Compression vs High-Res Audio
Audio Empire
notion that the Redbook CD standard (16-bit/44.1 Khz sampling rate) is so
good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz sampling rate (or
SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings. The flip side of this
rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is the claim, by
many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy compression schemes
are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and that one
cannot hear any compression artifacts.
One who disagrees strongly with both of these views, apparently, is
"legendary" producer/ designer George Massenburg (Frank Sinatra, Linda
Rondstadt, Earth, Wind, and Fire, etc.).
At a presentation he gave at the recent Audio Engineering Society Convention
held in London earlier this year, Massenburg wondered why, with bandwidth so
plentiful, and storage so cheap why people still sell compressed music
online?
"These systems (compressed music formats) take something essential from the
music, and lop it off. With so much bandwidth and memory now available, the
question is not how to make a better Codec, but why we are bothering to use
codecs at all..."
In his presentation, Massenburg showed where he took 24-bit/96 KHz recordings
of Phil Collins and Diana Krall and ran them through different Codecs. He
used MP3 at 128kbps, and AAC at 256kbps and showed the results on the screen.
These graphics showed how the compression/expansion cycle destroyed the
dynamic range of the original recording.
"These are standard systems and they are not good enough for us to use. By
coding the hell out of the music, and slashing the sound, we are missing a
market."
Massenburg then used a demonstration to drive his point home. He
electronically subtracted the MP3 compressed music from the original
24-bit/96 KHz recording and then played ONLY the difference signal which was
comprised solely of the information lost by the compression.
"These are distortion levels of 15 20 percent! ", he said as he played the
difference signal for all to hear. The distortion amazed everyone in
attendance because it was a grotesquely, but very recognizable version of the
original recoding!
He went on to say that while AAC was clearly better than MP3, it still
generated 5% to 10% distortion.
"Don't think that this doesn't matter for loud rock music", he said while
playing an analog Neil Young track that had been quantified to 24/192KHz
before being compressed to MP3. "If anything, it's worse (than with many
types of music) because of the complexity of the sound."
On the subject of high-resolution audio, Massenburg said that it captures
the"...small sounds and localization cues that truly bring music to life..."
He went on to say that he has high-hopes for Blu-Ray as a way to resurrect
the promise of DVD-A. While I don't share his optimism, I certainly hope he's
right. I recently read that the failure of DVD-A is being blamed on the music
industry's feet dragging because of the DRM issue. I don't know if that's
right or not. I'd tend to blame the outright failure of DVD-A (and to a
lesser extent SACD) simply on consumer ennui. To a society told for decades
that CD represents "perfect sound, forever" and that MP3 is "good enough"
what could possibly be the appeal of a format that (1) costs more. (2)
requires pretty high-end playback equipment to appreciate, and (3) can't be
played in the car?
Massenburg goes on to say, at the 103rd AES convention in New York, "To those
among us that believe that things are just fine the way they are, that
44.1/16 two-channel is ³good enough², let me give you the bad news.
Technology, and silicon technology in particular, has bounded ahead since the
CD standard was cast. For instance, the rather expensive 1 MIPS minicomputer
from 1980 has been eclipsed by inexpensive 200 to 300 MIPS PC¹s today.
Converter technology, likewise, has improved tremendously since 1980. We¹ll
soon have faster, more accurate, inexpensive A/D and D/A converters, and
engineers who will inevitably ask, ³Uh, so, how does it sound if we use
these?² Again, the inadequacy of today¹s efforts will be better illuminated
from the perspective and the wisdom that the future holds."
Here a producer and designer so well thought of in the world of recording
that he gives keynote addresses at international symposiums on audio and at
AES conventions who is telling us that MP3 et-al is very distorted and that
those artifacts are both audible and destructive to music, and that the
improvement to the sound of music afforded by so-called high-resolution
recording and playback formats is not just merely gilding the lily as some
here have maintained, but add realism and palpability to the music in a way
that CD-quality recordings cannot.
And for a list of Massenburg's other keynotes and published articles, look
here:
http://www.massenburg.com/c/gml/essay.html?open=
jwvm
<snip>
> One who disagrees strongly with both of these views, apparently, is
> "legendary" producer/ designer George Massenburg (Frank Sinatra, Linda
> Rondstadt, Earth, Wind, and Fire, etc.).
>
> At a presentation he gave at the recent Audio Engineering Society Convent=
ion
> held in London earlier this year, Massenburg wondered why, with bandwidth=
so
> plentiful, and storage so cheap why people still sell compressed music
> online?
Because people are willing to purchase music in these formats and they
are satisfied with the quality.
>
> "These systems (compressed music formats) take something essential from t=
he
> music, and lop it off. With so much bandwidth and memory now available, t=
he
> question is not how to make a better Codec, but why we are bothering to u=
se
> codecs at all..."
>
> In his presentation, Massenburg showed where he took 24-bit/96 KHz record=
ings
> of =A0Phil Collins and Diana Krall and ran them through different Codecs.=
=A0He
> used MP3 at 128kbps, and AAC at 256kbps and showed the results on the scr=
een.
> These graphics showed how the compression/expansion cycle destroyed the
> dynamic range of the original recording.
What kind of codecs was he using? Artifacts certainly exist with lossy
compression but why would the dynamic range change? That is a trivial
part of the music to encode. Even very low bit-rate encoding should
preserve dynamic range although the resulting reproduction will sound
horrible.
>
> "These are standard systems and they are not good enough for us to use. B=
y
> coding the hell out of the music, and slashing the sound, we are missing =
a
> market."
Where?
>
> Massenburg then used a demonstration to drive his point home. He
> electronically subtracted the MP3 compressed music from the original
> 24-bit/96 KHz recording and then played ONLY the difference signal which =
was
> comprised solely of the information lost by the compression.
>
> "These are distortion levels of 15 =AD 20 percent! ", he said as he playe=
d the
> difference signal for all to hear. The distortion amazed everyone in
> attendance because it was a grotesquely, but very recognizable version of=
the
> original recoding!
The audience must have consisted of people with a very limited
understanding of how perceptual coders work. What the audience heard
was the sounds that would be masked by the dominant sounds present in
the original recording.
>
> He went on to say that while AAC was clearly better than MP3, it still
> generated 5% to 10% distortion.
Wow, what insight. For all of George's technical and artistic
expertize, he either is deliberately misleading the audience or does
not understand how perceptual coders work. The goal here is not to
minimize error but rather model the human aural perception taking
advantage of how certain sounds mask other sounds.
>
> "Don't think that this doesn't matter for loud rock music", he said while
> playing an analog Neil Young track that had been quantified to 24/192KHz
> before being compressed to MP3. "If anything, it's worse (than with many
> types of music) because of the complexity of the sound." =A0
OK. So why are people still buying rock music in lossy formats?
>
> On the subject of high-resolution audio, Massenburg said that it captures
> the"...small sounds and localization cues that truly bring music to life.=
."
> He went on to say that he has high-hopes for Blu-Ray as a way to resurrec=
t
> the promise of DVD-A. While I don't share his optimism, I certainly hope =
he's
> right. I recently read that the failure of DVD-A is being blamed on the m=
usic
> industry's feet dragging because of the DRM issue. I don't know if that's
> right or not. I'd tend to blame the outright failure of DVD-A (and to a
> lesser extent SACD) simply on consumer ennui. To a society told for decad=
es
> that CD represents "perfect sound, forever" =A0and that MP3 is "good enou=
gh"
> what could possibly be the appeal of a format that (1) costs more. (2)
> requires pretty high-end playback equipment to appreciate, and (3) can't =
be
> played in the car? =A0
Again, the market has spoken. Whatever the advantages of high-
resolution recordings might be, customers simply do not find enhanced
value in these kinds of recordings. In fact, credible unbiased tests
have generally failed to demonstrate audible differences between high-
resolution vs. the standard CD format.
>
> Massenburg goes on to say, at the 103rd AES convention in New York, "To t=
hose
> among us that believe that things are just fine the way they are, that
> 44.1/16 two-channel is =B3good enough=B2, let me give you the bad news.
>
> Technology, and silicon technology in particular, has bounded ahead since=
the
> CD standard was cast. For instance, the rather expensive 1 MIPS minicompu=
ter
> from 1980 has been eclipsed by inexpensive 200 to 300 MIPS PC=B9s today.
Not to mention higher-performance graphics cards provide an additional
increase of two orders of magnitude over CPUs but neither has a direct
effect on audio reproduction.
>
> Converter technology, likewise, has improved tremendously since 1980. We=
=B9ll
> soon have faster, more accurate, inexpensive A/D and D/A converters, and
> engineers who will inevitably ask, =B3Uh, so, how does it sound if we use
> these?=B2 Again, the inadequacy of today=B9s efforts will be better illum=
inated
> from the perspective and the wisdom that the future holds."
Is George missing the elephant in the room? Speakers are a source of
far greater errors than modern converters.
>
> Here a producer and designer so well thought of in the world of recording
> that he gives keynote addresses at international symposiums on audio and =
at
> AES conventions who is telling us that MP3 et-al is very distorted and th=
at
> those artifacts are both audible and destructive to music, and that the
> improvement to the sound of music afforded by so-called high-resolution
> recording and playback formats is not just merely gilding the lily as som=
e
> here have maintained, but add realism and palpability to the music in a w=
ay
> that CD-quality recordings cannot.
Whatever his considerable talents are with respect to producing audio
recordings, he provides no evidence that high-resolution recordings
are perceptibly better than what the CD format provides. The listening
public does not appear to share George's opinion.
Edmund
news:i7jfl...@news3.newsguy.com...
