Lossy vs. Lossless - Why You Can and Can't Hear Differences - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:5)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2024
- This month Apple Music is releasing a lossless-music tier. For audio enthusiasts, this is a good thing-better sound quality for no additional cost. But lately tech bloggers and others have been writing articles telling people that they won’t be able to hear the difference between a lossy and lossless music file. SoundStage! founder Doug Schneider doesn’t believe that’s true-and in this video, using Suzanne Vega’s song “Tom’s Diner” as an example, tells you why.
#apple #lossless #audiophile
Excellent job. Most of the time, it doesn't matter because we're listening to music on crap - in elevators, in cars, on cheap loudspeakers, over bluetooth, bouncing off walls and half-absorbed by furniture. But if I'm in my listening room or running it all through a decent DAC and a high-end pair of headphones, I can hear the smear of cheap audio. I'm very happy that, as time goes on, it's economically feasible to provide audio with as few compromises as possible.
I totally agree with you. First, the fact that for some subjective reasons one can’t notice the difference, doesn’t mean everyone else shouldn’t be allowed to have it (what kinda of selfish BS is that?). Second, where one can really notice the differences is in the high frequency range. Cymbals go way above our normal hearing capabilities, so even the lossless is lossy, but not in the same way as a mp3.
You can solve that problem by adding the missing ultrasonic frequencies back into the MP3 while listening to it. If you do that then the MP3 will sound better than flac and will be close to vinyl. I'm not sure you can do that with flac though.
Just what I was looking for, a greatly informative video on this topic related to the new Apple Music option. Thank you!
We're glad you enjoyed it! More to come...
Absolutely, cymbals are the biggest giveaway to lossy! The reason so many people don't hear the difference is because they don't "listen" to music, they just hear it, or rather, only listen to the lyrics or the guitar rift. One day, I was listening to Qobuz with some IEMs while working in the yard, not a critical listening environment at all! I stopped what I was doing because I thought something sounded wrong, I checked my phone, and Qobuz had dropped down to mp3 quality. So it has to be more than just a placebo. I've also tried some listening tests of my own, and I'd say at least 80% of the time I can hear the difference, even with 320k AAC. There is just so little reason to compromise with lossy music these days since we have tons of storage and bandwidth, two things that were very limited in the 90s. The only logical case for it is in streaming over cell data plans, and I'm fine with having less than perfect quality if I'm out somewhere using my limited data.
I also once thought lossless files were an unnecessary waste of hard drive space, until a couple of years ago when i was listening to one of my favourite artists ripped to MP3, via my DAW using RME's ToalMix software, when i could see the music was clipping.
It did'nt sound bad per se, but never the less it was still clipping.
So i decided to re-rip the the same cd to FLAC via EAC and voilà, the clipping was gone.
And that's what converted me to FLAC only from that point on.
I look at it similar to movies. Just like having friends over for movie night, if you're entertaining a house party with some people on regular to decent speakers (like maybe a DJ with 2 satellites and a sub) then Lossy is fine same as Netflix quality. If you're going to put on a show for a theater sized club event tho, then much like a movie theater you want the best possible resolution and quality for them. They're paying money, you're the person on the screen or stage, you should be giving them a quality experience they expect no matter what small added benefits you can provide. And if it's a festival without question, you're probably getting paid big at that point so why bother using MP3s anyways, you can afford the drive space and files when making 4-5 figures for a set?
Excellent. Thank you. You've got a new subscriber.
I agree, the average music consumer with their smartphone and Bluetooth headgear won’t be able to differentiate between lossy and lossless music. But, there are those of us, who take music listening and reproduction to the next level, who, in many cases will undoubtedly hear a difference.
Anyway, the point here is that Apple is providing it’s customers with the benefits at no extra cost, so, what’s the problem? With Apple Music having such a massive music library and huge customer bass, it will hopefully encourage many more people who appreciate well reproduced music to move up a notch with the components they use to listen, which can only be a good thing for both the end user and manufacturers. Plus, I seriously believe that Apple’s move will shake up and revolutionise the streaming services.
Great points!
