Read it here:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/
Full Version: Stereophile Article: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
-
They used JPEG on the spectrum charts. That about sums it up what they know about data compression.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I notice that the added noise in the mp3 plot is flat across the audio spectrum. Doesn't this mean that the decoder output wasn't even dithered?
QUOTE(Bourne @ Mar 10 2008, 09:32) 
I think it's very stupid saying MP3 is not CD quality.
But it's a correct statement. MP3 isn't CD-quality even if it may sound no different to all listeners -- data is still lost. I suppose it depends on how you define 'quality' in this respect.
As expected, the article is rather senseless. I don't actually expect that Stereophile readers spend thousands on their equipment so that they can listen to test tones with supreme fidelity. I'd guess that Stereophile readers spend thousands to better enjoy music, and the article doesn't even attempt to touch upon the effects of lossy compression on actual music.
I think Atkinson's goal was to make it seem as if MP3 and AAC fail at the simplest of tasks and that they couldn't possibly be appropriate to use for actual music. To those who are well-informed, he failed quite miserably.
Bleh, don't read articles from so-called audiophiles if you want a fair take on audio codecs. You might as well read press releases from the RIAA about P2P software...
QUOTE
MP3s and their lossy-compressed ilk do not offer sufficient audio quality for serious music listening.
I suppose true audiophiles hear graphs instead of sound, so who am I to argue.
QUOTE(j7n @ Mar 10 2008, 13:40)
They used JPEG on the spectrum charts. That about sums it up what they know about data compression.
Heh, good call. It's wonderfully ironic to see that in an article about the horrors of lossy compression.
Stereophile: "We love our music, but we know NUTS about how it works!"
Yet another example of those who understand so much actually understand so little!! 
How disappointing - that the "golden ears" rely purely on measurement to make a case of audibility! The opposite error of "I can hear it but can't measure a difference," now we have "I can measure something but won't bother to check if I can hear the difference." How about measuring some spectra of cables while we're here.... Meter reading when its convenient and listening only test when it's convenient to a predetermined outcome. C'mon. I'm not against subjective evaluation per se, but this is weak.
Of all things audio, codecs are some of the simplest to do a listening test on (ABX, blind, etc.).
I think it does a disservice to their readership to say anything but lossless is unacceptable. Lossy surely has its place in the real-world life of an audiophile given its portability and small file size. I think a better position would have been "use lossless when doing very critical listening and use good lossy to enjoy as much music as you can everywhere."
Of all things audio, codecs are some of the simplest to do a listening test on (ABX, blind, etc.).
I think it does a disservice to their readership to say anything but lossless is unacceptable. Lossy surely has its place in the real-world life of an audiophile given its portability and small file size. I think a better position would have been "use lossless when doing very critical listening and use good lossy to enjoy as much music as you can everywhere."
QUOTE(j7n @ Mar 10 2008, 18:40)
They used JPEG on the spectrum charts. That about sums it up what they know about data compression.
Ain't that the truth.
QUOTE(Ron Jones @ Mar 11 2008, 06:50)
As expected, the article is rather senseless. I don't actually expect that Stereophile readers spend thousands on their equipment so that they can listen to test tones with supreme fidelity. I'd guess that Stereophile readers spend thousands to better enjoy music, and the article doesn't even attempt to touch upon the effects of lossy compression on actual music.
I think it's actually an interesting question *why* people do spend so much money on audio equipment. I'm not being snide here--there was a time when I spent big money on photographic gear, beyond the point of producing visible differences. I'm assuming, BTW, that the only thing on which it makes sense to spend the really big bucks is loudspeakers, and that with everything else you get good enough (that is, no audible difference) for quite modest sums.
My thought is that perhaps it's kind of sacrificial, a statement of how much audio reproduction matters to the individual. The other question is whether it's music they're listening to, or reproduction. In my limited experience of people who are heavily into classical music in a roughly professional way, they have good equipment but not the exotica.
Does anyone else know Flanders and Swann, "A Song of Reproduction" from "At The Drop of a Hat" (Parlophone CDP 7974652). The phenomenon was already around in the 1950s.
