The fact that greater resolution is being used in recording and mastering, does not mean that the product that results from it has anything useful in the extra bits. Most likely not.

You seem to derive some extra comfort from those extra bits, but that's your psychology.

That argumentation returns the flamewar about 24 bit and that is what I do not want to do.

Yes I think that utilizing 24 bit audio the way I described is better, both technically and psychologically. I do not discuss audibility.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #579 –
I do not value 24 bit at delivery by its audibility vs 16 bit, I know it cannot be reliably proven by ABX test. And do not want to flame about it - this I have stated at the original post.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #580 –
I heard about uncompressed flac and this can even occupy more storage space than normal flac. That should be even better for your way of thinking (since the decoding process is simpler?). If you don't care about compatibility (tags?) wav should be equally good as well.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #581 –
Quote from: bennetng on
I heard about uncompressed flac and this can even occupy more storage space than normal flac. That should be even better for your way of thinking (since the decoding process is simpler?). If you don't care about compatibility (tags?) wav should be equally good as well.

No at all, even if I use normal FLAC (-5 option) then MP3 will be always smaller, regardless of the bitrate chosen. So it makes sense for me, when considering portables, use highest bitrate MP3 supports and still be much smaller than FLAC. And moreover, FLAC is digitally lossless by definition, so no need to use WAVs for playback/store of audio.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #582 –
I guess you aren't as well versed in the placebophile arguments in favor of wave or uncompressed flac as you are in the placebophile arguments in favor of 24-bits as a delivery format. Maybe you haven't yet identified any sources in order to posit more arguments from authority(?).

Re: More misinformation

Reply #583 –
Quote from: greynol on
I guess you aren't as well versed in the placebophile arguments in favor of wave or uncompressed flac as you are in the placebophile arguments in favor of 24-bits as a delivery format. Maybe you haven't yet identified any sources in order to posit more arguments from authority.

If I want to decrease the compression rate it can be done with standard FLAC very easily (go to -2 or -1), uncompressed FLAC would defeat the main purpose of FLAC. Still -5 seems to be good compromise speed/size, while maintaining digital losslessness. I do not see problem in these things.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #585 –
Quote from: greynol on
To which my reply remains:  apparently you haven't done enough research.

I do not see neccessary to research in area of FLAC or WAV, as it seems clear for common usage. Since FLAC compression is fast and transparent and tag supporting, WAV is of limited use now. In this thread today I just wanted to point of some additional things about 24 bit audio, that is all. No flame, please.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #586 –
So in terms of audio compression, your interest in being versed in baseless, fantasy-fueled theoretical "technical" improvements doesn't extend beyond lossy formats?

Do go on, please; this is priceless.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #587 –
I do not know formats that well in detail, but if there is a "sweet spot" in MP3 or M4A where the lossy compression does not bring really any audible benefits under any conditions, then OK, this rate could be a maximum that can be useful at lossy formats. If it is 320 kbps for MP3 and/or 256 kbps for M4A, then those formats are OK even now. I do not wanna flame about if somebody is able to ABX 192 or 256 kbps MP3.

But in my todays post I was talking about the source for lossy compression, not the lossy compression itselfs.

Considering lossless FLAC I see no problem, since the degree of compression does not affect the ability to restore full digital information stored there.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #589 –
Regarding "talking" about the source for lossy compression, do you have anything new to provide from the last time you raised this unsubstantiated point?  If not then I don't see how you can have any conversation about it, beyond continued pretending.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #590 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But in my todays post I was talking about the source for lossy compression, not the lossy compression itselfs.
In some very rare cases there are killer samples which can reveal the differences of 320kbps mp3 vs lossless, at least with that version of LAME and my ears at that time (10+ years ago)
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,39970.0.html

But can you find a killer sample which can make two 320k mp3s or two 256k aacs sound differently by using 16-bit vs 24-bit format as input?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #591 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But in my todays post I was talking about the source for lossy compression, not the lossy compression itselfs.
In some very rare cases there are killer samples which can reveal the differences of 320kbps mp3 vs lossless, at least with that version of LAME and my ears at that time (10+ years ago)
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,39970.0.html

But can you find a killer sample which can make two 320k mp3s or two 256k aacs sound differently by using 16-bit vs 24-bit format as input?

Maybe LAME even improved since then. So 320 kbps seems to be OK for lossy, or the authors of this codecs could theoretically, with todays CPU/disk space provide e.g. 400 kbps "ultrainsane" option.

No, I am not able to find that "killer sample", but in this thread I mentioned citations of Apple official materials that claim the 24 bit source is better e.g. for their ITunes conversions. Do not want to "call the authorities", though. Myself I see only "digital" differences between 24 and 16 bit (quantization, dithering. dynamic range).

Re: More misinformation

Reply #592 –
Quote from: greynol on
So there is no interest in knowing about any theoretical technical hinderances to audio quality resulting from the use of lossless data compression?

Lossless compression should not decrease audio quality in any way, as the result is digitally equal to uncompressed source. I do not see where are you heading.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #593 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I mentioned citations of Apple official materials that claim the 24 bit source is better e.g. for their ITunes conversions. Do not want to "call the authorities", though.
It is the cheapest way for them to claim being part of the HiBit business and making customers believe.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #594 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I mentioned citations of Apple official materials that claim the 24 bit source is better e.g. for their ITunes conversions. Do not want to "call the authorities", though.
It is the cheapest way for them to claim being part of the HiBit business and making customers believe.

Can be. I cannot prove otherwise. It seemed to me that they are interested in real audio quality from what i have read from them. They know Nyquist, dithering ....

Re: More misinformation

Reply #595 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I mentioned citations of Apple official materials that claim the 24 bit source is better e.g. for their ITunes conversions. Do not want to "call the authorities", though.
It is the cheapest way for them to claim being part of the HiBit business and making customers believe.
Yeah, they can call anything they sell are "mastered for itunes", no one can 100% sure how the sources are prepared by merely analyzing a lossy file.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #596 –
They depend on what the artists supply to them.and that is what the documents "Mastered for Itunes pdf" are for, to provide guidelines. I do not want to defend apple further, though.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #597 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
It seemed to me that they are interested in real audio quality from what i have read from them. They know Nyquist, dithering ....

So it's "they have an unstated argument and seem to know the most basic things about digital audio and therefore everything they say must be true"?

If they have a technical argument, you need to post it. Otherwise all we are left with is a fallacy.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #598 –
We can let it be, I did not expect to heaten the debate again, just wanted to add some things about 24 bit.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #599 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
We can let it be, I did not expect to heaten the debate again, just wanted to add some things about 24 bit.
Yes, you added the fact that you cannot prove 320k mp3s and 256k aacs will sound better when using 24-bit sources.