Great content and a well-informed video. Great work. "No shit Jason!" lmao
A couple of caveats - All digital is lossy. It is sampling, at whatever rate. The term lossless is a relative one, meaning were more losses introduced than the 16.44 CD standard. The second is the use of lossy and compression together without distinguishing them. Yes, introducing more "lossiness" does make for a smaller file but literal compression (in the digital sense) is far less onerous than increasing the losses. I hear the difference between MP3 and CD quality pretty readily on any decent recording. But AAC (Apple's MP3) is far more onerous than ALAC (lossless compression, Apple's FLAC) to me. On a playback system that uses cached playback I'm hard pressed to hear a difference between ALAC/FLAC and the original "lossless" CD signal.
"all digital is lossy" no, that is not true at all. Look up the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem, digital sampling can perfectly reproduce the original sound source as long as the sample rate is twice the maximum frequency you want to reproduce.
People that prefer lossy files just like to hear the sound of their equipment rather than the music. I have 64 gig lossless music(24/96 and 24/192) and amazon music HD and l can tell anyone for free lossless sounds much better than anything l listen to on amazon music HD. I struggle to understand people that just can't see/hear this, as plain and obvious as it is. The vocals are clearer, the imaging is spot on, separation and even balance sounding is all in lossless. Once you start listening to lossy, the sound become v shape, the music is everywhere like a car crash with parts all over the road yet people think it's sound stage. Most of these headphones and speakers are actually working hard to reduce some of the inherent issues with lossy files like sibilance, harshness,lack of air, separation and mediocre clarity.This is why the speakers, earphones that could do a better job in these areas cost an arm and a leg.. Someone that's using 100 pounds speakers/earphone with a lossless file would be competing with someone on a thousand pound speaker/earphone listening to CD.
It depends on the song your listening. Classic rock we’re you are hearing the different instruments and vocals with cable headphones yes you can tell the difference. You can hear the detail of each instrument instead of a muddy mess
Imagine the nay sayers to lossless or Hi-Res music would use that same silly argument for drinking wine: There is no need for drinking wine because I am no sommelier and cannot distinct the different grapes.
Did that ever prevent one from enjoying wine? No of course not.
Excellent Video, Good Job Doug!
This is akin to the many who claimed that changing to better cables can't resulted in better audio reproduction with speakers. Well to those people who claimed that they can't hear the difference with lossy music, I say Congratulations! you saved monies on normal subscriptions such as Spotify Premium instead of spending more monies on so-called Hi-fi subscriptions! ;)
The only people who can be trusted to go with lossy over lossless are those who know how to do proper transcoding from the source material, understand what the two concepts entail, and know where audible transparency is achieved in any lossy codec.
I've never been able to tell the difference if the MP3 bit rate is 192K or higher. 128K MP3, no that's not good enough. I'd like to see any study where someone correctly identifies a lossless file vs a 320K MP3. I think you need to get it correct 5 out of 5 times in a blind test to be statistically significant.
I've seen people do double blind a to b testing where they were right half the time. It's pathetic really.
Why doesn't Doug prove his point by taking a test on video?
Lossless music is always better. If people don't need it don't buy it. Leave the rest of us who do want it alone. We love our lossless music and have the equipement to hear the difference.
It's still missing the ultrasonics present in live music. So calling flac lossless is always funny to me.
Right on!
Hey Brent, are you still reviewing audio? If so, where? Best regards!
I think what most people miss is the subtle cognitive load on our brains from listening to lossy vs. non lossy music. More than being able to tell the difference in A-B, you may just find over time you tire more and listen less with lossy formats.
I have a collection of FLACs and have recently upgraded audio wires in my system to QED's recent award winning ones. And the rest of the system is also midrange audiophile grade equipment. Not hi end but quite serious hi-fi. And quite often I listen to demanding tracks like electro/classical soundtracks, big band jazz with choir etc. And since streaming services became available I listen to these lossy streams much more than to my FLACs and generally listen much more and have more fun and I'd say I've never experienced that tiredness you're speaking about. Moreover I listen more and more through Bluetooth AptX (not HD) and I don't see it diminishing anything in the feel, dynamics, soundstage on any noticeable level. Maybe you should just get better equipment.