QUOTE(MichaelW @ Mar 10 2008, 13:57)
Does anyone else know Flanders and Swann, "A Song of Reproduction" from "At The Drop of a Hat" (Parlophone CDP 7974652). The phenomenon was already around in the 1950s.
Have some Maderia, m'Dear!
But you must know about the arguments between the thorn needle and steel needle people for Gramophones, yes?
Good question. My guess is that it's the attachment to or pursuit of something perfect, and the hope of being associated with or worthy of it. The question of whether it is actually good for the listener would detract from that, by reminding one of the pathetic limits of the listener, compared to the invulnerable and infinite thing being pursued.
I think it's actually an interesting question *why* people do spend so much money on audio equipment. I'm not being snide here--there was a time when I spent big money on photographic gear, beyond the point of producing visible differences. I'm assuming, BTW, that the only thing on which it makes sense to spend the really big bucks is loudspeakers, and that with everything else you get good enough (that is, no audible difference) for quite modest sums.
My thought is that perhaps it's kind of sacrificial, a statement of how much audio reproduction matters to the individual. The other question is whether it's music they're listening to, or reproduction. In my limited experience of people who are heavily into classical music in a roughly professional way, they have good equipment but not the exotica.
Does anyone else know Flanders and Swann, "A Song of Reproduction" from "At The Drop of a Hat" (Parlophone CDP 7974652). The phenomenon was already around in the 1950s.
QUOTE(MichaelW @ Mar 10 2008, 15:57)
I think it's actually an interesting question *why* people do spend so much money on audio equipment. I'm not being snide here--there was a time when I spent big money on photographic gear, beyond the point of producing visible differences. I'm assuming, BTW, that the only thing on which it makes sense to spend the really big bucks is loudspeakers, and that with everything else you get good enough (that is, no audible difference) for quite modest sums.
My thought is that perhaps it's kind of sacrificial, a statement of how much audio reproduction matters to the individual. The other question is whether it's music they're listening to, or reproduction. In my limited experience of people who are heavily into classical music in a roughly professional way, they have good equipment but not the exotica.
Does anyone else know Flanders and Swann, "A Song of Reproduction" from "At The Drop of a Hat" (Parlophone CDP 7974652). The phenomenon was already around in the 1950s.
The AudioCritic, Issue 22 (1995)
I won't give away the rest of the plot to those of
our readers who haven't seen the movie and may want to,
but doesn't Doctor Zaius resemble certain key figures in
the high-end audio community? He knows the truth but
it's bad for the establishment. The system would come
crashing down if the truth were revealed. To pick an ob-
vious example, consider John Atkinson, the subtle and
highly articulate editor of Stereophile. Don't you think he
knows? Of course he knows. But if he admitted that
$3000-a-pair speaker cable is a shameless rip-off or that
a $7000 amplifier sounds no different from a $1400 one,
the edifice of high-end audio would begin to totter—or so
he thinks (and may quite possibly be right). Consequent-
ly, he spouts convoluted scriptural arguments and episte-
mological sophistries, just like Doctor Zaius, in order to
pervert the obvious, uncomplicated, devastating truth.
The AudioCritic, Issue 23 (1996)
It's certainly not the engineering/academic commu-
nity that supports Stereophile; I hear only snickers from
degreed professionals when the name comes up, if not
vehement contempt.
What's truly insidious about this publication is that
they use electronic measurements cosmetically, just to
create a visual aura of scientific objectivity, without the
slightest effort to link the readouts, graphs, charts, etc., to
their totally irresponsible subjective conclusions. They
are opposed to controlled (ABX) listening tests, which of
course do not serve their agenda, and come up with the
most outrageous pseudoscientific sophistries to reject the
overwhelming evidence of such tests as performed by
others.
The AudioCritic, Issue 24 (1997)
John Atkinson (Stereophile)
Highly intelligent, extremely competent, transpar-
ently insincere. I don't know when the hypocrisy started;
maybe in his earliest days at Hi-Fi News & Record Re-
view in England he actually believed the tweako B.S. he
now redacts and asseverates in Santa Fe; but I refuse to
believe that he still believes it. He has been exposed to
too much overwhelming scientific evidence to the con-
trary and he just can't be that dense. (See also Issue No.
