Tell me, is something 'more true' if more people claim it's true, all using the same flawed method?

It's quite possible for a 'vast majority' of people to believe stuff that has no solid factual basis, you know. How they arrived at that belief, matters. Yes, this forum has many threads brimming with people frothing over some feature or another that clever marketing has convinced them they "must have." Frequently, they have never experienced the feature in question for themselves, but are fervently convinced that it is of critical importance anyway. :rolleyes:

I then decided once again to try out using PCM outputted to 2-channel, and I noticed something I hadn't before... which is that my player appeared to be adding some additional processing that it wasn't on the DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1, so I turned it off and I WAS BLOWN AWAY! Yes, you heard me, BLOWN AWAY!! Some people might not like the term "blown away" in regards to HD audio, but you need to remember that what might blow away some people, might not blow away others... and it impressed me tremendously enough to say it. The sounds of the bullets ricochetting were much more "defined" than the regular 5.1 soundtrack, as well as other atmospheric sounds/noises.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your observations.

I find it extremely interesting that you would find the sounds of bullets ricocheting superior in two-channel over multi-channel regardless of the resolution. Obviously such a two-channel presentation is incapable of panning the sounds from front to back, etc. I remember ducking as the bullets in Saving Private Ryan seemed to whiz by my ear. That startlingly realistic effect could never have been achieved with just two front channels no matter how pristine the signal was.

As for being more "defined", whereas I know how human voices are supposed to sound in real life, I doubt that the extra resolution would help me much in determining what a ricochet is supposed to sound like.

Larry

I love this stuff... 1080P video and lossless, master tape quality audio. The hobby has evolved greatly for us in the last couple of years. I can't wait to decode DTS MA... Only a few more weeks until my player arrives..

When you get over $1000 for receivers, yes. The vast majority of consumer level receivers digitize it to do bass management, etc.

We're talking consumer electronics here, not audiophileLower priced receivers can afford to have 8 channels of analogue-to-digital conversion while higher priced models lack that capability? In most receiver lines I've seen, multi-channel A/D converters are usually included only in the higher end models.

Sanjay

Video still has a way to go to get to where audio is today. For audio, with current technology, we can already deliver the human limit of audible frequency range and resolution, no problem. The future is in accurate spatial reproduction and correction of room problems, neither of which are solved by
adding more bits or samples.

That is DEFINITELY true. I agree.

I didn't know anyone staked out the limits of what can be perceived by the human ear? My ears / system tell me lossless sound is improved over lossy... It's too bad the differences aren't readily perceptible by all. Hence, the need for better equipment and attention to acoustics...

I didn't know anyone staked out the limits of what can be perceived by the human ear?

Guess what, they have, at least as far as frequency range and dynamic range are concerned. Old news, actually. Scientific research into hearing has been ongoing for over a century by now. The upper frequency limit is the low 20s kHz, and that's mainly in children, in adults it drops down below 20. The limit of 'resolution' is set at the low end by the quietest sound a human with undamaged hearing (again, this means children) can perceive in the most quiet circumstances ,and the point where loudness becomes physically painful (and you can get permanent damage to your ears well before that level). Say, 80 dB with brief 'bursts' up to 110 dB. The low end of the range will typically be swamped by ambient noise from the room, the gear, or the noise of the recording or playback medium itself.

Here's some reading matter to help bring you up to speed

Zwicker, Eberheart. Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models. Berlin: Spring-Verlag, March 1999: Edition: 5th ISBN 3-540-65063-6


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_threshold_of_hearing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

Can someone check and reply to the below post ?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13464073#post13464073

Highly frustrating.

Can someone check and reply to the below post ?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13464073#post13464073

Highly frustrating.
I think for PS3 owners DTS / DTS-HD MA will be the best audio choice as it transmits a strong 1.5 Mbps over TOSLINK.

So... you want to limit every PS3 user to 1.5Mbps DTS because you don't own a receiver equipped for HDMI? Really? Am I understanding you correctly?

Here's the solution: buy a new receiver (or a player that has analog outputs, assuming your current receiver has analog inputs.) Problem solved.

Has any professional magazine tested noise performance over HDMI in a receiver/pre-pro yet? I seem to recall an article that showed HDMI audio performing subpar though this was early in the HDMI game.

In some tests analog, 96/24 digital and even Dolby Digital performance can be affected by the amount of noise present and measured through those inputs. It has been shown that the bit depth can take a few hits and be as low as 17-18 bit. Dont see how one could hear the benefits of high rez audio if this were the case with HDMI on some equipment.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your observations.

I find it extremely interesting that you would find the sounds of bullets ricocheting superior in two-channel over multi-channel regardless of the resolution. Obviously such a two-channel presentation is incapable of panning the sounds from front to back, etc. I remember ducking as the bullets in Saving Private Ryan seemed to whiz by my ear. That startlingly realistic effect could never have been achieved with just two front channels no matter how pristine the signal was.

As for being more "defined", whereas I know how human voices are supposed to sound in real life, I doubt that the extra resolution would help me much in determining what a ricochet is supposed to sound like.

I wasn't trying to imply that the 2 channel mix created a better soundtrack, but rather that it created a better sound. I didn't watch the film in PCM 2-channel, I just wanted to see if I could hear what lossless sounded like. Sure it wouldn't sound as good as 5.1 lossless, but it allowed me a taste of what it will sound like until I get my HDMI receiver (I'm interested in the upcoming Pioneer) in a few months when I can listen to 5.1 (6.1, or 7.1) lossless.

While the voices, music, etc. could have been improved, I'm not sure I could definitively say what amount of difference I heard in the amount of time I viewed (though I might with better speakers). What I CAN say is that several of the sounds were definately more (and while I still like my use of the word "defined", I'll change it to) "lifelike".

I live out in the country in the South. I often hear multiple gunshots in a day due to hunters, people getting rid of snakes, etc. Granted, those are mostly rifles and I can't say that I have ever heard guns hitting battleships, planes, or human flesh (thank goodness!), I have heard guns (rifles, pistols, etc...) hitting multiple kinds of objects (aluminum cans, metal, wood, glass, dirt, rock, etc...) and the sounds of the ricochets (as well as the gunshots themselves) sounded more "lifelike" (or "defined") compared to the DD5.1 soundtrack (regardless of what level the volume was set at).

I also live in a (sometimes) heavy air traffic area. Sometimes the planes are very high up, sometimes they are so low the pilot should know better. I've heard multiple kinds of planes from airline planes, small engine planes, freight planes, fighter jets, helicopters (multiple kinds... from the most common to Chinook helicopters). I've also been to multiple air shows, and spent many hours at airports which has given me enough time around airplanes to be impressed with the more "lifelike" (or "defined") sound of the engines on the planes as well using the PCM track than the DD5.1 track.

I'm not trying to come off as an expert or anything, as I'm not, and I'm certain those with better audio setups could certainly hear the benefits better than I, but I was truly impressed with what I felt was a more "lifelike" (or "defined") sound using my meager audio setup and turned me from someone who was unsure of the difference between high bit-rate lossy to lossless into a believer.

~Alan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_threshold_of_hearing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PsychoacousticsDo you have some links from a legitimate source? I don't know if you realize, but wikipedia is not an authored encyclopedia with verified facts. Any yahoo can post whatever information they think is true. It should be called a blogapedia. It definately should never be used for reference.

No, it's not. I'm very sure 90% or more of listeners would be able hear a difference between a 6 channel mix and a 2 channel mix in a blind test, even on mediocre equipment. Output from a pair of surround speakers is kinda hard to miss.

With lossy vs lossless, the difference is far, far more subtle, assuming the lossy encoding is done well. Not at all sure 90% of listeners could do it, which is a testimony to the evolution of lossy encoding.

subtle != undetectable. Just as we grew accustomed to spotting mpeg2 artifacts, in time the tricks avc pulled off to hide lossy artifacts with deblocking will become easier to spot.

These advanced codecs today are relying on a few properties of movies (such as out of focus) to stretch the viewer's acceptance. In a few cases, natural looking soft video actually is an effect of over compression (and the resulting smudging around block edges to hide block artifacts) --- something that is 'easy' to spot when placed next to the original.

In time, if we watch enough video, the artifacts will become easier to recognize.

Do you have some links from a legitimate source? I don't know if you realize, but wikipedia is not an authored encyclopedia with verified facts. Any yahoo can post whatever information they think is true. It should be called a blogapedia. It definately should never be used for reference.


Er, did you miss the Zwicker & Fastl reference? I listed it as the first of three 'references' for a reason: it's one of the standard texts in the field. It also costs a pretty penny (http://www.amazon.com/Psychoacoustics-Models-Springer-Information-Sciences/dp/3540650636), (I didn't REALLY need to look it up on Amazon for you, did I?) so I saved you some money by also pointing you to two wiki articles, most if not all of whose content reiterates or is copped from such sources. If you want more primary-source stuff, go to a university science library and peruse bound journals of audition, acoustics, psychoacoustics, audio engineering. The scientific study of hearing has been going on for a century, so you have lots of catching up to do.

The idea that wikipedia 'definately' [sic] should never be used for reference, is absurd. Wikipedia is not quite the free-for-all you imagine it to be. Some wikipedia articles are written by experts in their field. Good wikipedia articles cite their sources. And as with ANY reference, it helps to know something of the material going in, so that you can tell 'good' from 'bad'. If you're going to tell me that those wiki articles are 'bad', meaning I don't know what I'm talking about, you should demonstrate that you DO. Did you even bother to read the articles, or did you dismiss them out of hand because they're in wikipedia?

If I were you I'd stop trying to find excuses, and start reading.

subtle != undetectable. Just as we grew accustomed to spotting mpeg2 artifacts, in time the tricks avc pulled off to hide lossy artifacts with deblocking will become easier to spot.

These advanced codecs today are relying on a few properties of movies (such as out of focus) to stretch the viewer's acceptance. In a few cases, natural looking soft video actually is an effect of over compression (and the resulting smudging around block edges to hide block artifacts) --- something that is 'easy' to spot when placed next to the original.

In time, if we watch enough video, the artifacts will become easier to recognize.


um...I was talking about lossy audio in that post you replied to, not video.

I've found no evidence that lossy audio artifacts are getting easier for consumers to hear...if anything rather the opposite.

While the voices, music, etc. could have been improved, I'm not sure I could definitively say what amount of difference I heard in the amount of time I viewed (though I might with better speakers). What I CAN say is that several of the sounds were definately more (and while I still like my use of the word "defined", I'll change it to) "lifelike".

"lifelike" isn't the word I'd used to describe movie special effect sounds. Most of the times, the sounds are change/enhanced to give a bigger impact. They are exaggerated. I won't argue that you are hearing more, but I'd argue that it makes it less "lifelike". ;)

As for the topic at hand, in my simple testing if I try real hard I can hear a slight, very slight difference. I'm really limited by my equipment and room though. It's definitely not a "WOW" difference.

I still want loseless though. Just 'cause. :)

John

...if I try real hard I can hear a slight, very slight difference... It's definitely not a "WOW" difference.