> One thing that's consistent with the
> "Everything-Sounds-The-Same" club is the
> notion that the Redbook CD standard (16-bit/44.1 Khz sampling
> rate) is so
> good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz
> sampling rate (or
> SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings. The flip
> side of this
> rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is
> the claim, by
> many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy
> compression schemes
> are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and
> that one
> cannot hear any compression artifacts.
I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
what it is
"DATA/INFORMATION REDUCTION"
OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
like
lossless compression is forced to us by smart crooked sales
people.
There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
Edmund
jwvm
>
<snip>
>
> I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
> what it is
> OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
> like
> lossless compression is forced to us by smart crooked sales
> people.
>
> There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
> and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
Really? Good luck on your next mobile phone call if you don't want to
use lossy encoding. Do DVD movies sound terrible because they also use
lossy encoding.? You would appear to be in a very small minority since
most listeners seem to have at least some tolerance for this
technology.
Audio Empire
(in article <i7lar...@news3.newsguy.com>):
I don't know if "wrong" is the correct word or not, I mean most people seem
happy to listen to MP3s, AAC et al in spite of the lousy sound. I know that I
CAN and do hear the artifacts (especially on headphones - which I find
ironic, since that's how most people mostly listen to "data reduced'
formats). I have never heard any problems with FLAC, ALC, and other 'data
complete' compression schemes.
Audio Empire
(in article <8g72fk...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Sep 25, 1:17=A0pm, "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
>> what it is
>> "DATA/INFORMATION =A0REDUCTION"
>> OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
>> like
>> lossless compression is forced to us by smart crooked sales
>> people.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
>> and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
>
> Really? Good luck on your next mobile phone call if you don't want to
> use lossy encoding.
Irrelevant. There is a difference between INTELLIGIBILITY and quality. In a
cell phone only intelligibility of the voice is important, in music, it's
the quality (at least that's what SHOULD be important to anyone who would
have interest in posting to this NG) that determines listening pleasure to
those of us who consider ourselves audio enthusiasts.
> Do DVD movies sound terrible because they also use
> lossy encoding.?
Actually, yes. But again, intelligibility of the dialog is the overriding
concern in movies as well. Turn off the video, turn off the lights, turn up
the Dolby Digital or DTS digital soundtrack and listen attentively to the
symphonic score for any recent movie that has that type of score, and tell me
how it sounds. You don't notice it while watching the movie, because in human
sensory perception, the eye takes precedence.
> You would appear to be in a very small minority since
> most listeners seem to have at least some tolerance for this
> technology.
Yes, that minority is called "audio enthusiasts" and to that minority sound
quality is important. The fact that it is not important to the large majority
of people in this world who listen to music is as irrelevant as telling a
gourmand that his willingness to spend $300-$500 on a single meal is not
shared by the average "Joe" who eats from the MacDonalds "dollar menu". Well,
DUH! 8^)
isw
"Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
low a bit rate, or both.
Isaac
Scott
> On Sep 25, 1:17=3DA0pm, "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
> > what it is
> > OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
> > like
> > lossless compression is forced to us by smart crooked sales
> > people.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
> > and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
>
> Really? Good luck on your next mobile phone call if you don't want to
> use lossy encoding.
For sure, no greater hi fidelity than cell phones. ( : - O )
> Do DVD movies sound terrible because they also use
> lossy encoding.?
They sound terrible because they are generally not recorded with
audiophile sensibilities in mind. It's all about explosions and other
ear damaging sound effects. But...DVDs are step down at best compared
to the best cinema sound.
> You would appear to be in a very small minority since
> most listeners seem to have at least some tolerance for this
> technology.
What tolerance? I can't tell the difference between a cel phone or a
DVD of a blockbuster movie and the real thing......
Not really the best way to defend lossy compression.
vlad
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:17:37 -0700, Edmund wrote
>
>
>
> > "Audio Empire" <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:i7jfl...@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> One thing that's consistent with the
> >> "Everything-Sounds-The-Same" club is the
> >> notion that the Redbook CD standard (16-bit/44.1 Khz sampling
> >> rate) is so
> >> good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz
> >> sampling rate (or
> >> SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings. The flip
> >> side of this
> >> rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is
> >> the claim, by
> >> many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy
> >> compression schemes
> >> are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and
> >> that one
> >> cannot hear any compression artifacts.
>
> > I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
> > what it is
> > OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
> > like
> > people.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
> > and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
>
> > Edmund
>
em
> happy to listen to MP3s, AAC et al in spite of the lousy sound.
I listen AAC lossles (data reduction about 50%) and the sound is
magnificent. Also MP3 at the rate of 320kb is distinguishable from
the original. So what do you mean by "lousy sound"?
> I know that I
> CAN and do hear the artifacts
in sighted comparison, of course? :-)
> (especially on headphones - which I find
> ironic, since that's how most people mostly listen to "data reduced'
> formats). I have never heard any problems with FLAC, ALC, and other 'data
> complete' compression schemes.
I was also amused by the fact that any gross distortions of LP
technology (you don't have to have "golden ears" to distinguish master
tape from LP printed from it) are immediately excused by high-end
community. Claims like "I am not disturbed by it", "I can listen
through clicks-n-pops", etc. are common. Double standard, if you ask
me :-)
Not any lossy compression is evil. Lossles compression does not
affect sound in principle. And don't confuse it with dynamic range
compression. It has nothing to do with data compression.
It would be stupid not to use lossless compression when you are
transferring and saving on HD massive amounts of audio.
vlad
Audio Empire
(in article <8g9evc...@mid.individual.net>):
Lossless isn't a problem.
> Also MP3 at the rate of 320kb is distinguishable from
> the original. So what do you mean by "lousy sound"?
>
>> I know that I
>> CAN and do hear the artifacts
>
> in sighted comparison, of course? :-)
Unsighted too...
>> (especially on headphones - which I find
>> ironic, since that's how most people mostly listen to "data reduced'
>> formats). I have never heard any problems with FLAC, ALC, and other 'data
>> complete' compression schemes.
>
> I was also amused by the fact that any gross distortions of LP
> technology (you don't have to have "golden ears" to distinguish master
> tape from LP printed from it) are immediately excused by high-end
> community. Claims like "I am not disturbed by it", "I can listen
> through clicks-n-pops", etc. are common. Double standard, if you ask
> me :-)
Not really a double standard, because the artifacts in lossy compression and
the artifacts in LP are quite different. The distortion that rides on MP3 and
other lossy, compressed music formats is actual un-correlated distortion that
sounds like buzzing bees riding the waveform. It really detracts from the
music. While the occasional ticks and pops on LP are momentary, and the LP
distortion is mostly euphonic and doesn't SOUND like distortion.
> Not any lossy compression is evil. Lossles compression does not
> affect sound in principle.
Just in fact...
> And don't confuse it with dynamic range
> compression.
I don't.
> It has nothing to do with data compression.
Apparently it messes with dynamic range as an artifact.
> It would be stupid not to use lossless compression when you are
> transferring and saving on HD massive amounts of audio.
Sure if you don't care about audio quality. I just happen to be one who does.
Romy the Cat
made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
AMAZED!!!
vlad
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:42:04 -0700, vlad wrote
>
>
>
>
> > I listen AAC lossles (data reduction about 50%) and the sound is
> > magnificent.
>
> Lossless isn't a problem.
>
> >the original. So what do you mean by "lousy sound"?
>
> >> I know that I
> >> CAN and do hear the artifacts
>
> > in sighted comparison, of course? :-)
>
> Unsighted too...
Tell us more about it. I cannot wait to hear. What were bias controls,
what compression algorithms were used, what was the bit-rate, etc.?
I happened to listen music from internet radio at the rate 32kbs, at
this speed you do not need bias controls, artifacts were obvious and
horrendous. So did you hear any artifacts at 320kbs?
>
> > =A0 =A0 I was also amused by the fact that any gross distortions of LP
> >technology(you don't have to have "golden ears" to distinguish master
> > tape from LP printed from it) are immediately excused by high-end
> > community. Claims like "I am notdisturbedby it", "I can listen
> > through clicks-n-pops", etc. are common. Double standard, if you ask
> > me :-)
>
> Not really a double standard, because the artifacts in lossy compression =
and
> the artifacts in LP are quite different. The distortion that rides on MP3=
and
> other lossy, compressed music formats is actual un-correlated distortion =
that
> sounds like buzzing bees riding the waveform. It really detracts from the
> music. While the occasional ticks and pops on LP are momentary, and the L=
P
> distortion is mostly euphonic and doesn't SOUND like distortion.
>
Did not I say exactly this in a paragraph you are responding
to? :-)
Any LP's artifacts are quite "listenable" and even "pleasing" to
"golden ears". LP has a different sound from master tape, 100th
pressing sounds different then the first one, etc. etc. And still the
final result is OK to pursuers of high-end analog sound.
> > Not any lossy compression is evil. Lossles compression does not
> > affect sound in principle.
>
> Just in fact...
>
> > And don't confuse it with dynamic range
> > compression.
>
> I don't.
>
> > It has nothing to do with data compression.
>
> Apparently it messes with dynamic range as an artifact.
Tell us more about it. :-) Or may be we have to ask people who are
experts in compression technology?
>
> > It would be stupid not to use lossless compression when you are
> > transferring and saving on HD massive amounts of audio.
>
> Sure if you don't care about audio quality. I just happen to be one who d=
oes.
And what makes you think that I don't care about audio quality?
Lossless compression preserve original bit stream bit by bit.
So what is there for you that degrades the sound?
vlad
Edmund
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:17:37 -0700, Edmund wrote (in article
> <i7lar...@news3.newsguy.com>):
>=20
>> "Audio Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:i7jfl...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>> One thing that's consistent with the
>>> "Everything-Sounds-The-Same" club is the notion that the Redbook CD
>>> standard (16-bit/44.1 Khz sampling rate) is so
>>> good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz sampling rate
>>> (or
>>> SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings. The flip side
>>> of this
>>> rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is the
>>> claim, by
>>> many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy compression
>>> schemes
>>> are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and that
>>> one
>>> cannot hear any compression artifacts.
