H.266/VVC Standard Finalized With ~50% Lower Size Compared To H.265

[pal666]

I respectfully disagree. Commodity audio gear usually does not have the (ADC, amplifiers, speakers, etc) bandwidth to reproduce the information stored in uncompressed files. Such gear typically compromises in a similar spectrum where lossy audio format discard information.
This is also a difficult topic to blind test because the results depend on the audio system, group/background of listeners, etc.

no, this is simple topic to blind test. and no hardware had shown difference. so, no respect here

For reference, I know folks with $10k++ audio setups that claim that they can tell the difference between CD quality and high-resolution PCM or DSD files.

i'm sure those folks have $1k/meter audo cables. such people are called audiofools for a reason and their claims reflect only amount of money they spent. humans can't hear more than cd quality. higher resolution can make sense during production, but not for listening.

I don't think I would survive such a blind test on my setup but I can definitely tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 files (possibly higher but I didn't try) and CD quality especially on recordings that I know.

how 192kbps mp3 relates to high bitrate opus? don't forget to use double blind method when you'll be trying higher bitrates

Of course, any lossy audio format tends to a lossless WAV/flac if you throw enough bitrate at it. However at that point, I would argue what is the point?
For music that I care about, I have no problem with ~15MB files for ~3min tracks.

but somehow you have problems with ~32MB of uncompressed wav? that's ridiculous

[pal666]

education for audiofools https://web.archive.org/web/20200417...eil-young.html

[pal666]

When I downgrade my 24-bit/96000 recordings into something else for distribution, the differences between AAC @ 384kb and MP3 @ 384kb is obvious

there are two reasons why your results are irrelevant: it's not double-blind test and you can use bad encoder implementation or bad encoding parameters to screw anything

[mppix]

I've got a Denon AVR-2310, B&W 685 stereo speakers and a B&W ASW610 bass. I play CD's and SACD's through a Pioneer DV-656A; a really old player from 1999/2000 but with a fantastic DAC in it. I set the receiver to Pure Direct mode, cutting out all DSP. I've placed speakers optimally, and when I sit in the Perfect Listening Position, I can't really tell the difference between an SACD version of Bothers In Arms, Money For Nothing, and an early CD version of the same album. I've also done testing of Pink Floyds DSOTM SACD vs CD vs Alan Parsons Quad Mix. I *imagine* that I hear a richer sound from the SACD versions, but it could very well be my imagination. I know that's nothing to do with codecs, but my point is, that irrespective of codecs, it's not easy, on way above average equipment, to tell the difference between original source material cd vs SACD. By further muddying the waters with codecs and bitrates, and listening to (in this case) music, through a Plex server, or streaming service, then you introduce so many variables into the whole technical chain that it would require very much effort to ensure that everything worked (e.g. FLAC on Plex on Fedora over ethernet to Apple TV4K using Plex App, outputting as PCM to Denon receiver. I have no idea if ATV through Plex app plays at the correct bitrate, if it's transcoding on the fly, or anything else. Ideally, It would be better with Kodi/OpenELEC where I'm more in control of the output). I encode music to FLAC, end of story, and hope that the rest of the technical chain plays it as I expect.

SACD, i.e. DSD, is an interesting topic. I have a few records where the DSD is somewhat different, e.g. the jazz at the pawnshop recording. I don't think DSD is inherently better than PCM, but some SACDs are heavily reengineered and resampled versions of an analog master recording (read: they could sound about the same if encoded in PCM).
Then, DSD file compatibility is just a pain in the ...

Plecs should provide log files that show when it transcodes. I cannot provide details as I use emby...

[mppix]

....

I hope you realize that you are essentially restating my post in a different way, except the first sentence.

no, this is simple topic to blind test. and no hardware had shown difference. so, no respect here

Quotation needed.
I still believe this is false because I cannot appreciate high-quality music (as in distinguish high vs low quality files) on a random radio, wireless speakers, laptop speakers, etc. I certainly can on a basic hifi setup (I am talking "cheap" audio equipment that can be had somewhere around 1-2k; not the latest 100k speakers). This is also easy to back up by looking at the transfer functions of such equipment.

i'm sure those folks have $1k/meter audo cables. such people are called audiofools for a reason and their claims reflect only amount of money they spent. humans can't hear more than cd quality. higher resolution can make sense during production, but not for listening.