22, p. 10.) At this point he mechanically reiterates the
party line and comes up with progressively more tortured
sophistries to bolster it. Why? Because his job at Larry's
place requires it, and it's a good job. The trouble is, he
has too many readers who still take all that rubbish at
face value.
and
I regard "double-blind comparative listening tests" as the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel.
—JOHN ATKINSON, Stereophile (December 1996, page 23)
I won't give away the rest of the plot to those of
our readers who haven't seen the movie and may want to,
but doesn't Doctor Zaius resemble certain key figures in
the high-end audio community? He knows the truth but
it's bad for the establishment. The system would come
crashing down if the truth were revealed. To pick an ob-
vious example, consider John Atkinson, the subtle and
highly articulate editor of Stereophile. Don't you think he
knows? Of course he knows. But if he admitted that
$3000-a-pair speaker cable is a shameless rip-off or that
a $7000 amplifier sounds no different from a $1400 one,
the edifice of high-end audio would begin to totter—or so
he thinks (and may quite possibly be right). Consequent-
ly, he spouts convoluted scriptural arguments and episte-
mological sophistries, just like Doctor Zaius, in order to
pervert the obvious, uncomplicated, devastating truth.
The AudioCritic, Issue 23 (1996)
It's certainly not the engineering/academic commu-
nity that supports Stereophile; I hear only snickers from
degreed professionals when the name comes up, if not
vehement contempt.
What's truly insidious about this publication is that
they use electronic measurements cosmetically, just to
create a visual aura of scientific objectivity, without the
slightest effort to link the readouts, graphs, charts, etc., to
their totally irresponsible subjective conclusions. They
are opposed to controlled (ABX) listening tests, which of
course do not serve their agenda, and come up with the
most outrageous pseudoscientific sophistries to reject the
overwhelming evidence of such tests as performed by
others.
The AudioCritic, Issue 24 (1997)
John Atkinson (Stereophile)
Highly intelligent, extremely competent, transpar-
ently insincere. I don't know when the hypocrisy started;
maybe in his earliest days at Hi-Fi News & Record Re-
view in England he actually believed the tweako B.S. he
now redacts and asseverates in Santa Fe; but I refuse to
believe that he still believes it. He has been exposed to
too much overwhelming scientific evidence to the con-
trary and he just can't be that dense. (See also Issue No.
22, p. 10.) At this point he mechanically reiterates the
party line and comes up with progressively more tortured
sophistries to bolster it. Why? Because his job at Larry's
place requires it, and it's a good job. The trouble is, he
has too many readers who still take all that rubbish at
face value.
and
I regard "double-blind comparative listening tests" as the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel.
—JOHN ATKINSON, Stereophile (December 1996, page 23)
While this article does contain rather a lot of nonsense, I'm very happy that the writer does at least concede that
The bits were the same—the music will also be the same!
That's several leaps ahead of most audiophiles, in my experience.
QUOTE
The bits were the same—the music will also be the same!
That's several leaps ahead of most audiophiles, in my experience.
QUOTE(tgoose @ Mar 10 2008, 18:35)
While this article does contain rather a lot of nonsense, I'm very happy that the writer does at least concede that
QUOTE
The bits were the same—the music will also be the same!
That's several leaps ahead of most audiophiles, in my experience.
I'm not Jewish, but the I believe it is the Zohar which contains this gem:
"So whoever wants to tell a lie will first lay a foundation of truth and then construct the lie."
Hey leave the "audiophiles" alone. They have to be a bit elite because they're still in debt on their $1000 power cables. 
QUOTE(Woodinville @ Mar 11 2008, 10:13)
But you must know about the arguments between the thorn needle and steel needle people for Gramophones, yes?
I'm so old I remember a little device, sandpaper on a wheel, for resharpening fibre needles. I was always under the impression that steel needles were cheaper, but wore records out quicker; was there a sound-quality debate?
Thank Ceiling Cat for digital, I say.
If the graphs were at least of music (rather than tones) showing obvious differences then perhaps they would be somewhat useful in determining why a given compressed file can be ABXed.
To me, this seems the same kind of test as using JPEG to compress graphs or line-art, or PNG to compress photos. Simply meaningless as the compressor is finely tuned only to specific inputs.
