Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD (Read 79445 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #25 –
Audiophiles don't read Baudrillard, do they? 

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #26 –
I love to go to the Chapters bookstore to read Stereophile magazines for free and laugh at their articles. Then I put the worn out magazine back for some 'smart' Stereophile collector to buy. Sometimes I am tempted to believe that extremely ignorant people deserve to be ripped off.   

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #27 –
How people can take this stuff seriously just blows my mind! I'd be willing to bet that 95%+ of Stereophile's reader base couldn't identify one of those "non-CD quality" 320kbps MP3's from the source. LAME is getting so good these days (3.98b6) that even I am having problems ABX'ing former problem samples between -V2 and -V0.

Stereophile magazine deserves to be used like Sears catalogs were in days of old: to wipe one's ass. And even that's being generous.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Cygnus X1 on
Stereophile magazine deserves to be used like Sears catalogs were in days of old: to wipe one's ass. And even that's being generous.

That's not the joke as I remember it.

...but I was thinking about Stereophile being no more useful than any other magazine you keep around the toilet; definitely less useful than a Sears catalog.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Bourne on
I think it's very stupid saying MP3 is not CD quality. Most people can't distinguish CD from the lastest LAME at 128/CBR. I think these articles are very stupid they only speak of CBR modes, and ignore completely that V2 and V0 exist. They don't explain these things and make MP3 look very under-rated. It just confirms that these writers know "some" info about audio, but far from a complete understanding of it. I was fed up with latest Alan Wilder's sayings on MP3, that it was "poor" and "weak" and that the industry has "stepped down in terms of quality". I experienced this weekend playing some MP3's on some -real decent- home stereo, no distortions at all, and boy let me tell you, the better equipment the MORE difficult for you to say it's MP3 or not. These people should read HA.org before writing.


I can almost tell the difference approx. 85.something - 97% of the time (Strictly speaking of MP3 codecs).

I listen with the following... and sorry for all the jabber to follow but I'm on A.D.D meds and on a roll.. so bear with me ;p

I highly recommend the headphones detailed below as an audiophile/DJ/Studio/Etc..  You can wear them for hours and hours and not feel the pressure on your ears like most 'phones. Sometimes I'll be listening to music and I'll hear a noise that I can't distinguish from the recording or ambient noise. And NO, I don't work for them beyerdynamic... just a really happy consumer.

If anyone's interested they cost approx. 180-200 USD and well worth it.

Here's the page for 'em...
http://northern-america.beyerdynamic.com/e...e_pi1%5bshowUID

and PDF of the Datasheet:
http://northern-america.beyerdynamic.com/d...=DT250_DB_E.pdf


Studio Monitor headphones:
Brand/Model: beyerdynamic DT 250, 80 ohm

Technical Specifications:
Transducer type Dynamic
Operating principle Closed
Weight without cable 240 g

>> Frequency response 10 - 30,000 Hz <<

Nominal impedance acc. to IEC 60268-7 80 ? / 250 ? / system
Nominal SPL acc. to IEC 60268-7 100 dB
Nominal THD acc. to IEC 60268-7 < 1%
Power handling capacity acc. to IEC 60268-7 100 mW
Sound coupling to the ear Circumaural
Ambient noise isolation approx. 16 dB (A)
Average pressure on ear acc. to IEC 60268-7 4.5 N
Cable length 3 m


my 2 centz..  bleh

jay

Moderation: Fixed annoyingly long link.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #30 –
A quote from the article:
Quote
all compressed file formats, both lossless and lossy, effectively have zero data redundancy, they are much more vulnerable than uncompressed files to bit errors in transmission.


Can anybody explain what is "bit errors in transmission?" Transmission to a $1000 audio cable? Wow, that will teach people to buy $5000 cables instead.  BTW, here's the wiki of bit-error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_error
twitter.com/pika2000

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #31 –
Quote from: dehmmy on
I can almost tell the difference approx. 85.something - 97% of the time (Strictly speaking of MP3 codecs).

Hi and welcome. 

Please reread our Terms of Service, specifically #8.

Unless you've done a double-blind test in order to determine this and specify the details about the codec and settings used, statements like this are not taken seriously.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #33 –
Quote from: retro83 on
Quote from: pika2000 on

Can anybody explain what is "bit errors in transmission?" Transmission to a $1000 audio cable? Wow, that will teach people to buy $5000 cables instead.  BTW, here's the wiki of bit-error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_error


Do any uncompressed formats offer redundency?