>>=20
>> I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's what i=
t
>> is
>> "DATA/INFORMATION REDUCTION"
>> OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name like
>> lossless compression is forced to us by smart crooked sales people.
>>=20
>> There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC and
>> everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
>>=20
>> Edmund
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> I don't know if "wrong" is the correct word or not, I mean most people
> seem happy to listen to MP3s, AAC et al in spite of the lousy sound. I
> know that I CAN and do hear the artifacts (especially on headphones -
> which I find ironic, since that's how most people mostly listen to "dat=
a
> reduced' formats). I have never heard any problems with FLAC, ALC, and
> other 'data complete' compression schemes.
First I wanted to make clear for everybody that LOSSY COMPRESSION
is no compression at all. Compression is lossless per definition.
When I compress 10 litre air and I expand it, I again have 10 litre
air, not 5!
So please call information reduction, information reduction.
So now that is cleared up, I think it is pointless to use information
reduction for high end audio as long we don have an audio system that
can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.
I also think it is pointless to say "one cannot here the difference "
as long we don't have a sound system as mentioned.
=20
In addition to that I don't need information reduction since the=20
data storage now days is very cheap a more then big enough to store
the best quality possible.=20
Edmund
Scott
> On Sep 25, 1:59=3DA0pm, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:17:37 -0700, Edmund wrote
> > (in article <i7larh0...@news3.newsguy.com>):
>
> > > "Audio Empire" <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:i7jfl...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > >> One thing that's consistent with the
> > >> "Everything-Sounds-The-Same" club is the
> > >> notion that the Redbook CD standard (16-bit/44.1 Khz sampling
> > >> rate) is so
> > >> good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz
> > >> sampling rate (or
> > >> SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings. The flip
> > >> side of this
> > >> rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is
> > >> the claim, by
> > >> many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy
> > >> compression schemes
> > >> are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and
> > >> that one
> > >> cannot hear any compression artifacts.
>
> > > I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
> > > what it is
> > > OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
> > > like
> > > lossless compression is forced to us bysmartcrooked sales
> > > people.
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
> > > and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
>
> > > Edmund
>
se=3D
> em
> > happy to listen to MP3s, AAC et al in spite of the lousy sound.
>
> I listen AAC lossles (data reduction about 50%) and the sound is
> the original. So what do you mean by "lousy sound"?
>
> > I know that I
> > CAN and do hear the artifacts
>
> in sighted comparison, of course? :-)
>
> > (especially on headphones - which I find
> > ironic, since that's how most people mostly listen to "data reduced'
ta
> > complete' compression schemes.
>
> =A0 =A0 I was also amused by the fact that any gross distortions of LP
> technology (you don't have to have "golden ears" to distinguish master
> tape from LP printed from it) are immediately excused by high-end
> community. Claims like "I am not disturbed by it", "I can listen
> through clicks-n-pops", etc. are common. Double standard, if you ask
> me :-)
>
"Gross distortions?"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dmas=
ter+tape
"First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I
have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below
changed that one bit.
I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to
an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted
about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this
thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own
with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp)
typo or two...
A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the
chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the
playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same
test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The
results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we
cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A
similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.
FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with
DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.
We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).
We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:
The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."
As for pops and ticks they are easily dealt with if one is willing to
do hi-rez rips and use a simple de-clicking program. Not really an
excuse anymore to dismiss the format. You don't *have to* listen
through pops and ticks to enjoy the virtues vinyl.
Scott
> On Sep 26, 4:41=3DA0pm, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:42:04 -0700, vlad wrote
> > (in article <8g9evcFtb...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> > > I listen AAC lossles (data reduction about 50%) and the sound is
> > > magnificent.
>
> > Lossless isn't a problem.
>
> > > Also MP3 at the rate of 320kb is undistinguishable from
> > >the original. So what do you mean by "lousy sound"?
>
> > >> I know that I
> > >> CAN and do hear the artifacts
>
> > > in sighted comparison, of course? :-)
>
> > Unsighted too...
>
> Tell us more about it. I cannot wait to hear. What were bias controls,
> what compression algorithms were used, what was the bit-rate, etc.?
>
> I happened to listen music from internet radio at the rate 32kbs, at
> this speed you do not need bias controls, artifacts were obvious and
> horrendous. So did you hear any artifacts at 320kbs?
>
the conclusions. Not very scientific or objective. Do you make the
same demands when you agree with the results? If not then your
conclusions are tainted by your own biases.
Dick Pierce
>
> "Gross distortions?"
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/ ...
>
Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Scott
> Scott wrote:
>
> > "Gross distortions?"
> >http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>
> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>
>
> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>
Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? Because
that looks to be the argument you are infering by suggesting we look
at Steve Hoffman's opinions of a particular product based on *sighted*
listening before we consider the results of his *blind* comparisons of
a fresh cut laquer and the master tape.
I would expect better than an argument of prejudice and ad hominem
from an industry pro like yourself against a fellow industry pro. I'm
sure you would want other pros to do better in any critique of
yourself on a public forum.
Should we consider your use of an obvious logial fallacy to try to
discredit the blind comparisons of an industry pro to put your views
into "a somewhat more complete perspective?"
Dick Pierce
> On Sep 27, 7:51=A0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>"Gross distortions?"
>>>http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>>
>>Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>>
>>=A0 =A0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>>
>>to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>>
>
>
> Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
No, unless you missed it, Scott, my position is:
Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
> Because
> that looks to be the argument you are infering by suggesting we look
> at Steve Hoffman's opinions of a particular product based on *sighted*
> listening before we consider the results of his *blind* comparisons of
> a fresh cut laquer and the master tape.
It looks that, maybe, to YOU. I certainly made no such inference.
Thus YOU get to take responsibility for YOUR perception. I shan't.
> I would expect better than an argument of prejudice and ad hominem
> from an industry pro like yourself against a fellow industry pro.
It is not an ad hominem attack, it is merely a pointer
to publically available information. Any inferences YOU
take to that effect are yours to own and be proud of. I
won't take any credit for your perceptions.
> Should we consider your use of an obvious logial fallacy to try to
> discredit the blind comparisons of an industry pro to put your views
> into "a somewhat more complete perspective?"
Despite you like inevticable forthcoming vehement denials
to the contrary, the logical facacy is entriely yours. I
am more than happy to give you the credit you deserve for
them.
As to ad hominem attacks, I am unphased by your thinly veiled
attempt at such an attack.
Scott
> >>Scott wrote:
>
> >>>"Gross distortions?"
> >>>http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>
> >>Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>
>
> >>to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>
> > Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> > results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> > ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
>
> No, unless you missed it, Scott, my position is:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
> =A0 =A0 to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
No, I didn't miss it Dick. In case you missed it I was of the
*opinion* that there was an *inference* built into this post.
>
> =A0> Because
>
> > that looks to be the argument you are infering by suggesting we look
> > at Steve Hoffman's opinions of a particular product based on *sighted*
> > listening before we consider the results of his *blind* comparisons of
> > a fresh cut laquer and the master tape.
>
> It looks that, maybe, to YOU. I certainly made no such inference.
> Thus YOU get to take responsibility for YOUR perception. I shan't.
OK thanks for the correction. So this was a random musing of some sort
that just coincidentally gave the appearance to be an attempt to
discredit Steve Hoffman's blind comparisons? fair enough. So I guess
you agree that in fact the results of *blind listening tests* are not
invalidated simply because the listener has, at some point in his or
her life has been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions.
That you would post a particular cherry picked observation made under
sighted conditions in response to my posting his reports of a blind
comaprison was mere coincidence not meant to infer that there was
anything wrong with the cited blind comparison.
>
> > I would expect better than an argument of prejudice and ad hominem
> > from an industry pro like yourself against a fellow industry pro.
>
> It is not an ad hominem attack, it is merely a pointer
> to publically available information. Any inferences YOU
> take to that effect are yours to own and be proud of. I
> won't take any credit for your perceptions.
Indeed, authors should never take credit for any percpetions generated
by what they write. Juxtapostion is something that no author should be
held accountable for. I really shouldn't have given any consideration
to where you placed your random cherry picked observation and should
have read no inference from it. All apologies. I don't even know where
I got the idea that anyone would ever make inferences or use passive
aggressive tactics to discredit others with opposing points of view.
That never happens. I apologize again for my complete misreading of
your post. I am pleased to know that you did not actually make the
logical fallacy that the results of *blind listening tests* are
invalid if the listener has at some point in their life been swayed by
bias effects under *sighted* conditions and that the information you
posted in no way has any bearing on the blind comparsions made by
Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray between master tape and playback of a
freshly cut laquer.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gblkd...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Sep 26, 4:41=A0pm, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:42:04 -0700, vlad wrote
>> (in article <8g9evcFtb...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I listen AAC lossles (data reduction about 50%) and the sound is
>>> magnificent.
>>
>> Lossless isn't a problem.
>>
>>> Also MP3 at the rate of 320kb is undistinguishable from
>>> the original. So what do you mean by "lousy sound"?
>>
>>>> I know that I
>>>> CAN and do hear the artifacts
>>
>>> in sighted comparison, of course? :-)
>>
>> Unsighted too...
>
> Tell us more about it. I cannot wait to hear. What were bias controls,
> what compression algorithms were used, what was the bit-rate, etc.?
>
> I happened to listen music from internet radio at the rate 32kbs, at
> this speed you do not need bias controls, artifacts were obvious and
> horrendous. So did you hear any artifacts at 320kbs?