I still want loseless though. Just 'cause. :) Me too! :o

And this thread keeps going and going and going. Isn't it great that someone tells you what your hearing..............Yep, we have just IMAGINED that lossless audio is better. Yep just keep saying that if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile we will just keep enjoying Dolby True HD and DTS MA. To each their own.:cool:

And this thread keeps going and going and going. Isn't it great that someone tells you what your hearing..............Yep, we have just IMAGINED that lossless audio is better. Yep just keep saying that if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile we will just keep enjoying Dolby True HD and DTS MA. To each their own.:cool:


What's fascinating is the way some people insist that whatever they think they heard, must be real -- as if sighted bias were just something scientists made up.

Marketing types LOVE people like you, it's easier to sell stuff when no pesky hard evidence, like bias-controlled comparison, is required.

The question you should be asking yourself is, how do you KNOW that what you are hearing is a real effect. (Your answer so far: "I just know.")

What's fascinating is the way some people insist that whatever they think they heard, must be real -- as if sighted bias were just something scientists made up.

Marketing types LOVE people like you, it's easier to sell stuff when no pesky hard evidence, like bias-controlled comparison, is required.

The question you should be asking yourself is, how do you KNOW that what you are hearing is a real effect. (Your answer so far: "I just know.")

could you please post some links to the scientific evidence you have to support the assertion that people can't hear the difference between DD, DD+, or DTHD? i'd love to see some scientific studies that specifically support this. so far we have nothing more than anecdotal evidence from both sides...

could you please post some links to the scientific evidence you have to support the assertion that people can't hear the difference between DD, DD+, or DTHD? i'd love to see some scientific studies that specifically support this. so far we have nothing more than anecdotal evidence from both sides...
Such a test does not exist since no one in the industry has a motivation to run it. And magazines haven't seen the need either.

But there is testing for lossy codecs and that might provide some insight here. This is an example: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

Here is their conclusion:

"With the possible exception of the USB Key that survived a washing and drying cycle, no other Maximum PC Challenge has ever surprised us as much as this one. It’s downright humiliating, in fact, that in many cases, we were unable to tell the difference between an uncompressed track and one encoded at 160Kb/s, the bit rate most of us considered the absolute minimum acceptable for even portable players. "

By the way, you can doubt some of the things they did in the test. But don't doubt the humiliating part :). I once participated in a magazine test of lossy codecs and you quickly lose the chip off your shoulder when you struggle to tell some tracks apart from the original. The codecs are designed to fool you and fool you good :).

The idea that wikipedia 'definately' [sic] should never be used for reference, is absurd. Wikipedia is not quite the free-for-all you imagine it to be. Some wikipedia articles are written by experts in their field. Good wikipedia articles cite their sources. And as with ANY reference, it helps to know something of the material going in, so that you can tell 'good' from 'bad'. If you're going to tell me that those wiki articles are 'bad', meaning I don't know what I'm talking about, you should demonstrate that you DO. Did you even bother to read the articles, or did you dismiss them out of hand because they're in wikipedia?I did read them, and they were well written. I actually used some of the reference links as legitimate sources and read those as well. I do have an open mind and understand the principles and theories you are speaking of. Those sources also identify that the 20-20 range you mention is not absolute and is dependent upon other variables such as temperature and sound pressure levels. While I don't necessarily have an issue with the information provided that you referenced, I still strongly disagree that should be used as reference. If you follow some of the aganda oriented topics that get rewritten daily, you might understand why. The HD DVD and Blu-Ray articles that were bombarded with propoganda from both sides with a few "contributers" (and I use that term lightly) taking ownership and posting rumor and biased information and parading it as encyclopedic. As I said before, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. I mentioned 2 pages ago that I was through debating you, and you claimed I was using "straw hat" arguments and called me a quitter because I have no argument. On top of that, you then labeled everyone who disagrees with you a self-proclaimed audiophile/gear snob. Me not continuing to persue this conversation any longer has nothing to do with me not having anything to add. Personally I just prefer not to debate or discuss this issue any further with someone who is as rude as yourself in discussion.

By the way, you can doubt some of the things they did in the test. But don't doubt the humiliating part :). I once participated in a magazine test of lossy codecs and you quickly lose the chip off your shoulder when you struggle to tell some tracks apart from the original. The codecs are designed to fool you and fool you good :). Amir, out of curiousity... which do you think is the bigger dupe of consumers within the past 5 years...

Lossless codecs, or progressive scan DVD players?

By the way, testing music is much easier than movies. As was just mentioned, there is no sense of what is "real" in movies as there is with music. I suspect you can detect the fidelity of a guitar string better than an explosion....

emgesp: "Check out the movie "300", and if you can't hear a difference between the PCM track against the standard DD, then in deed you must be deaf."

"in deed"

Well, indeed, you should state your argument with a little less hostility.

Amir, out of curiousity... which do you think is the bigger dupe of consumers within the past 5 years...

Lossless codecs, or progressive scan DVD players?

The biggest dupe of consumers is the sales job that 640k DD is just as good as lossless. For the same price, you are getting the audio with information missing.

I did read them, and they were well written. I actually used some of the reference links as legitimate sources and read those as well. I do have an open mind and understand the principles and theories you are speaking of. Those sources also identify that the 20-20 range you mention is not absolute and is dependent upon other variables such as temperature and sound pressure levels.

And very much on age! Documented hearing goes out to about 24 kHz, in children and very rare adults. But even hearing out to 20 kHz, at normal levels of playback, is very rare, as I said. It's highly unlikely that all the people reporting that they hear differences between DD/DTS and lossless are actually hearing 'lost' high frequencies.


While I don't necessarily have an issue with the information provided that you referenced, I still strongly disagree that should be used as reference. If you follow some of the aganda oriented topics that get rewritten daily, you might understand why. The HD DVD and Blu-Ray articles that were bombarded with propoganda from both sides with a few "contributers" (and I use that term lightly) taking ownership and posting rumor and biased information and parading it as encyclopedic. As I said before, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. I mentioned 2 pages ago that I was through debating you, and you claimed I was using "straw hat" arguments and called me a quitter because I have no argument. On top of that, you then labeled everyone who disagrees with you a self-proclaimed audiophile/gear snob. Me not continuing to persue this conversation any longer has nothing to do with me not having anything to add. Personally I just prefer not to debate or discuss this issue any further with someone who is as rude as yourself in discussion.

Absolute listening thresholds, and psychoacoustics, are not 'agenda oriented' topics. You can always examine the discussion page for each wiki entry if you want to see what's going on.

Second, I gave you the most authoritative, non-wiki reference right on top of my list, which you haven't addressed at all.

Third, the term is 'straw man'.

It was implied that the very idea that we know limits of human hearing, is questionable. This is an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance of available research results. In fact a lot IS known about limits of human hearing -- not surprising, as it's a topic of a hundred years of study. Lossy codecs themselves are the product of much research into this field.

Well,

Krabapple has a system that would not allow him to sample the pleasures of lossless...So, why not just say that it is impossible for all others to hear lossless as well. Moreso, when the majority of folks here (an enthusiast's site) can see there is an improvement over lossy, he argues even harder. Obviously, you think everyone else is dumb / or succumbed to marketing but you are the only smart one here on this site that knows the truth.... I am sure it helps him when he listens to various soundtracks with his NHT Super Cubes through his receiver. If he imagines even harder, those NHTs may become Wilson's....;).

I wonder if there would be interest in a list of discs that only has 640k DD? It would alert people to them, so they can make their purchase decisions accordingly. I would be willing to maintain that list.

The biggest dupe of consumers is the sales job that 640k DD is just as good as lossless.

What company is making THAT pitch? I see just the opposite...companies trying hard to make us believe that OF COURSE we'll hear the difference.
When the truth is, if the comparison were done fairly, a great many listeners wouldn't be able to.

Maybe companies should start including a disc of training samples, so listeners can become expert in hearing lossy artifacts. THEN they'd have a good basis for touting lossless.


For the same price, you are getting the audio with information missing.

What if you don't perceive the information anyway? Do you worry that your TV doesn't render the ultraviolet spectrum accurately?

There's good reasons for lossless -- primarily, it's 'archival' and therefore suitable for converting/storing in other formats, whereas starting with lossy limits what you can do with the data. All my CDs are archived to
FLAC, and I use those to generate high-quality mp3s for my portable players.

Amir, out of curiousity... which do you think is the bigger dupe of consumers within the past 5 years...

Lossless codecs, or progressive scan DVD players?
If by progressive scan you mean the "1080p" claims then that is bad. If you mean the generic concept, I think that was a fine thing to do in DVD players by taking advantage of the (then) digital path to do inverse telecine.

And I think lossless codecs are great for music. I don't rip music any other way.

I think the real issue here is for consumers to get educated. And then decide what value there is. The appeal of "believing" implicitly here is just too strong to remove objectivity at times. All some of us trying to do is say, "hey, pause a bit and consider a few factors." Once there, you can still believe :). But do so after you remove the marketing angle and that is designed to work so well on enthusiasts.

The world of audio is full of things of benefit and things of not. It is how that industry works. It is no different in digital age and when applied to video. How many of you think a $100,000 speaker is something you must own? Or that it will sound 100 times better than your speakers? I am sure many of you roll your eyes when here someone say they must have $100K spearkers or else. That is how I feel when I hear "give me 24-bit or else" or "wow, lossless movie sound is X times better than lossy."

So even if you really believe now, just for a moment, consider if the opposing view may be right. And then go do a couple of tests. Have a friend or family member test you blindly and see how you do. If you hear the difference, then great. If you don't, you can still keep it to yourself and not tell us :D.

By the way, testing music is much easier than movies. As was just mentioned, there is no sense of what is "real" in movies as there is with music. I suspect you can detect the fidelity of a guitar string better than an explosion....

None of the audio codecs available comes even close to the real thing.

Remember that belief is the most powerful force in the universe. If you believe something then it is true to you no matter what the facts may be.

'True to you' is a curious concept. How do you define 'delusion' then?

I'm not sure where the argument is going but if most had an option on the disc of DD or lossless audio options, they'd choose lossless. Why not?

So, when I am listening to the soundtrack, I know I am hearing the closest thing to the master tape. That, for enthusiasts, is a good thing and truly allows you to evaluate your set up and make improvements based on the reference software..

Such a test does not exist since no one in the industry has a motivation to run it. And magazines haven't seen the need either.

You're telling me companies that develop methods of compressing audio have no motivation to commission a study that you are absolutely certain will show their methods produce results indistinguishable to the master? Interesting...

I see a simple option that would satisfy both camps since adding a TrueHD track doesn't cost any extra in price or data rate.
Again, that is not the only issue. Many people have expensive processors which don't have HDMI yet. I was in that camp until I bought the D-2 (which I hate from UI point of view compared to my Lexicon 12B). As I have said before, you are going to get lossless tracks for most titles so that is not the source of angst. It is the issue of spending thousands of dollars on a processor if people think they are missing on something big....

None of the audio codecs available comes even close to the real thing.

No commercial audio formats yet offered -- from edison cylinder to high-rez 7.1 -- accurately render 3-D spatial information -- and that's what you need for 'the real thing'. It's the future of audio.