At least mp3 offers the option of a crc, something that wav lacks.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #34 –
The insecure uncompressed audio CD offers surprising redundancy compared to compressed mediums like MiniDisc. A CD with errors ir very much listenable and the errors may even go unnoticed, while an error in compressed datastream will result in dropout of the entire frame or loud artifacts.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #35 –
Quote from: j7n on
The insecure uncompressed audio CD offers surprising redundancy compared to compressed mediums like MiniDisc. A CD with errors ir very much listenable and the errors may even go unnoticed, while an error in compressed datastream will result in dropout of the entire frame or loud artifacts.


I don't think that means that it offers redundancy, just that it is easier to reconstruct the missing/damaged data if an error occurs.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #36 –
Every code for detection and repairing of errors add certain amount of redundancy to data that it protects. In CDDA it's Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Code, a modification of RS code. For every 3 bytes of data, it adds 1 redundant parity byte.
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #37 –
Quote from: j7n on
The insecure uncompressed audio CD offers surprising redundancy compared to compressed mediums like MiniDisc. A CD with errors ir very much listenable and the errors may even go unnoticed, while an error in compressed datastream will result in dropout of the entire frame or loud artifacts.

What errors go unnoticed! You mean you can't hear some errors!? How is this possible!?

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #38 –
Using interpolation or repeating the last „good“ sample.

But this has gone way to much off-topic
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #39 –
Quote from: ech3 on
Quote from: citizenkeith on

Read it here:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/


Wasn't Stereophile the home of that Armor-All debacle from back in the 80s?

OMG, did they really recommend using Armor-All on CDs and/or LPs? As I understand it, Armor-All doesn't just coat the surface of plastic, it actually penetrates it to alter its physical properties. Sounds like it would make an awful mess.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #40 –
Quote from: dehmmy on
I can almost tell the difference approx. 85.something - 97% of the time (Strictly speaking of MP3 codecs).
mp3!=mp3. Details, methodology,proof. Where do "MP3 codecs" fail?

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #41 –
Quote from: eevan on
Every code for detection and repairing of errors add certain amount of redundancy to data that it protects. In CDDA it's Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Code, a modification of RS code. For every 3 bytes of data, it adds 1 redundant parity byte.


Yes indeed, but that is CDDA - with specific protection to suit the medium. I believe they are referring to the WAV and AIFF file formats offering protection over compressed formats such as MP3. Do either WAV or AIFF offer redundency?

Quote
Something I have rarely seen discussed is the fact is that because all compressed file formats, both lossless and lossy, effectively have zero data redundancy, they are much more vulnerable than uncompressed files to bit errors in transmission.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #42 –
Quote from: retro83 on
Do either WAV or AIFF offer redundency?
No, nor do flac, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TAK, shorten, ALAC, TTA or WMAL.  As was already mentioned many of these formats offer a verification checksum which don't normally exist in uncompressed formats.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #43 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: retro83 on
Do either WAV or AIFF offer redundency?
No, nor do flac, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TAK, shorten, ALAC, TTA or WMAL.  As was already mentioned many of these formats offer a verification checksum which don't normally exist in uncompressed formats.


MUST I point out that the reason that FLAC, WMA-Lossless, etc, all are shorter is because they remove redundancy?

Come on, now, guys!
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #44 –
Apparently so, lol.

Maybe we should have some fun with the part that says, "they are much more vulnerable than uncompressed files to bit errors in transmission."

...anyhow, you are absolutely right.  If a bit gets flipped in a compressed lossless format you'll lose thousands of samples (it might even completely break the file from that point forward).  If a bit gets flipped in an uncompressed PCM file, you'll simply change the value of one of the samples.

The only other point being is that none of the mentioned formats, whether they be compressed or uncompressed have any internal ability to correct themselves in the event of corruption of the audio data.  Wave and AIFF may be more robust, but they have no redundancy that allows for error correction.

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #45 –
Let us start streaming PAR2 files! Yay!

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #47 –
An error in transmitting an mp3 file will simply resynch at the next frame. If, on the other hand, one byte is lost in transmitting a wav file then the entire rest of the file will be misaligned, resulting in noise.
 

Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

Reply #49 –
whether wav or compressed offer redundancy is irrelevant.  error correction is specific to the communication or storage medium and belongs at a higher layer, in the transmission/storage protocol, not the file format.

hard drives have a built in error correction layer suited to hard drives, par2 is suited to most file-system-on-optical-disc storage, CDs have reed solomon, etc.  the codec doesn't need to know.

error recovery (how well a codec can recover from errors and keep decoding) is different, that belongs in the codec.  wav uncompressed PCM does better with single bit errors than a compressed codec where you might lose more than one sample.  but as pdq mentioned it's really bad with a single missing byte, much worse than flac.