Sure can hear artifacts at 320 kbs - on headphones, though, not so much on
speakers unless you turn the volume way up. However at less than 320 kbs,
it's easy to hear compression artifacts, even on speakers.
Nobody's discussing lossless compression. Lossless compression should be bit
perfect (or it's not lossless, now is it? 8^)
> So what is there for you that degrades the sound?
In losslessly compressed music? NOTHING, but then nobody is complaining about
lossless compression files.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gc08j...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Sep 27, 7:51=A0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> "Gross distortions?"
>>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>>
>> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>>
>> =A0 =A0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>>
>> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>>
>
> Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? Because
> that looks to be the argument you are infering by suggesting we look
> at Steve Hoffman's opinions of a particular product based on *sighted*
> listening before we consider the results of his *blind* comparisons of
> a fresh cut laquer and the master tape.
I'd say that's it's impossible to do a DBT between a vinyl record and a
master tape. The surface noise on an LP is always going to give it away.
While it is possible to have a record that is very quiet, and relatively free
of ticks and pops, it is darn near impossible to find one (even a new one)
that is perfectly quiet, with a smooth background like the tape (tape hiss
doesn't count). That means that the listeners will always be able to tell
whether they're listening to the tape or the vinyl playback, and it won't
have anything to do with the actual "sound" of the two. They could be
identical in sound, but the record surface noise will give the game away
every time.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gbll2...@mid.individual.net>):
While you have a point, Edmund, the old saying "The beginning of wisdom is to
call all things by their proper name" applies here. The industry has decided
that MP3 is a compression format, and because it throws what "it" considers
superfluous information away (and that info is not retrieved) it is
considered lossy.
> So now that is cleared up, I think it is pointless to use information
> reduction for high end audio as long we don have an audio system that
> can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.
>
> I also think it is pointless to say "one cannot here the difference "
> as long we don't have a sound system as mentioned.
> =20
> In addition to that I don't need information reduction since the=20
> data storage now days is very cheap a more then big enough to store
> the best quality possible.=20
That was one of the the points George Massenburg was trying to make in his
AES Keynote, excerpts of which I posted here last week.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gbbqt...@mid.individual.net>):
> What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was
> made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
> AMAZED!!!
>
I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal between
the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much
"extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently possible
to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it.
That's a lot of loss.
Dick Pierce
> On Sep 27, 10:51=A0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> "Gross distortions?"
>>>>>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>>>>> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>>>>> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>>
>>>> Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
>>>> ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
>>>
>>> No, unless you missed it, Scott, my position is:
>>>
>>> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>
>> *opinion* that there was an *inference* built into this post.
So, despite the fact that I carefully trimmed all other portions
or the previous post and deliberately concentrated on one very
specific aspect, it would seem you went back and put all that
context back in and then formed an opinion from the result.
Is that a reasonable summary? Because I was hard-pressed to find
ANY references in my post about anything other than a particular
fact about Steve Hoffman, offered as merely one part of the
picture of the guy.
>> It looks that, maybe, to YOU. I certainly made no such inference.
>> Thus YOU get to take responsibility for YOUR perception. I shan't.
>
> OK thanks for the correction. So this was a random musing of some sort
> that just coincidentally gave the appearance to be an attempt to
> discredit Steve Hoffman's blind comparisons?
Is this a rheorical question or are you looking for a real
answer? If the latter, the answer is no, it was merely another
start in the Steve Hoffman constellation.
> fair enough. So I guess you agree that in fact the results of
> *blind listening tests* are not invalidated simply because the
> listener has, ...
Yes, Scott, that WOULD be a guess on your part.
> That you would post a particular cherry picked observation made under
> sighted conditions in response to my posting his reports of a blind
> comaprison was mere coincidence not meant to infer that there was
> anything wrong with the cited blind comparison.
That would be another guess on your part.
> I apologize again for my complete misreading of
> your post. I am pleased to know that you did not actually make the
> logical fallacy that the results of *blind listening tests* are
> invalid if the listener has at some point in their life been swayed by
> bias effects under *sighted* conditions and that the information you
> posted in no way has any bearing on the blind comparsions made by
> Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray between master tape and playback of a
> freshly cut laquer.
And how do you know THIS? Again, by guessing? WOuld seem so, given
that I never addressed the subject.
How many wrong guesses do contestants get?
jwvm
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote
>
> > What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was
> > made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
> > AMAZED!!!
>
en
> the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much
ible
> to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it. =
=A0
> That's a lot of loss.
There should be no surprise regarding what has been discarded in
perceptual coding. By definition, what is thrown away is information
that is masked and so will not be perceived. This residual should
contain recognizable sounds and be highly correlated with the original
recording.
Andrew Barss
: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote
: (in article <8gbbqt...@mid.individual.net>):
Maybe. But if the info removed was masked by other, louder sounds, then
wouldn't the two in principle be indistinguishable?
Consider a visual analogy. You're mking a movie, and need to
have a set that looks like the White House. But only the front of the White House
(from a range of angles, so it's the front, and parts of the sides), the Oval Office, and
a few other administrative offices.
Someone then builds a demonstration, which is every part of the WH -- including many of the rooms,
the entire back side, the basement, etc. -- that your movie set didn't include.
There would be a lot of building there, absolutely none of which would have been relevant to the
replication of the WH in your movie.
--Andy Barss
vlad
Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:
. . .
>
> A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the
> chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the
> playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same
> test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The
> results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we
> cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A
> similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.
>
> FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with
> DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.
>
> We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
> WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
> Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
> the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
> (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).
>
Notice that he compared it with acetate lacquer and not with LP
printed from this lacquer. I don't think anybody collects acetate
lacquers, most people collect LP's.
> We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
> the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
>
Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
specific distortions of LP.
They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.
> Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
> Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
> listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
> noticed:
>
> The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
> from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
> tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
> acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
> SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
> so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."
So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all? I
guess, because LP sounds different from tape with "moves" and
therefore lacquer. But they did not make comparison to LP.
Also, protocol they used is far from "blind". Two humans - one of
them listening, another switching, definitely exchanged some words and
signals, so what is so "blind" about this procedure? They did not even
mention if results of their "tests" were statistically sufficient to
make conclusion of similarity. Just usual "trust me, I heard it"
argument.
Why did they digitize original tape with "moves"? There is no
mention of it used in comparison. I guess they did compare it to other
two but results did not meet their expectations (whatever they were).
>
> As for pops and ticks they are easily dealt with if one is willing to
> do hi-rez rips and use a simple de-clicking program. Not really an
> excuse anymore to dismiss the format. You don't *have to* listen
> through pops and ticks to enjoy the virtues vinyl.
So, after all digital is not so evil, you can use it removing pops-
n-clicks from LP. And listen to digital after that? :-)
vlad
Scott
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:49:23 -0700, Scott wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
> >> Scott wrote:
>
> >>> "Gross distortions?"
> >>>http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>
> >> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>
>
> >> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
>
> > Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> > results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> > ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? Because
> > that looks to be the argument you are infering by suggesting we look
> > at Steve Hoffman's opinions of a particular product based on *sighted*
> > listening before we consider the results of his *blind* comparisons of
> > a fresh cut laquer and the master tape.
>
> I'd say that's it's impossible to do a DBT between a vinyl record and a
> master tape. The surface noise on an LP is always going to give it away.
free
> of ticks and pops, it is darn near impossible to find one (even a new one=
)
> that is perfectly quiet, with a smooth background like the tape (tape his=
s
> doesn't count). That means that the listeners will always be able to tell
> whether they're listening to the tape or the vinyl playback, and it won't
> identical in sound, but the record surface noise will give the game away
> every time.
It was a fresh cut laquer of a Bill Evans recording. If anyone really
thinks the results were eroneous they can check with RTI and see if
there will be an opportunity to repeat the test. All the same
equipment used for Steve Hoffman's and Kevin Gray's blind comparisons
is still there. This is a very repetable test. That the results are
surprising is no reason to dismiss them when they can so easily be
varified.
Greg Wormald
wrote:
> By definition, what is thrown away is information
> that is masked and so will not be perceived.
IMO, not quite. There is a further word that needs to be
included--"consciously" (between "be" and "perceived").
And since the unconscious mind does far more with input than the
conscious mind, it is entirely possible that the unconscious mind can
sense that something is missing and not be able to tell the conscious
mind exactly what it is.
Depending on the communication patterns between the conscious and
unconscious mind of the individual this difference may not be
communicated at all, or well, or immediately.
This may invalidate most of the standard double-blind testing regimes in
this area.
In article <8gduhp...@mid.individual.net>,
Andrew Barss <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Consider a visual analogy. You're mking a movie, and need to
> have a set that looks like the White House. But only the front of the White
> House
> (from a range of angles, so it's the front, and parts of the sides), the Oval
> Office, and
> a few other administrative offices.
>
> Someone then builds a demonstration, which is every part of the WH --
> including many of the rooms,
> the entire back side, the basement, etc. -- that your movie set didn't
> include.
>
> There would be a lot of building there, absolutely none of which would have
> been relevant to the
> replication of the WH in your movie.
Again, IMO, not quite.
What is missing from your analogy is that the ears actually received the
modified signal with the reduced information, while the camera did not.
So while your last paragraph works for the analogy, it doesn't for
perceptual coding.
. . . . .
One of the issues I see come up in these debates is the lack of
appreciation of the processing power of the unconscious mind and the
difficulty it often has of making it's knowledge known to the conscious
mind.
This may go part way to explaining why some say "I hear it, it's
obvious." and others say "It's not there, tests show it isn't." Testing
what the unconscious mind knows is not simple in any way, and our
knowledge and understanding of how the unconscious mind works is still
in it's infancy.
IMO, if the unconscious mind, it's processing, and communications were a
matter of science, then psychotherapy would be science and mental
illness would have been eradicated.