Exactly my point, few humans can appreciate better than CD quality. Flac is commonly used to store/encode CDs or CD quality files. Sure, flac can also encode higher bitrates and sampling rates but you certainly don't have to.

how 192kbps mp3 relates to high bitrate opus? don't forget to use double blind method when you'll be trying higher bitrates
but somehow you have problems with ~32MB of uncompressed wav? that's ridiculous

I'm not sure if I understand this statement. Original point was that mp3 is not an optimal format today. I could live (and in fact do) with 192kbps opus for some music. However, I avoid 192kbps mp3....
I am also perfectly fine with 32MB wav files but flac can store the exact same information in half that space, so why use wav?
Essentially this boils down to usefulness. I don't have a problem with file size. However, I like something in return (quality) for the increased use of storage.

[mppix]

education for audiofools https://web.archive.org/web/20200417...eil-young.html

I think you are misunderstanding the discussion. The discussion was about the quality of lossy audio compression (in particular mp3) vs lossless (compressed or uncompressed). To my knowledge nobody here has expressed a preference or made a case for high-resolution audio (usually 24bit/192kHz) over CD quality (16bit/44.1kHz).

However, some (including me) have expressed a preference for lossless formats, e.g. flac, over lossy file formats, in particular mp3. Both types of files can encode a large variety of audio qualities. Hope this helps.

[rickst29]

.... It is basically proven that 192 kbps MP3 is enough to produce indistinguishable compression with the LAME encoder. Actually I believe the threshold to be at around 128 kbps for most music pieces. Of course you can fabricate the results to your own biases by picking a bad encoder.

The one I've used *IS* LAME: libmp3lame, newest version (3.1.00), in latest and greatest ffmpeg and other programs (on Linux).

You just claimed something to be "basically proven", even though I feel that your claim is absolutely wrong. It is my opinion, and the opinion of ALL the studio-owning audio professionals I still work with, that differences on those musical instruments (versus uncompressed recordings) are BLATANTLY obvious at 192kb, and still present at 320kb. You might be right about "most" pop music pieces, and a majority of general public music consumers who listen to over-compressed garbage all day long. But audio editors who care at all about the differences between one guitar and another, or drums and cymbals which sound realistic, really HATE that listening standards of the general public have fallen so low.

Even for my car stereo, where the road and wind noises are huge and the speakers more-or-less suck: I use FLAC on my flash drives, *never* mp3, and the concept of converting any decent CD into 128kbps mp3 almost makes me ill. Over the wind noise, I still prefer an oboe to sound like an oboe, and not a 64kb-sampled "clarinet".

With respect, we hold our opinions very strongly - and I don't disagree that yours might hold true for your ears and musical experience, I'm just emphatically re-emphasizing that the differences which I hear are definitely LARGE, and definitely REAL.

[Slartifartblast]

The one I've used *IS* LAME: libmp3lame, newest version (3.1.00), in latest and greatest ffmpeg and other programs (on Linux).

You just claimed something to be "basically proven", even though I feel that your claim is absolutely wrong. It is my opinion, and the opinion of ALL the studio-owning audio professionals I still work with, that differences on those musical instruments (versus uncompressed recordings) are BLATANTLY obvious at 192kb, and still present at 320kb. You might be right about "most" pop music pieces, and a majority of general public music consumers who listen to over-compressed garbage all day long. But audio editors who care at all about the differences between one guitar and another, or drums and cymbals which sound realistic, really HATE that listening standards of the general public have fallen so low.

Even for my car stereo, where the road and wind noises are huge and the speakers more-or-less suck: I use FLAC on my flash drives, *never* mp3, and the concept of converting any decent CD into 128kbps mp3 almost makes me ill. Over the wind noise, I still prefer an oboe to sound like an oboe, and not a 64kb-sampled "clarinet".