What if you don't perceive the information anyway? Do you worry that your TV doesn't render the ultraviolet spectrum accurately?


But why pay the same price for less information? The simple fact is that given the same mix, bit-depth and sampling rate, a lossy track may sound worse than lossless, but the reverse cannot occur.

Again, that is not the only issue. Many people have expensive processors which don't have HDMI yet. I was in that camp until I bought the D-2 (which I hate from UI point of view compared to my Lexicon 12B). As I have said before, you are going to get lossless tracks for most titles so that is not the source of angst. It is the issue of spending thousands of dollars on a processor if people think they are missing on something big....

Is the the forum having some gremlins. My post that you quoted showed up in another thread and I could not even find this thread. Now the thread is back but my post is gone.:confused:

You're telling me companies that develop methods of compressing audio have no motivation to commission a study that you are absolutely certain will show their methods produce results indistinguishable to the master? Interesting...


He didn't say 'absolutely certain'...no scientifically minded person would.

But I'll go out on a limb and predict that such studies would likely show that the vast majority of people tested, on most encoded material, can't tell source from compressed copy, if the encoding was high-quality. But 'Dolby Digital -- It's GOOD ENOUGH!" hardly makes for a ringing advertisement.

You're telling me companies that develop methods of compressing audio have no motivation to commission a study that you are absolutely certain will show their methods produce results indistinguishable to the master? Interesting...
No, I am saying that the same company offers both lossy and lossless and as such, have little interest in running a test which may show lossless to have less value over lossy than people think right now. Let's review who owns what:

Dolby TrueHD. Yes, it was invented by Meridan but Dolby is the licensing agent. And they make good old Dolby Digital.

DTS-MA. DTS cooked up this one. And of course, they also offer DTS.

So sure, if the lossless codec had come from a different company, then there would be interest in running tests to show it being better. Or the other camp running tests to show there is no benefit. But neither DTS or Dobly would gain anything from such a test no matter the outcome.

Even companies behind high-resolution lossless audio -- Meridian for DVD-Audio and its HT descendents, Sony for DSD - have never published such studies. Meridian's white paper (and JAES article) ond DVD-Audio is a brilliant example of talking AROUND the issue -- outlining reasons why high-rez 'should' sound better than Redbook, for example, but never actually getting around to demonstrating that it DOES. Which you'd think would be easy, if the difference was that great!

No, I am saying that the same company offers both lossy and lossless and as such, have little interest in running a test which may show lossless to have less value over lossy than people think right now. Let's review who owns what:

Dolby TrueHD. Yes, it was invented by Meridan but Dolby is the licensing agent. And they make good old Dolby Digital.

DTS-MA. DTS cooked up this one. And of course, they also offer DTS.

So sure, if the lossless codec had come from a different company, then there would be interest in running tests to show it being better. Or the other camp running tests to show there is no benefit. But neither DTS or Dobly would gain anything from such a test no matter the outcome.

You forget all those music download services. Companies like Apple, Real, Napster, MSN, Yahoo, Walmart, MusicMatch, etc... all have reason to support such a study. If they can prove that people can't tell the difference then they can market their product as "just as good as the real thing™".

You forget all those music download services. Companies like Apple, Real, Napster, MSN, Yahoo, Walmart, MusicMatch, etc... all have reason to support such a study. If they can prove that people can't tell the difference then they can market their product as "just as good as the real thing™".
Those studies already exist as I just posted regarding Maximum PC. They all show what they like. That is, the curve is highly exponential and flattens as soon as you go above 128kbps.

And none of these people take you all seriously :). There just isn't enough of you to make a difference and if there is one constant, it is the fact that high-end audio doesn't make any business sense to get into. While at Microsoft, I did my best to support lossless services like Music Giants. But seeing how you did not even list them above :), it sadly proves the point that even for music where there is some benefit to lossless, it is relegated to dusty shelves of retail when it comes to make real money from it. If there is one thing Microsoft people are probably happy about, is me not being there to pester everyone about high-end audio and video :p.

'True to you' is a curious concept. How do you define 'delusion' then?

It's not curious or delusional. Take the solar system for example. Before 1543 everyone believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. If you asked the smartest scientist if the earth was the center of the solar system they would say yes that is the truth.

If 5 people witness a crime all 5 may have different versions of the event. Each one is the truth to that witness because it is what they believe. So you can have different versions of truth but there are no versions of facts.

Those studies already exist as I just posted regarding Maximum PC. They all show what they like. That is, the curve is highly exponential and flattens as soon as you go above 128kbps.

And none of these people take you all seriously :). There just isn't enough of you to make a difference and if there is one constant, it is the fact that high-end audio doesn't make any business sense to get into. While at Microsoft, I did my best to support lossless services like Music Giants. But seeing how you did not even list them above :), it sadly proves the point that even for music where there is some benefit to lossless, it is relegated to dusty shelves of retail when it comes to make real money from it. If there is one thing Microsoft people are probably happy about, is me not being there to pester everyone about high-end audio and video :p.

that's not a study, that's 4 guys and a pair of headphones...

that's not a study, that's 4 guys and a pair of headphones...

Hope that is not anything like 2 girls and a cup.:eek:

No commercial audio formats yet offered -- from edison cylinder to high-rez 7.1 -- accurately render 3-D spatial information -- and that's what you need for 'the real thing'. It's the future of audio.

With the real thing'' I meant the explosion. :)

Guitar strings are not a problem for most audio codecs at all. :eek:

Microphones and speakers are holding us back. :o

that's not a study, that's 4 guys and a pair of headphones...
That test was miles ahead of the reports being furnished here. These are the things that make it superior:

1. It was on music. Music is much harder than movie on codecs.

2. They allowed people to bring their favorite music. Nothing remotely is possible here and tilted the odds heavily in favor of lossless/high-bitrate audio.

3. They ran the tests blind. Note that in non-blind tests, participants were pretty sure they could tell things apart. But somehow, when the tests were done blind, their ability to do so disappeared into the wind!

4. They used high quality headphones which are miles better than 99% of the speakers people use which are subejct to room effects. The Sennheiser HD 580 is an excellent headphone, used by many audio professionals. There are only couple of grades above it. I assure it is far more linear and revealing that speakers folks have.

5. Each ear heard one channel. This is key as other channels can serve to mask compression artifacts.

6. Per above, stereo testing is more revealing than 5.1.

Also, keep in mind that even the bests tests are subject to debate. They always have flaws. But they are better than not doing them.

that's not a study, that's 4 guys and a pair of headphones...

For pete's sake, nowadays it's easy enough to ABX (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX)test your OWN ability to hear lossy vs lossless differences. Rip your favorite tracks from CD, convert to mp3 or AAC or other lossy codec with the best encoder you can find (e.g. LAME (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame)), and use WinABX (http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/), the foobar2K ABX tool (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Preferences:Components_(List)), or other software comparator to mdo a double-blind comparison of original to source.

There are many ABX results posted to hydrogenaudio.org, by people who care about sound quality and are genuinely curious about what they can and can't hear. Some are from large-scale (http://www.rjamorim.com/listening-test-en.html) 'public listening tests'. They've been used to tweak mp3 codecs. Most of the large scale tests are done at low bitrates (128 and lower) for the simple reason that that's where the storage space-saving is greatest, and where the 'differences' tend to be most audible; most people who try do not succeed in passing an ABX at higher bitrates.

It's turtles all the way down.

"lifelike" isn't the word I'd used to describe movie special effect sounds. Most of the times, the sounds are change/enhanced to give a bigger impact. They are exaggerated. I won't argue that you are hearing more, but I'd argue that it makes it less "lifelike". ;)

I didn't say the sound effects were "lifelike", I said (each time) that the sound effects sounded "more 'lifelike'". Yes, often the sounds are changed/enhanced to give a bigger impact, but surely Disney didn't tinker more with the Dolby Digital track than they did the PCM track? I would think they would be the same... just with more compression on the DD5.1 track.

"As for the topic at hand, in my simple testing if I try real hard I can hear a slight, very slight difference. I'm really limited by my equipment and room though. It's definitely not a "WOW" difference.

I still want loseless though. Just 'cause. :)

As I said, I did hear a "WOW" difference, but I agree with your "Just 'cause" statement nonetheless! :)

~Alan

Can we please get back on the subject of lossless vs. lossy?

I'm actually interested in the posts about that...

~Alan

Interestingly, even though the test I ran a while back had an error in it (in effect duplicating a lossy track), the number of people who could not tell a straight PCM rip of a CD from lossy encodes of the same passage was quite interesting...

It would have been more of interst if those testing had systems capable of resolving such. But there was no control for that, no positive controls, and, well, no controls at all. It was simply a 'let's see what happens' sort of thing. Not to be critical, but it was more like a pilot study than anything else. Glad you tried it, it took effort to do and it was more than anyone else has done to try and get some confirmation on this.

Funny stuff ....

I agree that all things being equal, lossless sounds better than lossy, but things are often not equal and in the practical application of home theater (and surround-sound music systems) the SUBTLE differences can easily be lost.

Most people simply cannot tell the difference - we can criticize their system or their ears, but for them the 'truth' is in the hearing (or not hearing). It has long been my contention that BOTH SACD and DVD-A failed as mass-market audio formats precisely because the vast majority of people heard no difference.

Just my 2 cents.

... all things being equal, lossless sounds better than lossy, but things are often not equal and in the practical application of home theater (and surround-sound music systems) the SUBTLE differences can easily be lost.

Most people simply cannot tell the difference - we can criticize their system or their ears, but for them the 'truth' is in the hearing (or not hearing). It has long been my contention that BOTH SACD and DVD-A failed as mass-market audio formats precisely because the vast majority of people heard no difference...

Well put. :cool:

Would someone be willing to offer an approximate price threshold for a system that has the ability to audibly demonstrate the difference between lossy and lossless, say +/- $1000 US for total system?

Something like this would be helpful as well:

Speakers: >$xxx.xx/each
Pre/Pro: >$xxxx.xx
Amplification >$xxx.xx x 7

...or something to that effect.

This may help some members determine whether or not they should be chasing something that is out of reach due to system/budget limitations. This may have the added benefit of informing some members of the best upgrade path to reach the desired system response.

Would someone be willing to offer an approximate price threshold for a system that has the ability to audibly demonstrate the difference between lossy and lossless, say +/- $1000 US for total system?

Good intentions but not possible. Anyhow, you forgot the more important pieces of the puzzle: the room and its acoustics, speaker layout, EQ if any, mastering of the disc, the hearing and experience of the end user.

This is hilarious. People wanting to know how much it costs to hear lossy vs lossless! As if throwing more money at it, would circumvent sighted bias issues and other issues involved in 'telling' lossy from lossless. (It won't.)

Folks, if you REALLY want to get good at telling lossy from lossless:

1) invest in a good pair of headphones.

2) download 'codec killer samples' from sites that cater to lossy codec developers such as http://ff123.net/ .. You can also learn there about what artifacts (http://ff123.net/training/training.html)to listen for. There's also a CD available with samples of perceptual encoding , I have it at home, but don't have the info handy right now (will post later).