As it is, psychotherapy is also an art form, and the 'curing' of mental
illness is highly dependent on the artistry of the therapist.
Music is also a art form.
Greg
Sebastian Kaliszewski
But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what
psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other
parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it).
Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story,
though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's
without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression
world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder).
rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Notebooks of L.L.
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
Andrew Haley
I don't understand why they would be amazed -- if they understood
perceptual coders. Granted, it's not everyone's speciality, but the
point of a perceptual coder is that it models the information that the
auditory system loses because it is masked. It would be truly amazing
if the difference signal were not strongly correlated with the input.
The whole thing sounds rather embarrassing. I imagine it must have
been a toe-curling experience for the experts in the audience.
Andrew.
jwvm
> In article <8gduhbFa8...@mid.individual.net>, jwvm <j...@umich.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > By definition, what is thrown away is information
> > that is masked and so will not be perceived.
>
> IMO, not quite. There is a further word that needs to be
> included--"consciously" (between "be" and "perceived").
>
> And since the unconscious mind does far more with input than the
> conscious mind, it is entirely possible that the unconscious mind can
> sense that something is missing and not be able to tell the conscious
> mind exactly what it is.
>
You are missing the point. The observation that I made is not a
defense of perceptual coding but rather why George's demonstration of
taking the difference between a perceptually encoded file and the
original file is bogus. His "amazing" demonstration to "audio
professionals" indicates that he does not understand the basis for
perceptual encoding or he was deliberately misleading the audience.
This also does not say much about the technical competence of the
audience.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gduhb...@mid.individual.net>):
Agreed, but apparently (I wasn't there) it was a big surprise to a lot of
attendees.
Audio Empire
(in article <8ge9h2...@mid.individual.net>):
> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote
>> (in article <8gbbqt...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>> What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was
>>> made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
>>> AMAZED!!!
>>>
>>
>> I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal between
>> the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much
>> "extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently
>> possible
>> to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it.
>> That's a lot of loss.
>>
>
> But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what
> psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other
> parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it).
>
> Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story,
> though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's
> without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression
> world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder).
>
> rgds
> \SK
>
I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the one
used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what encoder
it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on any
MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that might
be). Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I
haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about
the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as something
to avoid when practicable.
OTOH, my main interest in Mr. Massenburg's comments had to do with his take
on "high-resolution" recording, not necessarily his condemnation of lossy
compression schemes (although I do agree with him on that subject). I think
that high resolution recording formats yield recordings that transcend the
digital vs analog debate and make it moot. The fact is that analog does not
(at it's best) sound better than digital, but it does sound better than SOME
digital, like many that are recorded at low sampling rates, or are
indifferently recorded and mastered, and of, course, those produced using
lossy compression schemes such as MP3 or AAC (which, in my humble opinion, is
all about the triumph of quantity over quality).
What's sort of ironic (at least to me) is that the "hobby" of high-fidelity
came into being simply because the record companies, starting in the mid to
late 1940's, were interested in putting out the best sound possible on their
product. People with cheap players didn't, and couldn't appreciate that
quality, but the nascent, niche market of the hi-fi enthusiast did and could
appreciate the sound being recorded and pressed onto record. The fact that
the better one's playback equipment was, the better the sound being extracted
from those records, was a constant challenge to those designing the playback
(not to mention the recording) equipment. The record companies, especially in
their classical music lines (Columbia Masterworks, RCA Red Seal, Mercury
Living Presence, et al), took pride in their product, and that pride allowed
for product that drove the rest of the high-fidelity industry to continually
improve the hardware. Testimony as to how well these record companies met and
even exceeded their goals is the fact that many of these 50 + year old
recordings are still revered today and are released and re-released on
everything from "boutique" vinyl to CD, SACD, DVD-A and now, Blu-Ray and even
digitized high-resolution downloads. In other words, high-fidelity exists
because the music formats aspired to a higher standard of quality than most
of the market required. This is in rather stark contrast to today's ethos
whereby many of the formats available to us are reduced to a lowest common
denominator with heavy, lossy compression (DAB, satellite radio, Internet
Radio, as well as low-data-rate DRM'd MP3 sales through the likes of Apple's
iTunes and similar sales venues). One wonders if this was the attitude of
record producers at the dawn of the LP era - " most people are listening on
cheap portable record players anyway, so why make anything that sounds any
better than what those players can reproduce?" - where the high-fidelity
industry would be today.
bob
>
> Agreed, but apparently (I wasn't there) it was a big surprise to a lot of
> attendees.
So far as I can tell, the only evidence we have that anyone in
attendance was surprised was your assertion that "The distortion
amazed everyone in attendance." But if you weren't there, how would
you know?
bob
Audio Empire
(in article <8ggj7p...@mid.individual.net>):
Because I read the article in a British hi-fi magazine by someone who WAS
there.
bob
> Because I read the article in a British hi-fi magazine by someone who WAS
> there.
Oh, well there's an unimpeachable source for you. ;)
Maybe the buzz in the hall wasn't surprise at how much residual sound
there was. Maybe the buzz was surprise that anyone could be making
such a pseudoscientific argument at a scientific conference.
bob
Audio Empire
(in article <8gi962...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Sep 29, 3:50=A0pm, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Because I read the article in a British hi-fi magazine by someone who WAS
>> there.
>
> Oh, well there's an unimpeachable source for you. ;)
Now why would somebody lie about something like that when the facts could so
easily be checked?
> Maybe the buzz in the hall wasn't surprise at how much residual sound
> there was.
That's possible.
> Maybe the buzz was surprise that anyone could be making
> such a pseudoscientific argument at a scientific conference.
I don't see it as pseudoscientific. It demonstrates how much REAL MUSIC is,
apparently, discarded by these lossy compression schemes.
Arny Krueger
news:i7jfl...@news3.newsguy.com...
> One thing that's consistent with the "Everything-Sounds-The-Same" club is
> the
> good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz sampling rate (or
> SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings.
One learns this fact if one does his homework well.
> The flip side of this
> rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is the claim,
> by
> many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy compression
> schemes
> are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and that one
> cannot hear any compression artifacts.
One also learns this fact if one does his homework well.
> One who disagrees strongly with both of these views, apparently, is
> "legendary" producer/ designer George Massenburg (Frank Sinatra, Linda
> Rondstadt, Earth, Wind, and Fire, etc.).
> At a presentation he gave at the recent Audio Engineering Society
> Convention
> held in London earlier this year, Massenburg wondered why, with bandwidth
> so
> plentiful, and storage so cheap why people still sell compressed music
> online?
The reason is that bandwidth isn't all that plentiful in the real world, and
that storage is still limited.
I'm getting far worse average bandwidth from Comcast today than I got when I
first signed up over a decade ago. In the old days there were hardly any
people using Comcast's (actually it was their partially-owned subsidiary
@home in those days but they eventually forced @home out of business and
then bought them cheap).
I'm also trying to do far more ambitious things like download A/V files at
DVD-video quality.
For my recent backwoods camping trip I decided to replace my portable CD
with a Sansa Clip+. It only has 2 GB of built-in storage and I didn't have
time to get a 16 GB micro SDHC card to expand it. I had about 20 hours of
spoken word lectures and about 300 songs I wanted to have for my listening
pleasure and erudition when perched high on the cliffs overlooking Lake
Superior by Orphan Lake. What's a boy to do?
> "These systems (compressed music formats) take something essential from
> the
> music, and lop it off. With so much bandwidth and memory now available,
> the
> question is not how to make a better Codec, but why we are bothering to
> use
> codecs at all..."
Massenberg seems to have a number of stories to tell on this topic, and not
all seem to be the same. The bottom line is what can Massenberg actually
show he can hear in a proper bias-controlled, statistically-significant
listening test. At times he's had the clarity to seem, to admit that in that
context, well 24/96 is not so much.
> In his presentation, Massenburg showed where he took 24-bit/96 KHz
> recordings
> of Phil Collins and Diana Krall and ran them through different Codecs.
> He
> used MP3 at 128k bps, and AAC at 256k bps and showed the results on the
> screen.
> These graphics showed how the compression/expansion cycle destroyed the
> dynamic range of the original recording.
Well, he must of screwed something up, or was doing more than he said he
did. Maybe you got some details wrong. I say that because comparing MP3 at
128 to AAC at 256 is not an interesting comparison. The MPEG group knew that
a decade ago and by their work showed that they knew that it is well-known
that AAC makes more efficient use of bandwidth, so the *interesting
comparison* is MP3 at 256 against AAC at 128. You must have your story
flipped around.
That all said nobody who knows what's going on uses 128k MP3 as a reference
format. 192k or 320k is more like it. So, anybody who says that MP3 at 128
has slight to noticeable audible effects depending on the program material
is spouting very old news. I know a roomful of people whose patience would
be tried by comments like those that you are reporting. Given that
Massenberg usually at least tries to be interesting, I'm going to say that
he probably said something else.
> "These are standard systems and they are not good enough for us to use. By
> coding the hell out of the music, and slashing the sound, we are missing a
> market."
That's true if your reference standard for music *is* 128K MP3. Of course
that isn't currently the case.
Even in 2003 official Apple documents said that 160k is their standard for
MP3:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA27396?viewlocale=en_US
> Massenburg then used a demonstration to drive his point home. He
> electronically subtracted the MP3 compressed music from the original
> 24-bit/96 KHz recording and then played ONLY the difference signal which
> was
> comprised solely of the information lost by the compression.
Only compleat idiots use signal subtraction as a standard for audible
changes. The problem here is that there are a lot of well-known idiots in
this world who seem to have more talking space than technical knowledge to
back it up. The problem with subtraction is that even minor and easily
demonstrated totally inaudible amounts of phase shift can lead to massive
difference signals when you do signal subtraction.