To me, this seems the same kind of test as using JPEG to compress graphs or line-art, or PNG to compress photos. Simply meaningless as the compressor is finely tuned only to specific inputs.
I like the audiophiles, they give me hope: The older you get, it seems, the better your hearing will be. (Assuming self proclaimed audiophiles tend to have the more expensive gear and therefore are likely to be wealthy and older).
QUOTE(MichaelW @ Mar 10 2008, 23:46)
QUOTE(Woodinville @ Mar 11 2008, 10:13)
But you must know about the arguments between the thorn needle and steel needle people for Gramophones, yes?
I'm so old I remember a little device, sandpaper on a wheel, for resharpening fibre needles. I was always under the impression that steel needles were cheaper, but wore records out quicker; was there a sound-quality debate?
Thank Ceiling Cat for digital, I say.
I remeber as a kid playing my grandfather's old wind-up 78 phonograph. It had a stockpile of steel needles because they wore out quickly, and I was warned never to put a worn needle back in the player because if it wasn't oriented in exactly the same way then its sharp edges would damage the records.
No offense really, but they don't sound like they actually have a clue about what they're writing 
Oh cool we now can use flac for our ipods, car hifi and even for my 10bucks pc speakers, blub. Very efficient
Of course mp3 is not CD quality, that's why it's called compressed. But it's quite ignorant to insist on lossless in 100% of cases. In which cases lossless is actually useful depends on many factors, thus is not possible to generalize.
Oh cool we now can use flac for our ipods, car hifi and even for my 10bucks pc speakers, blub. Very efficient
Of course mp3 is not CD quality, that's why it's called compressed. But it's quite ignorant to insist on lossless in 100% of cases. In which cases lossless is actually useful depends on many factors, thus is not possible to generalize.
QUOTE(MichaelW @ Mar 10 2008, 20:46)
QUOTE(Woodinville @ Mar 11 2008, 10:13)
But you must know about the arguments between the thorn needle and steel needle people for Gramophones, yes?
I'm so old I remember a little device, sandpaper on a wheel, for resharpening fibre needles. I was always under the impression that steel needles were cheaper, but wore records out quicker; was there a sound-quality debate?
Yeah, the thorn needles were "more natural" and sounded "warmer and more realistic", we were told.
QUOTE
Thank Ceiling Cat for digital, I say.
Hear, hear!
QUOTE(citizenkeith @ Mar 10 2008, 17:26)
Wasn't Stereophile the home of that Armor-All debacle from back in the 80s?
Audiophiles don't read Baudrillard, do they?
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.
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 magazine deserves to be used like Sears catalogs were in days of old: to wipe one's ass. And even that's being generous.
QUOTE(Cygnus X1 @ Mar 11 2008, 21:08)
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.
QUOTE(Bourne @ Mar 10 2008, 12:32)
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 Ω / 250 Ω / 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.
A quote from the article:
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
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
QUOTE(dehmmy @ Mar 11 2008, 23:54)
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.
QUOTE(pika2000 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:55)
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_errorDo any uncompressed formats offer redundency?
QUOTE(retro83 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:20)
QUOTE(pika2000 @ Mar 12 2008, 06:55)
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_errorDo any uncompressed formats offer redundency?
At least mp3 offers the option of a crc, something that wav lacks.
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.
QUOTE(j7n @ Mar 12 2008, 10:47)
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.
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.
QUOTE(j7n @ Mar 12 2008, 19:47)
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!?
Using interpolation or repeating the last „good“ sample.
But this has gone way to much off-topic
But this has gone way to much off-topic
QUOTE(ech3 @ Mar 11 2008, 17:54)
QUOTE(citizenkeith @ Mar 10 2008, 17:26)
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.
QUOTE(dehmmy @ Mar 12 2008, 08:54)
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?
QUOTE(eevan @ Mar 12 2008, 13:38)
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.
QUOTE(retro83 @ Mar 12 2008, 12:13)
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.QUOTE(greynol @ Mar 12 2008, 12:18)
QUOTE(retro83 @ Mar 12 2008, 12:13)
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!
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.
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.
Let us start streaming PAR2 files! Yay!
They'll restore subtle nuances and warmth lost during digital conversion.
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.
Until another byte gets lost and then you'll get your audio back but the channels will be swapped.
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.
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.