3) encode downloaded .wav music as lossy -- ideally at various bitrates of Dolby Digital or DTS stereo, but that's out of the question for most , so mp3, AAC, etc, will have to do.

4) using a decent soundcard (or run digital out from your computer to your HT system) and , headphones, and an ABX software comparator (which will tally your score for you)
, see if you can tell the lossy from lossless 'killer' samples. Once you can do that, try it on some of your favorite music.

5) If you find you've gotten good at ABXing lossy from lossless, at high bitrates, with lots of different kinds of music, THEN, maybe, you stand a better chance of actually hearing DD/DTS lossy vs lossless artifacts. But to be sure, for any given case, you'll STILL have to use blind methods, and you'd STILL have to be sure the overall levels are matched, and you'd STILL have to know for sure that the mastering/EQ wasn't purposely tweaked to make one sound better than the other.


But ask yourself -- do you really WANT to be able to hear this stuff? Because in the event you develop a high-precision talent for discriminating lossy from lossless, you run the risk of being truly 'bothered' every time
you play a DVD with a lossy track (analogous to training yourself to see screen door effect -- which is MUCH more obvious than the best lossy vs lossless difference)

But ask yourself -- do you really WANT to be able to hear this stuff? Because in the event you develop a high-precision talent for discriminating lossy from lossless, you run the risk of being truly 'bothered' every time
you play a DVD with a lossy track (analogous to training yourself to see screen door effect -- which is MUCH more obvious than the best lossy vs lossless difference)

I curse the bastard that has made me spend tens of thousands of dollars just becuase of this...

People wanting to know how much it costs to hear lossy vs lossless! As if throwing more money at it, would circumvent sighted bias issues and other issues involved in 'telling' lossy from lossless. (It won't.)


Hello Krabapple,

Please let me clarify, I did not ask how much it costs to hear the difference, I asked what the '...price threshold for a system that has the ability to audibly demonstrate the difference between lossy and lossless...' Clearly not the same thing, as it is extremely difficult to buy better hearing or experience in detecting lossy artifacts. Also note, I purposely used the word system in my post so not to limit the approximation to only electronics.

Hope that is not anything like 2 girls and a cup.:eek:
OMG!!!

:eek::eek::eek:

I just googled that!

Now I wish I hadn't!

Hello Krabapple,

Please let me clarify, I did not ask how much it costs to hear the difference, I asked what the '...price threshold for a system that has the ability to audibly demonstrate the difference between lossy and lossless...' Clearly not the same thing, as it is extremely difficult to buy better hearing or experience in detecting lossy artifacts.

Yeah, I was being sloppy with words. Put it this way: any 'demonstration' of something audible, implies someone being able to hear it. The minimum 'cost' of training yourself to hear lossy artifacts reliably, is whatever it costs to buy a computer, internet access, a low-noise playback system, and good headphones. Add to that, whatever your time is worth to you!

OMG!!!

:eek::eek::eek:

I just googled that!

Now I wish I hadn't!

I think we can all agree that it would NOT be improved by lossless HD.;)

um...I was talking about lossy audio in that post you replied to, not video.

I've found no evidence that lossy audio artifacts are getting easier for consumers to hear...if anything rather the opposite.

Ahh, sorry, read a few threads and got lost in the sequence of posts. My mistake.

This is hilarious. People wanting to know how much it costs to hear lossy vs lossless! As if throwing more money at it, would circumvent sighted bias issues and other issues involved in 'telling' lossy from lossless. (It won't.)

Folks, if you REALLY want to get good at telling lossy from lossless:

1) invest in a good pair of headphones.

2) download 'codec killer samples' from sites that cater to lossy codec developers such as http://ff123.net/ .. You can also learn there about what artifacts (http://ff123.net/training/training.html)to listen for. There's also a CD available with samples of perceptual encoding , I have it at home, but don't have the info handy right now (will post later).

3) encode downloaded .wav music as lossy -- ideally at various bitrates of Dolby Digital or DTS stereo, but that's out of the question for most , so mp3, AAC, etc, will have to do.

4) using a decent soundcard (or run digital out from your computer to your HT system) and , headphones, and an ABX software comparator (which will tally your score for you)
, see if you can tell the lossy from lossless 'killer' samples. Once you can do that, try it on some of your favorite music.

5) If you find you've gotten good at ABXing lossy from lossless, at high bitrates, with lots of different kinds of music, THEN, maybe, you stand a better chance of actually hearing DD/DTS lossy vs lossless artifacts. But to be sure, for any given case, you'll STILL have to use blind methods, and you'd STILL have to be sure the overall levels are matched, and you'd STILL have to know for sure that the mastering/EQ wasn't purposely tweaked to make one sound better than the other.


But ask yourself -- do you really WANT to be able to hear this stuff? Because in the event you develop a high-precision talent for discriminating lossy from lossless, you run the risk of being truly 'bothered' every time
you play a DVD with a lossy track (analogous to training yourself to see screen door effect -- which is MUCH more obvious than the best lossy vs lossless difference)

What is the point to all that? Just stick with lossless, and know with 100% certainty that for the same mix, the same bit-depth, same sampling rate, and the same alignment of the planets, or whatever else you want to throw at it, that lossless is never worse than lossy, and has the potential to be better.

What is the point to all that? Just stick with lossless, and know with 100% certainty that for the same mix, the same bit-depth, same sampling rate, and the same alignment of the planets, or whatever else you want to throw at it, that lossless is never worse than lossy, and has the potential to be better.

But knowing people are listening and believing that lossless sounds better makes my popcorn taste stale.:( :D:D:D

I suggested you only 'go through all that' if you really want to know the truth about your 'hearing' of lossy. And I further suggest that if you don't go through all that, DON'T make claims about how lossy sounds inferior to lossless based on typical sighted, untrained comparison at home.

Lossless as a 'foolproof' or 'failsafe' choice is a different argument, and I have no quarrel with it for those who suffer from anxiety that they *might* hear lossy artifacts. But even it's no guarantee against the wackiness of 'audiophiles'; I've seen some argue that they hear a difference between a lossless compressed track, and its uncompressed counterpart! :rolleyes:

I'd also note that the vast majority of DVDs out there are still sporting...lossy soundtracks. The horror!


Btw, the training CD I mentioned earlier is called Perceptual Audio Coders: What to Listen For; it was published by the AES Technical COuncil in 2002.

Just to chime in that if the technology is there, I see no reason for anyone not to want lossless. If the last ounce of quality is in the nuance, then it may not be astoundingly noticeable, but why wouldn't you want it?

What is the point of this discussion? I don't think I could consistently ABX 256 kpbs AAC from Apple Lossless, but since the space is available and lossless is identical to the original, I rip all of my music in lossless and decode to 256 for the iPod. If someone else is happy with 128 kpbs MP3, should that limit my options for lossless? For me, the same logic holds true for Blu-ray releases. If we're expected to spend extra money on the format, then deliver the best quality possible, every time.

OMG!!!

:eek::eek::eek:

I just googled that!

Now I wish I hadn't!

No kidding. That was the nastiest thing that I have ever seen. :eek:

I sure hope four guys and a pair of headphones was nothing like that. ;)

I've seen some argue that they hear a difference between a lossless compressed track, and its uncompressed counterpart! :rolleyes:


That's the crowd you need to spend your time going after, because I've see that ridiculous argument made as well.

....I rip all of my music in lossless and decode to 256 for the iPod...
I almost only allow lossless (because that is about all I have at about 400GB's) on any of my iPods. Almost no lossy for me. ;)

It would have been more of interst if those testing had systems capable of resolving such. But there was no control for that, no positive controls, and, well, no controls at all. It was simply a 'let's see what happens' sort of thing. Not to be critical, but it was more like a pilot study than anything else. Glad you tried it, it took effort to do and it was more than anyone else has done to try and get some confirmation on this.

And if you can't resolve it, in your listening environment... ;)

If people paid half as much attention to acoustics, speaker placement, fighting WAF, and working towards a dedicated room than they do about codecs, compression, resolution, or watts, we would have some more really nice systems here.

....You didn't all of a sudden decide to spend money on audio when HD formats came, did you?
Yes and I have proof. Notice the then prototype 13" HDTV that forced to to buy my first audio system.;)


http://photos.imageevent.com/williamjulien/hometheater/huge/stereo%202.jpg

Funny stuff ....

I agree that all things being equal, lossless sounds better than lossy, but things are often not equal and in the practical application of home theater (and surround-sound music systems) the SUBTLE differences can easily be lost.

Most people simply cannot tell the difference - we can criticize their system or their ears, but for them the 'truth' is in the hearing (or not hearing). It has long been my contention that BOTH SACD and DVD-A failed as mass-market audio formats precisely because the vast majority of people heard no difference.

Just my 2 cents.

Good points, but I contend that the vast majority of people never heard of or cared about DVD-A or SACD to begin with. If it weren't for the multichannel aspects of the two music formats, or the extra care that the studios generally put into them, I probably wouldn't care very much about those formats either. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with a well-mastered CD.

Some off-topic posts have been removed.

Just to chime in that if the technology is there, I see no reason for anyone not to want lossless. If the last ounce of quality is in the nuance, then it may not be astoundingly noticeable, but why wouldn't you want it?... Certainly if you have the capability to reproduce lossless, there would be no reason not to use it. But if it's a question of replacing otherwise satisfactory equipment solely for the purpose of reproducing a lossless format, it's a different issue. Those with sufficient resources may wish to pursue that "last ounce of quality" at any cost; those on a budget must weigh whether they would get sufficient return from their upgrade dollar.

Someone who was planning to buy new equipment anyway may be well advised to be sure it provide lossless capability, but for others, its a dubious reason to upgrade.

Some off-topic posts have been removed.
Glady to see you left the important stuff like 2 girls and a cup!

:D

Thanks for the interesting discussion fella's. It's a great question about what level any of us could really distinguish a difference in the quality of the source material. As this discussion is about multiple channel (5.1-7.1) and not stereo I have a couple of questions.

1. What would be more important the difference between Dolby Digital and the TrueHD format, or the difference between an optimally calibrated setup and an unoptimized setup.

2. What do you think would sound better an Onkyo TX-SR705 7.1 playing back in Dolby True HD or a Lexicon RV-8 playing back in Dolby Digital on identical speakers?

I am curious to hear your thoughts. I am no expert in these matters but it seems like there are so many variables to consider in this discussion and such subtlety in the differences it is difficult to draw any conclusion absolutely. Just because something should sound better does not make it true and the reality is we perceive differences typically when we think we should. The blind studies deny us our biases and give a more objective truth. I think there may be more important factors than just the bit rate. Should you buy a new reciever to have lossless audio, or would you have a better experience if you invested in better speakers instead?

If people paid half as much attention to acoustics, speaker placement, fighting WAF, and working towards a dedicated room than they do about codecs, compression, resolution, or watts, we would have some more really nice systems here.