> "These are distortion levels of 15 � 20 percent! ", he said as he played
> the
> difference signal for all to hear. The distortion amazed everyone in
> attendance because it was a grotesquely, but very recognizable version of
> the
> original recoding!
This is so bad to me that it hurts my head when I read it. If you mismatch
the amplitude of two signals by 1 dB, the difference signal is 10%. Yet
neither signal need have any added nonlinear distortion at all. You just got
the levels a bit wrong. And this is aside from the inaudible phase shift
issue that I raised above. So now *the grat man* would be appear to be
talking trash on two levels. Ouch!
I gotta stop, this sort of gross technical ignorance in high places makes my
head hurt. Hopefully a verbatim report would be more reasonable.
Arny Krueger
news:8gc08j...@mid.individual.net...
> On Sep 27, 7:51=A0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>> > "Gross distortions?"
>> >http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>>
>> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>>
>> =A0 =A0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>>
>> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
> Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
I think you've missed the point, Scott.
The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of hardware
is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus
hardware.
The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on some
crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardware
evaluation?"
Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally, hardware
evaluation.
isw
Audio Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data
which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a
"reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there
is nothing there about how good it sounds...
> Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I
> haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about
> the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as something
> to avoid when practicable.
How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".
Isaac
Doug McDonald
>
> This is so bad to me that it hurts my head when I read it. If you mismatch
> the amplitude of two signals by 1 dB, the difference signal is 10%. Yet
> neither signal need have any added nonlinear distortion at all. You just got
> the levels a bit wrong. And this is aside from the inaudible phase shift
> issue that I raised above. So now *the grat man* would be appear to be
> talking trash on two levels. Ouch!
>
> I gotta stop, this sort of gross technical ignorance in high places makes my
> head hurt. Hopefully a verbatim report would be more reasonable.
>
>
It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_noise.
Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experience
doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one
tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small
and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion
is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate
does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps
I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially
nonlinear distortion.
Doug McDonald
Arny Krueger
news:8gdujs...@mid.individual.net...
> On Sep 27, 7:35=A0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
> between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328
>> We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
>> the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
> Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
> different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
> sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
> specific distortions of LP.
This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced
that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cutting
masters".
> They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
> digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
> more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.
Was the listening evaluation unbiased?
>> Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
>> Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
>> listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
>> noticed:
>> The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
>> from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
>> tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
>> acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
>> SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
>> so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."
I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. The
listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.
> So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
> identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?
The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
accurate-sounding LP.
Arny Krueger
> I think it is pointless to use information
> reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that
> can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.
??????????
Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction
anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake?
Arny Krueger
news:i7njn...@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <i7lar...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
> low a bit rate, or both.
Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source!
jwvm
> It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_noise.
What you say is very true but that is not the objective with
perceptual encoding. What is sought with this class of encoders is to
maximize transparency at given bit rates using human listeners as the
means of evaluation. The problem with simply using mean squared error
measures between the original and compressed recording is that
frequencies are either removed or coarsely quantized resulting in
noticeable degradation. In addition, perceptual coders use coarse
quantization for components that are weakly perceived by listeners so
will be unlikely to be heard which will be different from results
using MSE
> Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experience
> doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one
> tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small
> and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion
> is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate
> does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps
> I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially
> nonlinear distortion.
The residual (removed) components of compressed audio at low bit rates
actually may be relatively linear since it consists of sounds that are
largely masked in the original signal. At higher data rates, much more
audio information is preserved and the residual components are likely
to be much more nonlinear and contain significant amounts of
quantization errors.
You do indeed ask the 64,000,000 dollar question here. Clearly the
vast majority of listeners outside of this newsgroup have little
problem with lossy compression given sufficiently high data rates.
Published results from properly conducted trials available on the web
indicate that AAC compression at 128 kbps is close to or completely
transparent in most cases. Obviously, this is heresy to some here.
jwvm
<snip>
> How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
> vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
> of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".
>
> Isaac
Agreed! Clearly, streaming services like Pandora will need to continue
to use lossy compression for the foreseeable future since many ISP
provide limited date rates and some put monthly caps on service. Many
locations actually have slower internet speeds than what was available
four or five years ago so there is no guarantee that things will be
improving. Of particular note here is the mobile web since there is
only a finite amount of spectrum available.
Scott
> "vlad" <vova.kuznet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8gdujs...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
> > between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:
>
>
> >> We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
> >> the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
ds
> > different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
> > sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
> > specific distortions of LP.
>
> This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced
ng
> masters".
Not sure what that would have to do with this situation. They weren't
using a "cutting" master and Steve Hoffman explained in the article
why he did the comparison with the "moves" in place.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight=3Dmas=
ter+tape
"We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).'
The "moves" were the same ones he used to master the LP and SACD for
Analog Productions. The "moves" were already designed to make the best
sounding final product both for LP and SACD. They were not designed to
obscure the differences between the fresh cut laquer and the feed from
the master tape.
>
> > =A0 =A0They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect th=
at
> > digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
> > more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.
>
> Was the listening evaluation unbiased?
It was blind and it was level matched and it was a comaprison between
the feed from the master tape with the "moves" in place and the laquer
that was cut with the "moves" in place. So I fail to see the issue
with the "moves."
>
> >> Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
> >> Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
> >> listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
> >> noticed:
> >> The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
> >> from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
> >> tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
> >> acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
> >> SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
> >> so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."
>
> I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. =
The
> listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.
I'm not really sure what you are saying here Arny. This was in essence
and AB/HR blind test.
>
> > =A0 =A0So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
> > identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?
>
> The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
> accurate-sounding LP.
They were not needed. They were there because Hoffman felt the tape
sounded better with the moves. Please see the quote and link to the
original article above. The "moves" were not a factor since the
signal fed to the cutting lathe and the signal used to do the
comparison were the *same* signal. The "moves" are not an issue.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gk80j...@mid.individual.net>):
Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master is
no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exactly
like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something. BTW,
with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a
technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial release
practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology. IOW, anyone
can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any
DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording. An SACD can be made from a
DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master, and
ditto with either a 24/96KHz or 24/192 KHz DVD-A or Blu-Ray LPCM, Dolby
TrueHD, or DTS-HD disc made from 24/96 KHz or 24/192 masters.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gk813...@mid.individual.net>):
Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3. Increasing the data rate merely
makes it more difficult to hear the artifacts, they are still there. If one
knows what one is listening for, compression artifacts can be heard on MP3's
made with bit-rates as high as 320 bps - I doubt if they could be heard on
speakers at that rate, but can be clearly heard on decent quality headphones.
So, if this is a result of a "poor encoder algorithm", then that's what the
entire industry is using - poor encoder algorithms, because these artifacts
exist on every MP3 that I have ever tried to listen to on headphones. Most
people don't seem to mind them, but I find them very annoying. Much, much
more so than the occasional tick or pop on an LP.
Scott
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > "vlad" <vova.kuznet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the
"recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think
would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not
in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass
to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would
it make?
> BTW,
> with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a
> technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial release
> practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology.
Well that depends on what you mean by technology.
> IOW, anyone
> can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any
> DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording.
And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to
detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in
Hoffman's original article.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328&highlight...
> An SACD can be made from a
> DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master,
And yet they heard a difference with that as well.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gk2cg...@mid.individual.net>):
Yes, that would, of course, make sense.
>> Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I
>> haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about
>> the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as
>> something
>> to avoid when practicable.
>
> How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
> vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
> of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".
>
> Isaac
I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct
Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those
DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies
unless he asks for something better.
Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as
a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
'transparent' reproduction."
BTW, I have no beef with using data compression schemes such as FLAC or ALC
to save bandwidth or storage space, my bugaboo is with compression schemes
that throw program material away in order to reduce file size. Also not all
lossy compression schemes yield the same quality results. While MP3 sounds
terrible to me, I find that Sony's ATRAC, the compression scheme they came up
with for Minidisc, to be much more benign than MP3. To my knowledge, I have
no experience with AAC and cannot comment on that.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gk80u...@mid.individual.net>):
You have misattributed the above quote. Audio_Empire didn't write that.
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8gc08j...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
> >> Scott wrote:
>
> >> > "Gross distortions?"
> >> >http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>
> >> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>
>
> >> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
> > Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> > results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> > ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
>
> I think you've missed the point, Scott.
>
are
> is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
> support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus
> hardware.
>
ome
> crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardwa=
re
> evaluation?"
>
> Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
> recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
are
> evaluation.
Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The
problem is the argument fails miserably. Nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
association. It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't
believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted
conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of
double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work
pretty well. If one feels that both Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray were
failing to hear differences that were present then the logical thing
to do would be to repete the test. This is something that could be
done and probably with little trouble. RTI is still there and still
using the same hardware. Rmemeber we are talking about an assertion of
"gross" distortion. I think it is pretty obvious that the laquer cut
at RTI by Hoffman and Gray used to compare with the master tape feed
was "grossly" distorting the original signal in any audible way. I
also think it is pretty obvious that the difference between the laquer
and the vinyl that would come from it would introduce any other
"gross" audible distortions. It's kind of sad that some would take
cheap shots at Hoffman because they don't like the results of his
comparison.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gk333...@mid.individual.net>):
I agree, On speakers, I find that I can listen to 128 Kbps and above and
MOSTLY not notice anything untoward (of course, the higher the bit-rate, the
less I notice) but on headphones I can hear artifacts clear out to 320 Kbps,
and yes it is mostly noise. That wouldn't bother me if the noise didn't
"ride" the music like it does. I listen to a lot of Internet radio via my
AppleTV box (the old one, not the new one) and several "stations" that I
listen to regularly sound very good (as background music while I'm reading).