@@AntonMochalin That’s great to hear 😊 This is what it is all about!! Importantly I’m not dealing in absolutes, just offering up an opinion. I have the Sony WH1000xm3 and can for sure listen much longer and to less forgiving recordings over Bluetooth, than lossless over my hifi with speakers that are much more neutral and revealing. The Idea I’m putting forth is not my own, but one held by many audiophiles and mixing engineers. In fact it was first presented to me by someone who had this experience over time after switching from cd’s to iTunes (most likely in the days of 128bit AAC). He is a mixing engineer and later took a masterclass with Andrew Scheps (well regarded mixing engineer) who I believe also talks about this phenonomon, as well as about mixing and mastering different versions optimized for the compression of different streaming services. Best
@@thepickyaudiophile 128 kbps can really be a subpar experience for more complex music but the difference between lossless and eg 256 kbps is such that it's like you have a crash cymbal in a hard rock band and with lossless the cymbal becomes indistinguishable from the overall band sound maybe 6 seconds after it's hit and with MP3 5.8 seconds after the cymbal is hit - and that's the level when even with lossless you're not quite sure you're hearing it, maybe you just extrapolating its sound a bit forward. would you notice it just listening? no. could you notice it comparing back-to-back switching between lossless and MP3 version? sometimes. but it's definitely not tiring more or less. I'd rather say that people who think there's that big difference between lossy and lossless are just paying more attention to what they dislike in the sound when they listen to a lossy format.
and I'm speaking about listening through Bluetooth on the speakers + amp (Monitor Audio RX6 + Cambridge CXA80) which both are quite "neutral" and "revealing"
@@AntonMochalin We like what we like and if Bluetooth and lossy content makes you happy, this is all that matters (after all 44.1 cd is also lossless, we just decided it’s good enough that we call it lossless)! In my book this is not a game of right and wrong or absolutes anyway 🙂 Personally I’m just neurotic enough that I want to remove the compression variable from the equation. And some things I can definitely hear a difference.. for instance I have always really disliked the sound of Spotify, despite listening to their highest tier, where other streaming services at the same bitrate were fine. Go figure 🤷🏻
This is the kind of audiophile psuedo-science that makes me cringe and reminds me of people who read astrological horoscopes and take them seriously. There is no legitimate scientific explanation for why listening to lossy audio would make a person feel more fatigued than listening to lossless audio. It makes no sense.
I'm no one special, years in trucking and the oil fields, but I can sure tell the difference. Give me HiRes or Flac any day. Play these files on a good audio system, mine is pretty decent, night and day difference. I have not heard this quality lossy compression, but I sure have heard a lot of terrible recordings in AAC and or lossy. It is like WTF am I listening to?
For anybody who listen to music on an iPhone or their Mac, I have a budget friendly solution for all of you.
Apple sells a $9 Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack adapter. It features a built-in DAC that supports up to 24/48. Now that Apple Music supports lossless you don't need to purchase expensive headphones or extra fancy portable DAC's.
Spend the $9 and enjoy the music!
Doug, we old dogs now face the dilemma of arguing with the younger generations of non-audiophile music listeners who only go along with the "measured specifications" of audio equipment. We lost this battle. Decades ago it was the insistent position of Stereo Review - whose reviews of "everything sounds the same" - to keep the advertisers happy, to a few decades of respite from that bullshit (with the help of intellectually honest publications, including yours) ..... (NEWS! Mark Levinson amp sounds exactly the same as a Pioneer receiver! - Stereo Review sometime in the early '80;s). My God!
Now we are back at it with the millennials - only measurements matter - so don't trust your ears. BTW, we are also back at the impossibility of audio cables making a difference in audio performance. I give up. Let them wire their systems with Home Depot 14 gauge cable.
Old man yells at cloud.
How do you like those 100F or are they 120F Founder Paradigm speakers?? I’m thinking of ordering them in the same black walnut finish!!
Doug has the 100Fs in for review. The review will be published on SoundStageHiFi.com in July. Right now you can find a boxing of them on www.SoundStageGlobal.com
Yeah no shit I agree
The main problem with lossless (any of them) is the bandwidth requirement is beyond what bluetooth can do. That's a deal breaker for most applications. Maybe bluetooth 7 will be able to do it.
Just the fact that you had to make this video shows the bullocks going on in the world today. Do they even have dictionaries anymore 🤔
We're not 100% we're following what you're saying...
"Lossless" exactly that, not changed. "Lossy" rearranged, deranged, not true, manipulated. Hummm, which would I pick...