How is compression evil ? Why should we avoid it ? I'd rather have a FLAC compressed file than an uncompressed file anyday. Saves space.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Had 'Worked On' Offering a High-Definition Music Format
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is compression evil ? Why should we avoid it ? I'd rather have a FLAC compressed file than an uncompressed file anyday. Saves space.
It always makes me laugh that people spend £200, £300, £500+ and more on 'high quality' speaker and headphones to listen to compressed music! Those Dr Dre ones are just pure marketing genius.
It doesn't surprise me that Mr Jobs listened to vinyl, the quality is amazing. Also something which is often overlooked is that audio is an analogue medium, as is vinyl so the 'interpretation' of the format is very small. Digital sources require analogue to digital conversion, so the 'interpretation' is much greater and therefore open to flaws. If it ain't broke, why even try to fix it?
I'm still listening to music through a traditional stereo and there is no comparison. The ipod mini I have is used in the car only, and it's great but it's no high fidelity device!
It doesn't surprise me that Mr Jobs listened to vinyl, the quality is amazing. Also something which is often overlooked is that audio is an analogue medium, as is vinyl so the 'interpretation' of the format is very small. Digital sources require analogue to digital conversion, so the 'interpretation' is much greater and therefore open to flaws. If it ain't broke, why even try to fix it?
I'm still listening to music through a traditional stereo and there is no comparison. The ipod mini I have is used in the car only, and it's great but it's no high fidelity device!
Maybe I just don't have dog ears.[/QUOTE]
Dog Ears -- Funny. Just wait until you are over 45. Can't hear anything over 9k Hz!
"Old age is a shipwreck"
Dog Ears -- Funny. Just wait until you are over 45. Can't hear anything over 9k Hz!
"Old age is a shipwreck"
Why? Something like 256Kbps AAC is transparent *enough* that listening through a decent quality amp and speakers will reap dividends over a standard pair of $5 earbuds.
Why save space? Space is not expensive. To each is own.
Ps: I still remember your predictions about the iPhone 5 arriving LAST YEAR11
Again, what is wrong with compressed music ? FLAC/ALAC are both compressed.
----------
Why not save space ? What's the difference between a FLAC file and an uncompressed file aside from the space saved by the FLAC file ?
Ps: I still remember your predictions about the iPhone 5 arriving LAST YEAR11
This is on-topic how ... ? Do you also remember the disclaimer I accompanied them with ?
Because it sounds worse and will show up what is missing from the dynamic and richness of the original source. I will concede for most people, they won't notice and that underlines my point - why chase quality that simply isn't there - perceivable or actual?
Your output is only going to be as good as your source. Adding a higher quality set of speakers or headphones is either going to make no difference (to those who wouldn't notice) or just show up the flaws in the compressed format (to those who do notice).
It's the most important part of your setup. And the part that truly makes a difference. Second most important is your room, by the way...regardless of whether you're listening to AAC256kbps or SACD.
That makes no sense.
You're overestimating the flaws in AAC256kbps (for example).
My point was that the output quality of 256k AAC as a source *exceeds* that of many standard and low end listening systems. I've ABX'd 256AAC and FLAC through some reasonable equipment (Metric Halo ULN2 feeding Adam P11a monitors), and I struggle to tell the difference on a heap of source material.
That wasn't my experience at all. I don't care how well you care for your vinyl collection, you can never totally get all the hisses and pops out. Vinyl is just too high maintenance. And I remember my first CDs and listening to music that I had heard on vinyl before. It was quite the opposite experience that some people are claiming. I heard things in the digital form that I never had heard in the vinyl recording. Plus let's face it...vinyl records are very heavy and bulky. I could never lug my collection to someone else's party. But with my digital forms, I can.
And in the car, what we have now is definitely an improvement. I can still remember listening to 8 track tapes that would stupidly break a song right in the middle. Now THAT was a horrible listening experience.
Nothing. It depends on the amount of compression. I agree FLAC is a pretty decent format as was ATRAC - some of the recording in those formats are glorious, full of life and do stand up to scrutiny.
For most people, they wouldn't notice the difference, so I guess it doesn't matter what I think - except to me. Personally, and I do mean personally feel free to disagree, I can tell the difference. That diminishes the pleasure of listening to the music, which to me is a big deal. I would sacrifice convenience over quality every day when it comes to music.
Mr/Dr Dre says his 'beats' let you hear music as it was intended in the studio. Well if that music leaves the studio and is then stripped of some of it's audio qualities in compression, how is this possible?
I was responding to a post that linked to a comparison, and in that comparison the wav was 24 bit - I was talking about that one wav file specifically.
You do realize there's a difference between lossy and lossless compression, right?
Let's just agree to disagree. I can hear the difference, so maybe it's just me.
In regards to vinyl being analogue as sound itself is, here's what I mean. Again, I'm not trying to score points. It's a bit esoteric, so as long as you enjoy your music it all becomes irrelevant.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
No, it doesn't. FLAC is FLAC. It's compressed. There is no "amount of compression".
Ahh, sorry. NP.
----------
At the risk of sounding pedantic again, there is in fact a variable amount of compression possible with FLAC. It certainly doesn't affect audio quality though and it remains lossless regardless of compression amount.
That wasn't specifically what I was disagreeing with. My point is that it is almost always worthwhile to upgrade your speakers (and your room). Even when you're listening to (high-quality) lossy files.
Horribly inaccurate article.
Pendantic indeed, unnecessarily verbose. My point was that a FLAC file is a FLAC file, no matter how much or little compression it has, it will sound the same. You're qualifying my statement further, stating the obvious if you will.
Wow... that's an absolutely awful article written by an idiot.
The author clearly knows jack about sampling theory and anti-aliasing filters.
Below half the sampling frequency (ie below 22.050kHz for CD) the waveform can be reproduced accurately with no 'stepping' at all.
If you don't find it worthwhile and prefer the smaller size, then there is not reason for YOU to have the higher quality file. But some people do find it worthwhile.
Well, unfortunately there is a lot of that.
Actually it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
And also. You lose a lot more of the original source through microphone positioning and room choice during recording and later mixing decisions than you lose through a digital conversion.
It doesn't matter...you stated something factually incorrect...anything that follows is weak cookie dough...
If I never hear the term pedantic ever again it will be too soon....
Here's the issue. THEY SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CHARGING MORE! The infrastructure costs are minimal. You should get the best possible version and be able to convert at will to anything less.
Do the artists not want the best possible version in the hands of their fans?
Do the fans not want the best possible fidelity - at least as an option? I can understand that for portable players space is at a premium (how much can you fit into 8GB?), but I ripped something like 200 CDs into ALAC to under 100GB. That takes up less than $15 of hard drive space, $30 including a single backup.
This seems to be the only industry (along with the MAFIAA) that charges MORE as technology has reduced their costs! They refuse to pass along the savings, but worse, they refuse to pass along any of the benefits.
Higher fidelity files released on SACD and DVD-A have largely failed due to their high price and DRM. They should have supplanted Red Book CDs years ago, but the providers have been too greedy.
Lossy compression has made a market for itself because of limitations to the technology of the past decade, which are rapidly disappearing.
There's no reason not to have "ear drum" quality files (as coined earlier in the thread).