Bingo!...Bing. ;)

If people paid half as much attention to acoustics, speaker placement, fighting WAF, and working towards a dedicated room than they do about codecs, compression, resolution, or watts, we would have some more really nice systems here.

Who said that most people here didn't pay attention to those aspects? There are plenty of people posting here who have sensible systems in an environment that is acoustically treated and configured in a way that is optimal. I doubt many AVS members have their systems in an open living room with some speakers being blocked by furniture in order to satisfy WAF requirements.

I do agree that I have seen some otherwise nice systems negatively impacted by less than ideal acoustics and "improper" use of post-processing. However, I suspect those who desire lossless audio already have a nicely configured audio system and the sense to understand that lossless audio isn't a magic bullet to providing the ultimate in fidelity.

Certainly if you have the capability to reproduce lossless, there would be no reason not to use it. But if it's a question of replacing otherwise satisfactory equipment solely for the purpose of reproducing a lossless format, it's a different issue. Those with sufficient resources may wish to pursue that "last ounce of quality" at any cost; those on a budget must weigh whether they would get sufficient return from their upgrade dollar.

Someone who was planning to buy new equipment anyway may be well advised to be sure it provide lossless capability, but for others, its a dubious reason to upgrade.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I had HD DVD without the capability to listen to HD audio codecs and still enjoyed the movies. For a myriad of reasons I needed an AVR and upgraded to 1.3 with the ability to decode all. I'm glad to have those codecs, but would not advise anyone to part with their current equipment for the sole purpose of accessing HD audio.

Thanks for the interesting discussion fella's. It's a great question about what level any of us could really distinguish a difference in the quality of the source material. As this discussion is about multiple channel (5.1-7.1) and not stereo I have a couple of questions.

1. What would be more important the difference between Dolby Digital and the TrueHD format, or the difference between an optimally calibrated setup and an unoptimized setup.

The latter.


2. What do you think would sound better an Onkyo TX-SR705 7.1 playing back in Dolby True HD or a Lexicon RV-8 playing back in Dolby Digital on identical speakers?


No comment.


I am curious to hear your thoughts. I am no expert in these matters but it seems like there are so many variables to consider in this discussion and such subtlety in the differences it is difficult to draw any conclusion absolutely. Just because something should sound better does not make it true and the reality is we perceive differences typically when we think we should. The blind studies deny us our biases and give a more objective truth. I think there may be more important factors than just the bit rate.

There are. All the OTHER mastering choices, for starters -- what source was used, what EQ , dynamic range compression, noise reduction, level, were applied....


Should you buy a new reciever to have lossless audio, or would you have a better experience if you invested in better speakers instead?

Changing speakers is one of the sure ways to really notably change the sound of a system.

I were going to spring for gear capable of decoding the new lossless DVD soundtrack formats, it would really be for the new DVD high-def VIDEO formats (Blu-Ray, and the now defunct HD), which have more of a potential to make a significant perceptible difference, rather than for the audio 'upgrade'. Of course, there too, the actual quality of a given release depends heavily on the mastering -- it's possible for 'high def' video to look mediocre too.

Just to chime in that if the technology is there, I see no reason for anyone not to want lossless. If the last ounce of quality is in the nuance, then it may not be astoundingly noticeable, but why wouldn't you want it?

What is the point of this discussion? I don't think I could consistently ABX 256 kpbs AAC from Apple Lossless, but since the space is available and lossless is identical to the original, I rip all of my music in lossless and decode to 256 for the iPod. If someone else is happy with 128 kpbs MP3, should that limit my options for lossless? For me, the same logic holds true for Blu-ray releases. If we're expected to spend extra money on the format, then deliver the best quality possible, every time.


Agreed. The goal for me, as a post-production professional, calibrator/consultant, and as a HT enthusiast, is always for *me* to be the sole variable. It's like reaching Absolute Zero. Try to evolve to a point where the image and sound quality are solely limited by my ability to see and hear it.

Just as a photographer should remove the lens as a source of possible limitation buy having glass that can resolve finer detail than is capable on the film or the CCD (in the case of digital), I want to make sure that what I'm presented, either audio or video, is removing as many limitations as possible, within the constraints of the medium's technological abilities and my budgetary abilities.

If I have a choice, I will always and forever choose lossless over lossy because I know that one extra variable is being removed. Whether my ears can distinguish the difference between lossless and lossy makes no difference (and by my perceptions they can from many, though not all, mixes and tests I've conducted) -- one more variable has been removed.

Rick

Anyone who's also allowed the possibility that they were wrong, is excluded. :p[/QUOTE]


Brilliant!!

Certainly if you have the capability to reproduce lossless, there would be no reason not to use it. But if it's a question of replacing otherwise satisfactory equipment solely for the purpose of reproducing a lossless format, it's a different issue. Those with sufficient resources may wish to pursue that "last ounce of quality" at any cost; those on a budget must weigh whether they would get sufficient return from their upgrade dollar.

Someone who was planning to buy new equipment anyway may be well advised to be sure it provide lossless capability, but for others, its a dubious reason to upgrade.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I had HD DVD without the capability to listen to HD audio codecs and still enjoyed the movies. For a myriad of reasons I needed an AVR and upgraded to 1.3 with the ability to decode all. I'm glad to have those codecs, but would not advise anyone to part with their current equipment for the sole purpose of accessing HD audio.

Hi,

At the risk of seeming to speak for the original poster, I believe this exchange quoted above represents the essence of this thread. The original poster did an experiment at a friend's home in an attempt to determine whether there was a sufficient improvement to justify investing in a upgrade to his system.

Sure, it's a NO-BRAINER if you already have a lossless setup, by all means feed your system lossless content. That's what I would do. However, a number of us AV Science forum members following this thread have more than merely adequate rooms, but very little in the way of science has been offered to convince us that an investment in new equipment would actually yield perceivable results in a truly scientific comparison.

To the contrary, most of the those members who have been kind enough to offer their observations nevertheless have actually struggled to even describe the subtle distinctions.

I suspect before investing further in new gear (especially when I love the processor I have) I'm going to have to do something that inertia has inhibited me from doing all this time. :o That is, I'm going to be forced to hook-up the analog inputs to my processor and listen to 5.1 channel music and see if I can hear a difference, in a "good" room with "good" equipment and "bad" ears. ;) No, I would never trade my lossy 7.1 setup for a lossless 5.1 setup, but I might be induced to spend the money for an upgrade if, in what appears to be an improbable event, I heard a clear improvement on 5.1 music.

Larry

Hi,

At the risk of seeming to speak for the original poster, I believe this exchange quoted above represents the essence of this thread. The original poster did an experiment at a friend's home in an attempt to determine whether there was a sufficient improvement to justify investing in a upgrade to his system.

Sure, it's a NO-BRAINER if you already have a lossless setup, by all means feed your system lossless content. That's what I would do. However, a number of us AV Science forum members following this thread have more than merely adequate rooms, but very little in the way of science has been offered to convince us that an investment in new equipment would actually yield perceivable results in a truly scientific comparison.

To the contrary, most of the those members who have been kind enough to offer their observations nevertheless have actually struggled to even describe the subtle distinctions.

I suspect before investing further in new gear (especially when I love the processor I have) I'm going to have to do something that inertia has inhibited me from doing all this time. :o That is, I'm going to be forced to hook-up the analog inputs to my processor and listen to 5.1 channel music and see if I can hear a difference, in a "good" room with "good" equipment and "bad" ears. ;) No, I would never trade my lossy 7.1 setup for a lossless 5.1 setup, but I might be induced to spend the money for an upgrade if, in what appears to be an improbable event, I heard a clear improvement on 5.1 music.

Larry
Well put! :iagree:

At the risk of seeming to speak for the original poster, I believe this exchange quoted above represents the essence of this thread.
I agree, and I am the OP.

Thanks to all who made the effort to post -- on every side of this issue -- my original curiosity has been satisfied, and it wouldn't bother me in the least if this thread were closed.

Its been a very interesting thread! Thanks for posting the questions Steven.

Sometimes we chase the last 10% of quality, and can't quite nail it down.;)

Agreed. The goal for me, as a post-production professional, calibrator/consultant, and as a HT enthusiast, is always for *me* to be the sole variable. It's like reaching Absolute Zero. Try to evolve to a point where the image and sound quality are solely limited by my ability to see and hear it.
So should we feed people VITC since it is also there in the master? Or shall we strip that because it might be "too much information?"


Just as a photographer should remove the lens as a source of possible limitation buy having glass that can resolve finer detail than is capable on the film or the CCD (in the case of digital), I want to make sure that what I'm presented, either audio or video, is removing as many limitations as possible, within the constraints of the medium's technological abilities and my budgetary abilities.
Every pro photographer that I know which shoots RAW, also sharpens the picture and most times, boost contrast. Many photographers used Velvia and other film before that for its overboosted colors. Photography is an art, it is not just for documenting events. As such, what the viewer sees, is artist's rendering of those events.

If I have a choice, I will always and forever choose lossless over lossy because I know that one extra variable is being removed. Whether my ears can distinguish the difference between lossless and lossy makes no difference (and by my perceptions they can from many, though not all, mixes and tests I've conducted) -- one more variable has been removed.

Rick
That is fine. But do you sit there upset if the movie sounds fantastic in lossy, because someone didn't give you lossless? That is what is going on here it seems and something that doesn't seem right to me. If the presentation meets its objective of entertaining you, like the above photographs with boosted color and contrast, then the objective has been met.

Now, if we are talking about music, that is another matter. But for movies, there is way, way too much obsession with lossless relative to the value it provides...

Now, if we are talking about music, that is another matter. But for movies, there is way, way too much obsession with lossless relative to the value it provides...

Music plays a great role in movies soundtrack, there is no reason to compromise it now that we have a media that allows not too.

Every pro photographer that I know which shoots RAW, also sharpens the picture and most times, boost contrast. Many photographers used Velvia and other film before that for its overboosted colors. Photography is an art, it is not just for documenting events. As such, what the viewer sees, is artist's rendering of those events.


You are talking about 2 different things. How the artists arrives at his artistic vision is entirely his choice. He can boost contrast, strip bits, change resolution, whatever he wants to do. No one here has a problem with that.

But at some point he arrives at his final product, and that I want bit-identical. And if I am the artist, I have probably put in a lot of effort and is justificably proud of my final product, and I would want to deliver it to my clients exactly, not in some compromised fashion and hoping that they won't notice it.

Sometimes we chase the last 10% of quality, and can't quite nail it down.;)

But what is 10% to you, may be 50% to some of us. With lossless, I know I am getting exactly what the artists intended, not some percentage of it.

After sampling more than 50 top rated flicks, me and my friends unanimously agreed that Transformers (DD+), The Island (DD 640 Kbps), Die Hard 4 (DTS-HD MA), Black Hawk Down (LPCM) and 300 (Dolby True HD) boasts the best sound quality on various formats. The sound mixing done on Transformers is still the best.

Music plays a great role in movies soundtrack, there is no reason to compromise it now that we have a media that allows not too.
If the music plays a major role, then yes, by all means, treat it as music and demand lossless and equipment to go with it. Fanthom of the opera, etc. all fall in this category.