With respect, we hold our opinions very strongly - and I don't disagree that yours might hold true for your ears and musical experience, I'm just emphatically re-emphasizing that the differences which I hear are definitely LARGE, and definitely REAL.

When did you last see an audiologist for a proper hearing test ?

You'll find presbycusis kicks in fairly soon after 18 and it's bye-bye to those beloved high frequencies audio fools love to harp on about and as for musicians and recording studio professionals most of the ones I've met have serious hearing loss from either playing in band or being around them all the time

[rickst29]

When did you last see an audiologist for a proper hearing test ?

You'll find presbycusis kicks in fairly soon after 18 and it's bye-bye to those beloved high frequencies audio fools love to harp on about and as for musicians and recording studio professionals most of the ones I've met have serious hearing loss from either playing in band or being around them all the time

Yeah, you're right about musicians with bad hearing, But I'm not harping about high frequencies (and I have no sensitivity left in my left ear, above about 14 Kbps). Rather the tone of instruments like oboes, and the shape of the soundstage, seems all wrong and "lost" with Mp3 at low bit rates.

Even with my damaged ears, these particular internet streams sound WAY BETTER than other stations doing mp3 at 192 kbps, and far better than the lowest-common denominator of mp3 at a mere 128 kbps. (I won't even list any stations @ 64 kbps for this comparison). If anyone else cares to comment about the stereo soundstage and quality of instruments on these various stations, go ahead and give 'em a try:

#1 https://jbradio2.ca/links/m3u/512_opus.m3u This is a "pop music" station, using opus at a very high bit rate. To my ears, it is utterly impossible to distinguish from original WAV and FLAC. Guitars, snare drums, and cymbals sound as good as master recordings to my ears.

#2 https://motherearthradio.de/ I can't distinguish the quality of this station from original recordings, either.

#3 http://94.23.201.38:8010/;m3uIs high quality mp3 @ 320kbps. Here is where my ears begin to hear that it's being compressed and harmed. This is a classical station (that's my specialty). Do you here the slightly compromised sound stage and lack of "woodiness" and "air" in solo oboes? Percussion doesn't work very well.

Now we move down in quality, I really notice increasing issues with these:

#4 http://kamu.streamguys1.com/hd1-192 (mp3, but streaming @ 192 kbps)

#5 https://radio.azpm.org/classical/(mp3, but now streaming at only 128 kbps). This one really hurts my ears, although many stations broadcast even lower - at only 64 kbps.

[mppix]

You'll find presbycusis kicks in fairly soon after 18 and it's bye-bye to those beloved high frequencies audio fools love to harp on about and as for musicians and recording studio professionals most of the ones I've met have serious hearing loss from either playing in band or being around them all the time

AFAIK, audio fools would talk about realistic (or smooth) vs harsh high frequencies.
This has actually less to do with absolute high frequency but rather with the representation of the overtones of instruments and voices (to me at least). The human ear/brain does not distinguish these frequencies from the fundamental frequency (note) but meshes it together. You don't have to hear very high frequencies to hear the effects.
These overtones differentiate expensive top level instruments (violins, wood instruments, guitars, ...) and entry level student instruments.
Highly compressed audio can make them sound similar.
However, compression works because today many people would have a hard time distinguishing a Stradivari from a few hundred dollar violin from Amazon even if it is played in front of them.

If anyone else cares to comment about the stereo soundstage and quality of instruments on these various stations...

IMO, stereo soundstage is somewhat subjective that has to do with speaker quality, speaker placement, and room properties.

I agree with the comments on instruments. Personally, I tend to go lossless for acoustic, jazz, and classic music, I'm ok with lossy files for pop, and it depends on the album for rock.
I find orchestral music to be the most difficult music to play since some, especially older records, where not that well recorded and I simply don't have a concert hall at home for a realistic listening experience.
Also, I find that today's pop is mostly (over)engineered to play reasonable on mediocre car radios and it lightyears from good audio engineering, e.g. Stockfish records.