Invariably the ones I find myself listening to are 128 Kbps or higher. Fancy
that.
Audio Empire
(in article <i835g...@news1.newsguy.com>):
> On Sep 30, 2:26=A0pm, Doug McDonald <mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_n=
> oise.
>
> What you say is very true but that is not the objective with
> perceptual encoding. What is sought with this class of encoders is to
> maximize transparency at given bit rates using human listeners as the
> means of evaluation. The problem with simply using mean squared error
> measures between the original and compressed recording is that
> frequencies are either removed or coarsely quantized resulting in
> noticeable degradation. In addition, perceptual coders use coarse
> quantization for components that are weakly perceived by listeners so
> will be unlikely to be heard which will be different from results
> using MSE
>
>> Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experienc=
> e
>> doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one
>> tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small
>> and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion
>> is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate
>> does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps
>> I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially
>> nonlinear distortion.
>
> The residual (removed) components of compressed audio at low bit rates
> actually may be relatively linear since it consists of sounds that are
> largely masked in the original signal. At higher data rates, much more
> audio information is preserved and the residual components are likely
> to be much more nonlinear and contain significant amounts of
> quantization errors.
>
> You do indeed ask the 64,000,000 dollar question here. Clearly the
> vast majority of listeners outside of this newsgroup have little
> problem with lossy compression given sufficiently high data rates.
> Published results from properly conducted trials available on the web
> indicate that AAC compression at 128 kbps is close to or completely
> transparent in most cases. Obviously, this is heresy to some here.
What you are overlooking, Mr. Kruger, is that most people are very
unsophisticated listeners. This is not an attempt by me to in any way
belittle anyone, it's just fact (and always has been) that the average person
who listens to music doesn't care that much about sound quality. Simply being
able to hear the music they like is usually good enough for most. This can be
easily seen. Very few CD or MP3 buyers have fancy stereo systems. Most listen
on iPod -like devices or bedside CD players or perhaps a set of computer
speakers or even a so-called boom-box (I believe that I read somewhere that a
recent study showed that most people do the majority of their music listening
in their CARS on the way to and from work - 'nuff said). The fact that these
devices don't sound very good is of little consequence to these music buyers.
They can hear the tunes they like and that's enough. Therefore it is not at
all surprising or unusual for these same people have little problem with
lossy compression systems. As long as the music isn't grossly distorted, the
vast majority of listeners will be fine with any format that comes down the
pike. OTOH, people who would have the interest to post on a NG like this one,
would, ostensibly, be more inclined to be serious about the quality of their
audio. Luckily, there is room in the world for both types. I have nothing
against others embracing lossy compression schemes. If that's all they need
to satisfy their listening "jones", so be it. As long as I still have the
CHOICE to eschew such formats, I could care less. What I am a little afraid
of, though, is that at some point, the recording industry is going to decide
that since most people are fine with low bit-rate lossy compression schemes,
that's really all the record industry needs to produce. That would be sad.
Audio Empire
(in article <i83iq...@news7.newsguy.com>):
> On Sep 30, 6:22=A0pm, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <8gk80jFue...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "vlad" <vova.kuznet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8gdujs...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
>>>> between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:
>>
>>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D133328
>>
>>>>> We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping t=
> o
>>>>> the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
>>
>>>> Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
>>>> different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
>>>> sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
>>>> specific distortions of LP.
>>
>>> This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produce=
> d
>>> that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cut=
> ting
>>> masters".
>>
>>>> They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
>>>> digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
>>>> more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.
>>
>>> Was the listening evaluation unbiased?
>>
>>>>> Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
>>>>> Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
>>>>> listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
>>>>> noticed:
>>
>>>>> The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
>>>>> from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
>>>>> tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
>>>>> acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
>>>>> SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
>>>>> so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."
>>
>>> I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed=
> . The
>>> listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.
>>
>>>> So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
>>>> identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?
>>
>>> The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
>>> accurate-sounding LP.
>>
>> Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master=
> is
>> no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exact=
> ly
>> like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something.
>
> Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the
> "recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think
> would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not
> in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass
> to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would
> it make?
Not sure I understand where you are going with this, but just off the top of
my head, there would be a number differences, not the least of which would be
generational degradation from the original master tape (assuming that more
than just the original recording master is analog). When I worked for Century
Records. "mastering moves" were different for different master tapes. In
those days, we did sum all the bass to the left channel to make the discs
"mono compatible", but it wouldn't surprise me to find that some compression
was used or that some EQ (other than RIAA) was applied.
>> BTW,
>> with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a
>> technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial relea=
> se
>> practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology.
>
> Well that depends on what you mean by technology.
Not at all. What it means is exactly what I described. An unaltered transfer
from digital recording master to consumer medium (CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray
high-res download) can be identical to the master in every way. The key
phrase here is "unaltered". It's rarely done.
>> IOW, anyone
>> can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any
>> DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording.
>
> And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to
> detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in
> Hoffman's original article.
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D3D133328&highlight...
Well, all I can say is that they have introduced another step, The original
Bill Evans master was two-channel (or perhaps three channel) analog stereo.
They had to quantize the analog master to make a CD of it. Now an original
digital master straight from microphones, and a CD made from that master
should be identical UNLESS somebody fiddled with the sound between the actual
performance capture and the mastering of the CD.
>
>
>> An SACD can be made from a
>> DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master,
>
> And yet they heard a difference with that as well.
See above.
But given what record companies routinely do with performance capture
masters, I have no doubt that they heard a difference. I recently bought a
new Chandos CD of a recent performance of Vaughn Williams score for the 1940
British film "The 49th Parallel". The CD cover has the words "recorded in
24-bit/96 KHz" emblazoned across it. It should sound very good. It doesn't.
Reason? Some mix engineer thought that he could "improve" it. How do I know
this? Because no modern recording company could possibly employ microphones
and mixers and recording devices that sound this bad. The recording has no
deep bass, the highs sound restricted and grainy, and the recording has
little dynamic range and actually sounds thick vieled. Whoever did this
should be banned from the industry. But this is the norm rather than the
exception in the recording industry. That's why I got back into recording
after a hiatus of many years. I have said this before and will say it again.
I can routinely make better sounding recordings than 80% of the commercial
product on the market and do so with a very modest complement of modern
equipment. If I can do it on a shoestring, then the fact that the industry
can't (or rather doesn't) even come close must be on purpose.
isw
Audio Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method
above.
Isaac
Arny Krueger
My apologies. You are right about this error of mine and of course I was
wrong. The author was "Edmund".
Arny Krueger
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <8gk813...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "isw" <i...@witzend.com> wrote in message
>> news:i7njn...@news3.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <i7lar...@news3.newsguy.com>,
>>
>>> If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
>>> low a bit rate, or both.
>>
>> Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source!
> Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3.
Please get back when you have some experiences with DBTs done to the
standards that encoder designers and many of the more savvy consumers use.
You can find out more about the practices and experiencs of these people on
the Hydrogen Audio forum, where you may also contribute.
Arny Krueger
If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally
collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of
information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation.
> Nothing a person reports from
> listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
> they report under blind conditions.
This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be
reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind
tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle.
For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that
are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least
for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of
mastering - to introduce audible changes.
I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual
observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it
contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled
eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work.
Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to be
flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it
will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craft
their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that those
things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such.
The problem here is that many non-technical people seem to be unable to
know, based on experience, perceptions, measurements and calculations, which
differences are subtle and which are non-subtle.
C. Leeds
news://8gc08j...@mid.individual.net/):
> nothing a person reports from
> listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
> they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
> association.
That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every
sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination
of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained
under blind conditions.
It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any
sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be
validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken.
Scott
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:59:35 -0700, Scott wrote
> > Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the
> > "recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think
> > would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not
> > in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass
> > to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would
> > it make?
>
> Not sure I understand where you are going with this, but just off the top=
of
> my head, there would be a number differences, not the least of which woul=
d be
> generational degradation from the original master tape (assuming that mor=
e
> than just the original recording master is analog).
I would disagree. IME when Hoffman makes mastering "moves" the result
is improved sound. he is very respectful of what is on a master tape
and has no problem making no changes if what is on the tape is ideal.
Where I am going with this is that i don't see how the "moves" would
affect the comparison.
> When I worked for Century
> Records. "mastering moves" were different for different master tapes. In
> those days, we did sum all the bass to the left channel to make the discs
> "mono compatible", but it wouldn't surprise me to find that some compress=
ion
> was used or that some EQ (other than RIAA) was applied.
But we are not talking about what happened at Century we are talking
about the "moves" Steve Hoffman made with this particular tape. He did
not use compression. he did not sum the bass to mono.
> > Well that depends on what you mean by technology.
>
> Not at all.
Oh yes absolutely. My old 14 bit CD player was and still is if it
exists and is working somewhere, "technology." It is not transparent.
> What it means is exactly what I described. An unaltered transfer
> from digital recording master to consumer medium (CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ra=
y
> high-res download) can be identical to the master in every way. =A0The ke=
y
> phrase here is "unaltered". It's rarely done. =A0
That isn't technology that is a description of the ideal process. The
"technology" is the stuff used to actually do it. And as you have
pointed out that rarely gives us the ideal. In the case of the Hoffman/
Gray comparisons the results suggest that the transfer was not
completely transparent. The equipment used is listed in the original
article and at RTI's website. So if anyone feels the equipment was
wanting feel free to check it out and tell us what was wrong with the
gear.
> > And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to
> > detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in
> > Hoffman's original article.
> >http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D3D3D133328&highligh=
t...
>
> Well, all I can say is that they have introduced another step, The origin=
al
> Bill Evans master was two-channel (or perhaps three channel) analog stere=
o.
> They had to quantize the analog master to make a CD of it.
Yes of course. How else does one make a commercial CD?