But a movie like Transformers? Was all that angst over lack of lossless justified?

At the other extreme, do I really care about lossless sound in Lost in Translation?

In music, if there is 5% extra quality, then it is 5%. In movies, if there is 5% extra quality in audio, it doesn't translate to 5% more quality as acting, story, picture, etc. all carry weight, reducing the final impact of that last bit of quality.

Again, no one is debating that lossless has a place. I voted for it in DVD forum for HD DVD for heaven's sake :). Even though at that time, it was going to cost extra royalties. A number of CE companies, objected heavily and had we and the studios and few other companies not supported it, it would not have been there today. The key is that the idea behind it was always for music and music oriented tracks. It was not put in place for every movie shot on DV tape or edited a thousand times.

My wish is this: if a movie sounds great, let that be the final judgement. Don't go demanding "24-bit" this, and "lossless" that. If it sounds great, the job is done.

You are talking about 2 different things. How the artists arrives at his artistic vision is entirely his choice. He can boost contrast, strip bits, change resolution, whatever he wants to do. No one here has a problem with that.
The sharpness increase is *standard* practice. It is not like adding fog, or colorizing a picture or some artistic addition. It is part of the wrokflow of every picture coming from my SLR camera and that of everyone who shoots with one in RAW. The JPEG image coming out of every camera including the professional ones have all of this processing added too (that is why the RAW image looks pale and soft compared to it). So if you are looking at a picture coming out of a camera, it is always processed.

Our goal here is to create a pleasing experience and a softer the image with lower contrast doesn't do that. We all eat Ice Cream knowing it is not good for us but since it tastes good, we do it! :)

But at some point he arrives at his final product, and that I want bit-identical. And if I am the artist, I have probably put in a lot of effort and is justificably proud of my final product, and I would want to deliver it to my clients exactly, not in some compromised fashion and hoping that they won't notice it.
Well, I gave an example of "bit perfect" not being good: VITC. Do you want those dancing dashes on the screen? Or do you want to filter them out before sending it to consumer?

I tested a "96Khz" HD DVD concert from Japan. It has a fixed hump in ultrasonic frequencies that sits there all the time no matter where you are in the track. No doubt, the person mixing the track couldn't hear it and left it there (could have been caused by the high voltage oscillator from a CRT set around the audio chain). Do I want them shipping me that noise which can cause my amp to run hotter, and potentially damaging my speakers? No. But hey, folks want bigger numbers so we get fed non-sense like this to sell titles. I would take a proper 48Khz track over such practice any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

So let's become educated consumers. Let's learn what lossless is, and what lossy is. Raise your hand if you can explain to me how lossy audio works. I bet 1% of the people who demand lossless, can't tell me what happens in a lossy codec. It is a bit like shopping for a performance car but not knowing anything about engines :). As the OP asked, go and test yourself and know whether it really matters to you beyond the label on the box. Then, and only then, are you an educated consumer. Until then, you are pray for marketing folks selling you high frequency noise instead of real, high quality reproductions :).

And hey, while you are at it, let's learn how lossless audio works too! If you want to be esoteric about it, it could actually sound different than PCM! Yes, it is possible. Now there. And you thought it was all a matter of a black and white label!

Bravo , amirm

Steve Burke wrote:
But what is 10% to you, may be 50% to some of us. With lossless, I know I am getting exactly what the artists intended, not some percentage of it.

Just having the word 'lossless' attached to it, is by no means a guarantee that you get what the artist intended. All CDs are 'lossless' LPCM -- do modern remasters, where dynamic range has been severely reduced compared to the master tapes, represent 'exactly what the artist intended'? Lossy/lossless is just one factor of a larger presentation, and with today's lossy codecs, a rather small factor at that. And for commercial DVDs , I'm sorry, there is almost no way that lossy vs lossless is going to be responsible for '50%' of the perceptible difference from version to version. On the other hand, traditional MASTERING considerations -- selection of source, EQ, levels, dynmics controls -- very likely would.

We've seen this shuck again and again -- a new format 'promising' better sound, but the actual mastering hardly taking advantage of that. If consumers want better-sounding movie releases, their top priority should be to demand the best mixing and mastering available, rather than the highest bit depths or sample rates in the delivery format.

Again, no one is debating that lossless has a place. I voted for it in DVD forum for HD DVD for heaven's sake :). Even though at that time, it was going to cost extra royalties. A number of CE companies, objected heavily and had we and the studios and few other companies not supported it, it would not have been there today.


I never thought of it from this angle. A company like Dolby has a vested interest that consumers believe lossy is just as good as lossless. If we all demand lossless, then they add very little value. Perhaps Sony was on the right track with their inclusion of only PCM as the lossless track - taken to the extreme, that is all they have to include, and eliminate DD altogether, and save on licensing costs.

My wish is this: if a movie sounds great, let that be the final judgement. Don't go demanding "24-bit" this, and "lossless" that.

I could probably live with that statement if DD is 1.5mbps. But with 640kbps, it just sounds like are lowering our standards once again to accomodate Dolby. First 1.5 mbps was good enough, and now 640 kbps is good enough.

In addition to demanding lossless and 24-bit, we should also be demanding "no more 640k DD".

If it sounds great, the job is done.

Because it may sound greater.

I never thought of it from this angle. A company like Dolby has a vested interest that consumers believe lossy is just as good as lossless. If we all demand lossless, then they add very little value....

I could probably live with that statement if DD is 1.5mbps...

Dolby also has vested interest in lossless. They have MLP and TrureHD that are lossless products. Also DD is limited to 640Kbps. To go higher you need a different codec like DTS or DD+.

With lossless, I know I am getting exactly what the artists intended, not some percentage of it.

That is so delusional. Your playback chain is entirely different from the studio's. What you hear at home is nothing like what the artist heard at the studio or in his/her own system. You sound like the classic case of an audiophile who is listening to the system more than the music. I've been down that road before and it's no fun.


-- a new format 'promising' better sound, but the actual mastering hardly taking advantage of that. If consumers want better-sounding movie releases, their top priority should be to demand the best mixing and mastering available, rather than the highest bit depths or sample rates in the delivery format.

This deserves mention because it is one of the smarter things said in this entire thread. I've said before that mastering is the most important determinant in SQ. I have no idea how it's done but i'm sure it is an artform. Just like there are good and bad in pro sports, not all sound engineers are the same. The delivery format has very little to do with the final SQ.

The sound mixing done on Transformers is still the best.

It was robbed of its Oscar. Truly sad.

That is so delusional. Your playback chain is entirely different from the studio's. What you hear at home is nothing like what the artist heard at the studio or in his/her own system. You sound like the classic case of an audiophile who is listening to the system more than the music. I've been down that road before and it's no fun.


Assuming you are correct, then those using lossy is even further away from the ideal.

BR already has the capability of giving us lossless audio with zero compromise to the video, so I believe that our first step should be the complete elimination of 640K DD. This is low-hanging fruit. Once that battle is won, we can move on to the video side, as Amirm suggested. One battle at a time.

It was robbed of its Oscar. Truly sad.

Transformers was robbed off 2 Oscars and yes it has the best SQ so far.

Amir,

I think you know where I come from, but let's let the lossless crowd have their choice as long as it is LPCM. Since the death of HD DVD I'm all for lossless LPCM since my lowly Philips BDP9000 will not do any high end codecs, ever! Screw TruHD and DTS HD MA. I want LPCM! Other than that, I'm right there with you. ;)

Jim

I am quoting from previous posts of 2 strong lossy supporters:

jameskollar: "I do agree that the 1.5mbps DD+ encode is superior to a 640kps DD encode"

Surely you wouldn't imply that 640k tracks are indistinguishable from TrueHD, would you?
Amirm: "No I wouldn't"

We should eliminate 640K DD, for many reasons. One of which is that it will stop Warner from releasing more BR titles with only a 640K DD track, a practice which continues to this date.

I have no preference as to how lossless is delivered, LPCM or TrueHD or DTS HD/MA (provided I can actually buy a player that internally decodes it). However if using LPCM means no royalty payments and thus lower cost, I am all for it. And since every BR player will handle LPCM, it may be a way of getting rid of 640K DD.

I am quoting from previous posts of 2 strong lossy supporters:

jameskollar: "I do agree that the 1.5mbps DD+ encode is superior to a 640kps DD encode"

Surely you wouldn't imply that 640k tracks are indistinguishable from TrueHD, would you?
Amirm: "No I wouldn't"

We should eliminate 640K DD, for many reasons. One of which is that it will stop Warner from releasing more BR titles with only a 640K DD track, a practice which continues to this date.

I have no problems with that (ok mostly). Lossy vs Lossless is now a moot point at least for me. If a BD DVD does not have a LPCM track, the best I can get is DD 640 which is ok but I would prefer DD+ at 640 or DD+ at 1.5. I have tested and heard the difference between DD 640 and LPCM on POC and even though I thought they were close, the LPCM tracks was better. If it had been a DD+ 1.5 track or even perhaps a DD+ 640 I do not think I would have heard any difference. Listen to the TruHD and DD+ tracks on Happy Feet on HD DVD. No difference. But now I am stuck with BD for future titles, hence LPCM unless I am willing to buy another BD player which is not likely in the near future.

This type of discussion should go to Hydrogen audio forum....

Assuming you are correct, then those using lossy is even further away from the ideal.

BR already has the capability of giving us lossless audio with zero compromise to the video,

home video is lossy..including Blu Ray.

...and DD.

See video being lossy or not, folks clamor to the best current means to display it... a 1080P24 projector.

Audio is no different, the best way to play the audio? Lossless...unless you prefer it flayed..

That is so delusional. Your playback chain is entirely different from the studio's.
Clearly the point was, that at least with a solid PCM set of tracks, the software is not likely to be one of the possible weak links.

...and DD.

See video being lossy or not, folks clamor to the best current means to display it... a 1080P24 projector.

The analogy is not apt. 1080p on a large screen, playing a high-resolution (by today's standards) DVD, has a pretty good chance of being visibly different from a lower-rez presentation on the same screen, at typical viewing distances.

But people 'clamor' for 1080p in 32-inch flatscreens that they're watching SD DVD and TV on, at typical viewing distances, too -- as if they could really see a difference between it and a 720p TV (not bloody likely). People are 'sold' on higher numbers whether those numbers make a difference or not.


Audio is no different, the best way to play the audio? Lossless...unless you prefer it flayed..

And again...it's not 'flayed' if you won't hear the flaying. Again, the 'lossiness' of DD/DTS is NOT the most likely source of audible flaying, by any means -- as a proper blind comparison would likely show. To be anxious over lossy vs lossless DVD soundtracks, is a rather silly allocation of audio anxiety resources. Good sourcing and mastering would be a more reasonable thing to obsess about.

But hey, keep chanting the mantra, those can be soothing too. :p

I very much doubt that even on AVS that less than 1% of people have a room which would allow you to here the difference between Lossless, and Non-Lossless formats. I'm certain more people could see the difference in the video of Maximum Disc Read Rate with and with out Lossy Audio, or worse Both encoded on the same disc.

When your explosions don't look as nice because a disc was mastered with all possible audio tracks for compatibility and Languages, don't say that I didn't warn you.

My display would show that amount of difference, but my open layout doesn't allow for that kind of audio, I'm not certain that over the sound of the fan on a PS3 that you could hear that difference.

When your explosions don't look as nice because a disc was mastered with all possible audio tracks for compatibility and Languages, don't say that I didn't warn you.


In BR discs, separate areas are reserved for audio & video. Whether the audio is lossy or lossless will not affect picture quality.

I very much doubt that even on AVS that less than 1% of people have a room which would allow you to here the difference between Lossless, and Non-Lossless formats. I'm certain more people could see the difference in the video of Maximum Disc Read Rate with and with out Lossy Audio, or worse Both encoded on the same disc.


IMO that is a misconception. One can easily hear the difference between lossy and lossless, you do not need high-end equipment or dedicated rooms. This is especially the case on BR, where the lossy is primarily 640K DD, a format so pathetic that it should not be allowed on HDM.

IMO that is a misconception. One can easily hear the difference between lossy and lossless, you do not need high-end equipment or dedicated rooms.

Why not ask your wife to help you conduct a test? You try to do some level matching first on a particular disc. Then get your wife to select a track. You listen. Then you leave the room and she can either change tracks, or not. You come back and listen. Do that 20 times, and repeat test 5x over the course of 3 weeks. Then compare notes.

Or consider this: For the next 20 new movies you watch that have DD640 and lossless, have her pick the track without you knowing. You watch the movie and at the end, write down if it's lossy or lossless. If DD640 is so "pathetic", it should be like comparing a cassette tape to SACD.

I have yet to discover lossless for myself as I am waiting for the Cary Cinema 11a. I have learned from experience that sighted tests are hopelessly biased. I used to think that differences between components and cables are "night and day." You focus so hard on one aspect of the sound, like "more air and more sparkle", and believe that the difference is massive. As soon as I didn't know what component was being used, I was lost. Furthermore, if i didn't know that I was being tested, you could have fed me and mp3 196 and I wouldn't think anything of it.

Kinda like comparing a diamond of D color (no color) and one of F color. It only serves to satisfy an obsession and wanting a "peace of mind."

In BR discs, separate areas are reserved for audio & video. Whether the audio is lossy or lossless will not affect picture quality....

Actually all data is in one stream. The stream can be up to 48Mbps. Of that 8Mbps is reserved for audio (video's max is 40Mbps). However you can have more than 8Mbps of audio but it eats into the maximum rate for video. Example: Audio tracks could be 14Mbps and then video could only max at 34Mbps. BD still has plenty of room for lossless audio and if you don't uses the 8Mbps reserved for audio in the stream you loses it.

When I first listened to lossless, I could have sworn the difference was tremendous. After that first time, I actually have to visually check just to make sure what I'm hearing is lossless. The reality is, the upgrade in AVR brought much more significant improvement to my system than the difference between lossy and lossless.

That being said, if lossless is available, I see no reason for studios to offer less on a premium product such as Blu-ray.

IMO that is a misconception. One can easily hear the difference between lossy and lossless, you do not need high-end equipment or dedicated rooms. This is especially the case on BR, where the lossy is primarily 640K DD, a format so pathetic that it should not be allowed on HDM.

It's super easy to do...in a sighted comparison. :p

And so, any review in the history of DVD that ever raved about the sound...when the DVD sound was 'pathetic' 640kbps DD...must've been just plain wrong. :rolleyes:

Why not ask your wife to help you conduct a test? You try to do some level matching first on a particular disc. Then get your wife to select a track. You listen. Then you leave the room and she can either change tracks, or not. You come back and listen. Do that 20 times, and repeat test 5x over the course of 3 weeks. Then compare notes.

To make it more rigorous, she has to leave the room before you come back in, without seeing you in passing. It's easy to be influenced subconsciously by the 'proctor'. That's why the best tests are double-blind: Neither the tester nor the testee knows which choice is currently on tap.

But even with this protocol, you still don't know whether the two versions were PURPOSELY tweaked to sound different or not -- as has notoriously happened on some hybrid SACD/CDs for example. Unless you can be sure of that, you can't say for sure where the differences comes from, even if you pass the blind test.


I have yet to discover lossless for myself as I am waiting for the Cary Cinema 11a. I have learned from experience that sighted tests are hopelessly biased.

True dat

Why not ask your wife to help you conduct a test? You try to do some level matching first on a particular disc. Then get your wife to select a track. You listen. Then you leave the room and she can either change tracks, or not. You come back and listen. Do that 20 times, and repeat test 5x over the course of 3 weeks. Then compare notes.

Or consider this: For the next 20 new movies you watch that have DD640 and lossless, have her pick the track without you knowing. You watch the movie and at the end, write down if it's lossy or lossless. If DD640 is so "pathetic", it should be like comparing a cassette tape to SACD.



Why do the testing? Lossless is never worse than lossy, and could be better (at the same bit depth, sampling rate, and same master). No testing needed. I will spend the time watching movies and listening to lossless instead.

Why do the testing? Lossless is never worse than lossy, and could be better (at the same bit depth, sampling rate, and same master). No testing needed. I will spend the time watching movies and listening to lossless instead.

Hi Steve,

Yes, as was stated earlier, its a no-brainer, if someone already has a lossless setup all this effort would be an academic exercise.

Obtaining scientific studies has value to those of us who have not already taken the plunge, to those who are interested in learning about the science, or those who wish to gain a more objective perspective on what degree of improvements are likely to be heard under controlled conditions.

Larry

Why do the testing? Lossless is never worse than lossy, and could be better (at the same bit depth, sampling rate, and same master). No testing needed. I will spend the time watching movies and listening to lossless instead.

You're seesawing between statements that are true ('lossless is never worse than lossless'...assuming all other things are EQUAL) and ones that are dubious ('/one can easily hear the difference between lossy and lossless'). And note that the first statement depends on the lossy vs lossless versions being OTHERWISE EQUAL in recording and playback. Otherwise it's not necessarily true,

And note that the first statement depends on the lossy vs lossless versions being OTHERWISE EQUAL in recording and playback. Otherwise it's not necessarily true,

Obviously. I am not going to play the game of "what happens if the lossy is 24 bits and the lossless 16 bits", or "listen to lossy with expensive equipment and lossless on a cheap system" or "different masters".

I'm only on page 8

It is not that simple. People want to know if they should throw out a perfectly good processor to get PCM/advanced audio units. I had to replace my $10,000 processor in the name of testing the darn thing :). I am not sure I would advise others who have spent that much money to go and buy a new processor if they can't hear significant difference.

This to me is one of the biggest reasons I prefer the player doing internal decoding and using the players analog outs w/ a reciever or pre-amp doing just simple pass through. After reading and reading, this set up seems the most future proof. Am I suppose to change my reciever or pre-amp, who's sound I very much enjoy, everytime there's a format change? I have yet to read any convincing argument to make that kind of financial commitment. Enjoying the latest audio formats, speaker distance settings and individual channel volume adjustments can be performed on the player and I have a pre-amp that can do volume adjusts on individual channels as well.

Please don't take this to mean I think everyone should do what I do, this is just what makes sense to me.

Cheers :)

But what is 10% to you, may be 50% to some of us. With lossless, I know I am getting exactly what the artists intended, not some percentage of it.

Whether or not I can scientifically hear the difference or not this too is my goal. And if the sound engineer records on 48KHz and 24bits, that's what I want. I personally am pretty happy w/ the video quality of my DVD's. In fact a friend of mine lent me HBO's Rome in SD and the video was excellent. I only have a 50 in. PDP. So like Amirm says: (partially out of contexts)

If the music plays a major role, then yes, by all means, treat it as music and demand lossless and equipment to go with it. [Phantom] of the opera, etc. all fall in this category.

At the other extreme, do I really care about lossless sound in Lost in Translation?

I will not pay the BR premium for simple dialog oriented dramas. Now my disagreement w/ Amirm is that I will boycott the BR addition of Transformers if it does not have a lossless track. Rational or not this is my (total geek out) desire.

...You sound like the classic case of an audiophile who is listening to the system more than the music. I've been down that road before and it's no fun.

To me this is the fun part about the hobby. I don't swap equipment on a continuous basis. I still have my 2004 reciever and I'm purchasing a BR player only because my 7 year old DVD player just died. I just don't think it's right to claim listening to equipment is not fun.

Also, like what has been posted, I want good mastering too. Just don't talk me out of my religious bent (I mean fun ;) ), because (la-la-la-la) I don't want to hear it. Just kidding. This thread has been enjoyable and very informative. But none of it has convienced me that I shouldn't want a lossless track.

I'm only on page 8



This to me is one of the biggest reasons I prefer the player doing internal decoding and using the players analog outs w/ a reciever or pre-amp doing just simple pass through. After reading and reading, this set up seems the most future proof.


Not really. It's rare for any DSP to be applied to multichannel inputs. So even if your player does bass management and speaker distance correctly, you'll still likely miss out on digital room correction --- which makes big difference, and IS the wave of the future.

Not really. It's rare for any DSP to be applied to multichannel inputs. So even if your player does bass management and speaker distance correctly, you'll still likely miss out on digital room correction --- which makes big difference, and IS the wave of the future.

I'm one of those kooky minimalists that I'm sure irritate you ;) , and I want as little processesing done to the audio signal as possible. So I have little desire for DSP to the multichannel inputs and RTA room correction. I even run my speakers in LARGE so as not to have another crossover in the signal path. And just because new recievers have built in EQ doesn't mean having a pass through pre-amp and a player doing internal format processing isn't future proof. No matter what format comes down the line as long as the player does processing and has analog outs I can keep my favorite pre-amp and amp until they break.

Granted, if there's anybody out there in the San Diego, CA area that has a receiver that does RTA or even a seperate RTA unit I'd LOVE to hear it.

Danny Cruz :)
Oceanside, CA

Dcruse, take a listen to room correction. It is not processing as you know it. I have hooked it up to $10 PC speakers and it makes them sound incredible at times. The walls go away and the music becomes light and open.

There is a free room correction DSP in Windows Vista. So you can experiment with that if you don't want to jump in with both feet.

Mind you, the technology is not perfect but once you listen to it, it is hard to go back. One of the things at least my unit does (TacT) is full blending of subs with the other channels. The improvement in smoothness of the sub is amazing. You no longer notice it is there when you shouldn't....

[Drcruz], take a listen to room correction. It is not processing as you know it. I have hooked it up to $10 PC speakers and it makes them sound incredible at times. The walls go away and the music becomes light and open.

There is a free room correction DSP in Windows Vista. So you can experiment with that if you don't want to jump in with both feet.

Mind you, the technology is not perfect but once you listen to it, it is hard to go back. One of the things at least my unit does (TacT) is full blending of subs with the other channels. The improvement in smoothness of the sub is amazing. You no longer notice it is there when you shouldn't....

:o DARN IT! Truth time :o

I actually would consider a TacT on my subs, BUT I know they are EXPENSIVE. :eek:

Everytime I've experimented w/ messing w/ the MF / HF ranges (IOW's speakers in SMALL), I have not (subjectively) liked the sound. It always seemed harsh and edgy. But everytime I've messed w/ blending the subs w/ the mains, it's hard to tell where the crossover point is, so using RTA on the LF range definitely sounds interesting to me. I am not oppose to measurements, but I have other upgrades I want done prior to putting a cool TacT in my system.

Cheers :)

But everytime I've messed w/ blending the subs w/ the mains, it's hard to tell where the crossover point is, so using RTA on the LF range definitely sounds interesting to me. I am not oppose to measurementsHence there are a bunch of users using a SPL meter's output connected to a PC running the freebie Room Equalizer Wizard (REW) to determine the real subwoofer room response and blending with the mains. Then sending the, computed by REW, parametric filters' (up to 24 channels) setup via MIDI to a stored preset in a Behringer Feedback Destroyer (BFD). Most use the DSP1124 but you can also use the FBQ2496 model.

But still often have to move the sub around in the listening room to find a location that avoids the worst frequency nulls.

Hi Steve,

Yes, as was stated earlier, its a no-brainer, if someone already has a lossless setup all this effort would be an academic exercise.

Obtaining scientific studies has value to those of us who have not already taken the plunge, to those who are interested in learning about the science, or those who wish to gain a more objective perspective on what degree of improvements are likely to be heard under controlled conditions.

Larry

Yes !

Art

Why do the testing? Lossless is never worse than lossy, and could be better (at the same bit depth, sampling rate, and same master). No testing needed. I will spend the time watching movies and listening to lossless instead.

Same for me:)

Hence there are a bunch of users using a SPL meter's output connected to a PC running the freebie Room Equalizer Wizard (REW) to determine the real subwoofer room response and blending with the mains. Then sending the, computed by REW, parametric filters' (up to 24 channels) setup via MIDI to a stored preset in a Behringer Feedback Destroyer (BFD). Most use the DSP1124 but you can also use the FBQ2496 model.

But still often have to move the sub around in the listening room to find a location that avoids the worst frequency nulls.

bobgpsr,

You've got (PM) mail. Put on your flame retardant suit!

Just kidding :D

You've got (PM) mail. Put on your flame retardant suit!No arguement from me with the Harman white paper's conclusion that "If cost and aesthetics are considered, subwoofers at 2 wall midpoints is preferred". :cool:

Now WAF is another matter with two huge subs...:(

You can overcome WAF if your a Saudi Prince.

No arguement from me with the Harman white paper's conclusion that "If cost and aesthetics are considered, subwoofers at 2 wall midpoints is preferred". :cool:

Now WAF is another matter with two huge subs...:(

You can overcome WAF if your a Saudi Prince.

Hi,

I'm not a Saudi Prince, but I was able to overcome WAF.
The column on the left contains a subwoofer and a surround speaker.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ycu4/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DSCN0287.jpg

Here's an inside view.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ycu4/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DSCN0291.jpg

Larry

Bobby-G, [bobgpsr]

I tried the "dog house" method for my 2 subs and it worked, but it took a while to get "forgiveness" :o ;)

It's super easy to do...in a sighted comparison. :p

And so, any review in the history of DVD that ever raved about the sound...when the DVD sound was 'pathetic' 640kbps DD...must've been just plain wrong. :rolleyes:

Agree it is not a night and day difference, but even with my Onkyo 805 and Def Tech setup I can usually tell when I am listening to a lossy track vs. a lossless track. It's subtle, but I can usually pick it out. That is not to say that all lossy is crap, but lossless typically means a better end result.

Agree it is not a night and day difference, but even with my Onkyo 805 and Def Tech setup I can usually tell when I am listening to a lossy track vs. a lossless track. It's subtle, but I can usually pick it out. That is not to say that all lossy is crap, but lossless typically means a better end result.

Hi Craig,

Just to confirm, you are comparing 640 kbps lossy to lossless?

Could you try to describe these subtle differences?

Thanks very much.

Larry

Correct. It is 640kbps to uncompressed PCM or Dolby TrueHD.

I could try and describe it through audiophile adjectives like airiness, fullness, richness and such but I am sure someone will flame me for it. Again it is subtle and I can pick it up most of the time. It may come down to the fact the DD tracks have a compressed sound (less dynamic range and muddy dialog) on the tracks I have heard.

I don't claim to have golden ears, but there is something there. Now does the law of diminishing returns apply here? Yes I am sure if you keep cranking up the bitrate on the lossy codec it will become more difficult to pinpoint. But again at least on BD space is not an issue so why would you not want a lossless track in place of a lossy one. Even if not advertised both Dolby's and dts' lossless options have legacy support built-in.

I could try and describe it through audiophile adjectives like airiness, fullness, richness and such but I am sure someone will flame me for it. Again it is subtle and I can pick it up most of the time. It may come down to the fact the DD tracks have a compressed sound (less dynamic range and muddy dialog) on the tracks I have heard.

Hi Craig,

Thanks I appreciate this is a very difficult task.

However, according to Amir, and I have no reason to doubt his expertise, lossy and lossless have the same frequency response and dynamic range, so you are probably reacting to some other stimulus.


I don't claim to have golden ears, but there is something there. Now does the law of diminishing returns apply here? Yes I am sure if you keep cranking up the bitrate on the lossy codec it will become more difficult to pinpoint. But again at least on BD space is not an issue so why would you not want a lossless track in place of a lossy one. Even if not advertised both Dolby's and dts' lossless options have legacy support built-in.

To answer your perhaps rhetorical question, because not all of us have lossless setups, buying new audio gear enters into the realm of diminishing returns, for what, as you have aptly noted, are very subtle, difficult to describe improvements.

Larry

Hi Craig,

Thanks I appreciate this is a very difficult task.

However, according to Amir, and I have no reason to doubt his expertise, lossy and lossless have the same frequency response and dynamic range, so you are probably reacting to some other stimulus.



To answer your perhaps rhetorical question, because not all of us have lossless setups, buying new audio gear enters into the realm of diminishing returns, for what, as you have aptly noted, are very subtle, difficult to describe improvements.

Larry


That's fine that you don't necessarily want to upgrade to new gear. But I don't think we should abandon the move to lossless on new media because some are unwilling to buy new gear.

Now as far as Amir goes... He does have some valid points, but he has been known to work like a political spinster from time to time. I will give him credit that he works hard to prove his viewpoint.

That's fine that you don't necessarily want to upgrade to new gear. But I don't think we should abandon the move to lossless on new media because some are unwilling to buy new gear.

Hi Craig,

Nowhere in any of my postings have I made the argument that others should abandon lossless. What has been expressed here, and in other threads, is a desire to get an objective view of the improvements.


Now as far as Amir goes... He does have some valid points, but he has been known to work like a political spinster from time to time. I will give him credit that he works hard to prove his viewpoint.

I find your characterization of Amir totally out of line, but more importantly irrelevant. Do you agree, or not that the dynamic range is the same in lossy and lossless? If so, it does not matter what you think of Amir's style.

Larry

What has been expressed here, and in other threads, is a desire to get an objective view of the improvements.

Larry


A very very important post and a point that over and over and over gets ignored by so many paranoid defensive tirades.

Art

Lossles audio has a crunchy quality.

I find your characterization of Amir totally out of line, but more importantly irrelevant. Do you agree, or not that the dynamic range is the same in lossy and lossless? If so, it does not matter what you think of Amir's style.


Amir told some pretty big white lies during the format war. I'll just leave it at that.

Dynamic range may be theoretically the same, but I think sometimes when the tracks are encoded some sacrifices are made so tracks downmix to 2.0 easier. Look back at the early days of comparisons between DVD and AC-3 on LD. The lower rate AC-3 tracks typically sounded more dynamic than its DVD counterpart. The original Matrix DVD lacked something the AC3 track had.

So it may be the mix used and the defaults settings on the encoders used why lossy is easier to spot now between 640 and lossless on BD.

I just know on my system that I can typically tell the difference between 640 and lossless.

If you want scientific proof, I can't offer any. But do you agree that DD and other lossy codec throw data away.

I know when SACD was being released there were studies floating around why you needed or did not need an audio source with a frequency response greater than 20kHz. What was discovered again? People can't hear above 20kHz BUT they can hear the harmonics from the higher frequencies that fall into the human audible range.

Like anything else I am sure you can find a study to validate your position, but don't be surprised if another study contradicts the first.

Like anything else I am sure you can find a study to validate your position, but don't be surprised if another study contradicts the first.So why don't you start and find one and then maybe your tirades will be worth something...

Diogen.

A very very important post and a point that over and over and over gets ignored by so many paranoid defensive tirades.

Art

This coming from someone who stated in another thread that BD will never be a success unless it matches numbers of the most successful CE format in history, DVD. Again that bar is pretty high Art.

I never said that lossy is useless, but again it is just there as a stopgap until lossless hardware is the rule and not the exception.

If you don't want to upgrade fine, but don't think for a minute that a several thousand dollar lossy processor is going to magically replace those lost bits so you are essentially hearing lossless. Hell maybe someone should investigate if $10000 processor or hand tuned DACs are really discernable between the garden variety processors and Burr Brown DACs in mid-fi components.

Who is going to spend the time to investigate this? Hardware companies? They want you to spend to upgrade. Software/Codec companies? They want you to spend to upgrade. There are far more pressing issues that need investigation than if lossy is 'good enough' compared to lossless.

Lossles audio has a crunchy quality.

Yeah, it takes longer for the milk to make it soggy. :)

So why don't you start and find one and then maybe your tirades will be worth something...

Diogen.

Five years ago, AVS members were drooling over the possibility of lossless audio being available on the next gen format.

I don't know if you were around when DVD started, but many that were used to UNCOMPRESSED PCM2.0 on LD were initially let down by 192-448kbps DD on DVD. I am one those users. Search the archives you will find more than one thread where LD fans were disappointed with lossy DVD tracks when compared to the LD PCM counterpart. Scientific? Maybe not but there were many early HT fanatics that viewed lossy multichannel discrete audio as one step forward, two steps back.

The only way to truly settle this is decide for yourself. If you hear a difference fine if not get your ears cleaned ;)

Lossy sounds better than lossless if you play lossy on an expensive system and the lossless on a $20 system. After all, the equipment matters.

Lossy also sounds better than lossless if the lossy master is from a modern movie and the lossless is from the 1920s. After all, the mix matters.

Lossy also sounds better than lossless if the lossless listener just stood next to a jet engine for an hour. After all, the listener's hearing matters.

Lossy also sounds better than lossless if the lossless is listened to in a wind tunnel. After all, the listenig environment matters.

Lossy also sounds better than lossless if the lossy is 24/96 and the lossless is 8/16. After all the sampling rate and bit-depth matters.

My 80 year old granny is also a better golfer than Tiger Woods if you tie him up and feed him sleeping pills.

One of the favorite tricks of those arguing that lossy sounds better than lossless is by doing apple to orange comparisons. If you do that, you can prove anything you want.

Enough bickering. This topic is closed.