> Now an original
> digital master straight from microphones, and a CD made from that master
> should be identical UNLESS somebody fiddled with the sound between the ac=
tual
> performance capture and the mastering of the CD. =A0
Well, we are not talking about that and that will never ever happen
with a Bill Evans recording. So not much point in talking about
something so irrelevant to the comparisons I posted.
>
>
>
> But given what record companies routinely do with performance capture
> masters, I have no doubt that they heard a difference. I recently bought =
a
> new Chandos CD of a recent performance of Vaughn Williams score for the 1=
940
> British film "The 49th Parallel". The CD cover has the words "recorded in
> 24-bit/96 KHz" emblazoned across it. It should sound very good. It doesn'=
t.
> Reason? Some mix engineer thought that he could "improve" it. How do I kn=
ow
> this? Because no modern recording company could possibly employ microphon=
es
> and mixers and recording devices that sound this bad. The recording has n=
o
> deep bass, the highs sound restricted and grainy, and the recording has
> little dynamic range and actually sounds thick vieled. Whoever did this
> should be banned from the industry. But this is the norm rather than the
> exception in the recording industry. That's why I got back into recording
> after a hiatus of many years. I have said this before and will say it aga=
in.
> I can routinely make better sounding recordings than 80% of the commercia=
l
> product on the market and do so with a very modest complement of modern
> equipment. If I can do it on a shoestring, then the fact that the industr=
y
> can't (or rather doesn't) even come close must be on purpose
What you are describing is bad mastering. These comparisons were not
meant to judge Hoffman's mastering. They were meant to judge the
formats as they were implimented at RTI. If you have any doubts about
Hoffman's mastering on the Bill Evans recordings you can get them on
SACD and compare them to any other version. (The LPs all sold out) I
think you will find the "moves" he used were very effective in
bringing out the best of the original recording.
Scott
The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing
association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really
believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect
the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions
please explain how. We need causation here. More specifically how
would Steve Hoffman's previous experiences with a device claimed to
affect the room acoustics under sighted conditions affect his
percpetions when comparing a fresh cut laquer to a feed from the
master tape that was used to cut that same laquer under blind
conditions?
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8gltnv...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 8:47=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8gc08j...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> >> Scott wrote:
>
> >> >> > "Gross distortions?"
> >> >> >http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
>
> >> >> Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
>
>
> >> >> to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
> >> > Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
> >> > results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
> >> > ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
>
> >> I think you've missed the point, Scott.
>
> >> The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of
> > are
> >> is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
us
> >> hardware.
>
> >> The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation o=
n
> >> s=3D
> > ome
> >> crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for
> > re
> >> evaluation?"
>
> >> Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
> >> recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
> >> technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally,
> > are
> >> evaluation.
> > Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The
> > problem is the argument fails miserably.
>
> If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally
> collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of
> information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation.
As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels of
"reliability." As a listener under blind conditions Steve Hoffman's
abilities are not in any way dependent on his beliefs about any room
treatment. do you disagree? That is why the argument fails
>
> > Nothing a person reports from
> > listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
> > they report under blind conditions.
>
> This is of course totally false.
No Arny it is totally true. It is absurd to think that prejudices from
previous sighted listening experiences will affect the results of
blind listening tests.
> As long as the audible effect can be
> reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for bli=
nd
> tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle.
You can use this argument when you have demonstrated that is the case
with the feresh cut laquer from RTI played back on their lathe. Since
the equipment is still there you can always repete the test.
Dismissing the test simply because you don't like the conclusion is
hardly "scientific" or "objective." If you think the results were
eroneous prove it buy repeting the test and getting a positive result.
Anything else is just hand waving.
>
> For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance th=
at
> are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least
> for reasonably well-trained listeners. =A0That's the whole purpose of
> mastering - to introduce audible changes.
Irrelevant to this case since the mastering moves were implimented on
both the laquer and the feed from the master tape to which it was
compared.
>
> I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual
> observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it
> contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled
> eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work.
> Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to =
be
> flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it
> will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craf=
t
> their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that thos=
e
> things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such=
Audio Empire
(in article <8gm8ef...@mid.individual.net>):
That's interesting. And here I always thought that the purpose of mastering
was to transfer a "master tape" into another format which can be easily and
economically distributed to customers via mass production.
> I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual
> observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it
> contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled
> eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work.
> Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to be
> flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it
> will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craft
> their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that those
> things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such.
????
Arny Krueger
>> If that argument truely fails then life as we know it
>> should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know
>> about the reliability of information sources is based on
>> their past history, IOW their reputation.
> As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels
> of "reliability."
Furthermore our reliability varies depending on circumstance. For example
much of the so-called evidence that circulates in audio's high end is
basically eyewitness accounts. It is well known in law enforcment that
eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable kind of evidence.
> As a listener under blind conditions
> Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on
> his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree?
Since "Blind test" is generally used by you Scott to mean single blind
evaluation, and since single blind evaluations are just defective DBTs, I
don't need to comment further.
> That is why the argument fails
Once again Scott your statements demonstrate how to combine inscrutable
logic with made up facts, misunderstandings and other highly unreliable
so-called evidence to reach dubious conclusions.
>>> Nothing a person reports from
>>> listening under sighted conditions in any way has any
>>> bearing on what they report under blind conditions.
>> This is of course totally false.
> No Arny it is totally true. It is absurd to think that
> prejudices from previous sighted listening experiences
> will affect the results of blind listening tests.
Please see my former comments about your seemingly habitual abuse of the
phrase "blind test", and why that eliminates any need for me to comment
further.
>> As long as the audible effect can be
>> reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle,
>> there's no need for bli nd tests to prove yet again
>> that it is generally non-subtle.
> You can use this argument when you have demonstrated that
> is the case with the feresh cut laquer from RTI played
> back on their lathe.
I can use this argument today and wait for you to refute it for the first
time, Scott.
> Since the equipment is still there
> you can always repete the test. Dismissing the test
> simply because you don't like the conclusion is hardly
> "scientific" or "objective." If you think the results
> were eroneous prove it buy repeting the test and getting
> a positive result. Anything else is just hand waving.
I feel no need to refute purported tests that fail to meet basic standards
for good subjective testing.
>> For example, mastering involves changes to levels and
>> spectral balance th= at are widely known and easily
>> demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for
>> reasonably well-trained listeners. =A0That's the whole
>> purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes.
> Irrelevant to this case since the mastering moves were
> implimented on both the laquer and the feed from the
> master tape to which it was compared.
I don't see any evidence to support this contention. We've got a clear case
Scott where the document you cited does not support your claim(s).
Audio Empire
(in article <8gm7l6...@mid.individual.net>):
No need. I can hear the artifacts. They are there and NOT subtle. When I play
the original non-compressed version, those same artifacts are NOT present. To
make an analogy, do you have to have a DBT to tell you that a phonograph
record has ticks, pops and "vinyl rush" that are not present on the master
tape? Of course not.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gm7jh...@mid.individual.net>):
No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior
results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear
the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is
not my problem.
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8gmhfm...@mid.individual.net
>
> > On Oct 1, 7:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
> >> If that argument truely fails then life as we know it
> >> should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know
> >> about the reliability of information sources is based on
> >> their past history, IOW their reputation.
> > As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels
> > of "reliability."
>
> Furthermore our reliability varies depending on circumstance. For example
> much of the so-called evidence that circulates in audio's high end is
> basically eyewitness accounts. It is well known in law enforcment that
> eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable kind of evidence.
>
> > As a listener under blind conditions
> > Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on
> > his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree?
>
> Since "Blind test" is generally used by you Scott to mean single blind
> evaluation, and since single blind evaluations are just defective DBTs, I
> don't need to comment further.
I suppose you need not. That is plainly incorrect. they are simply
single blind tests. While they are not *as* reliable as DBTs and for
that matter DBT are not as reliable as triple blind tests. and no
blind test is perfectly reliable or unreliable. But maybe if you care
to discuss it further you can explain how single blindedness would
give us a false negative?
Dick Pierce
> It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association.
And, once again, that would be YOUR association.
> It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't
> believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted
> conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of
> double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work
> pretty well.
No, they are not. A description of the blinding process, the number
of trials, the results of the trials and a whole raft of information
about the protocols is simply not in his description. In fact, the
word "blind" or "db" (as in double-blind) isn't even to be found
in his post. (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328)
But some subset of the poseters are assuming it was a blind test,
and a subset of that is assuming that it is a valid blind test.
Where's the actual data to support that?
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Scott
> Scott wrote:
> > It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association.
>
> And, once again, that would be YOUR association.
No. It belongs to the person who made the association. That was not
me.
>
> > It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't
> > believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted
> > conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of
> > double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work
> > pretty well.
>
> No, they are not.
They are not what?
> A description of the blinding process, the number
> of trials, the results of the trials and a whole raft of information
> about the protocols is simply not in his description.
That is true it was a pretty informal description of what took place.
But that is not the same as poor protocols.
> In fact, the
> word "blind" or "db" (as in double-blind) isn't even to be found
> in his post. (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328)
That is odd. But if you check the thread you will find in post #94
Hoffman confirms that it was a blind comparison.
"These were Blind as I mentioned in my first post. Kevin did the knobs
and then I did..."
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328&page=5
>
> But some subset of the poseters are assuming it was a blind test,
> and a subset of that is assuming that it is a valid blind test.
>
> Where's the actual data to support that?
No not an assumption. It is stated in the thread that it is blind. as
for it's validity...that seems to depend on a persons prejudices more
than anything else. The article was posted by me in response to the
assertion that vinyl "gorssly" distorts the sound we hear. I think it
highly unlikely that the inherent distortions are so gross that Steve
Hoffman and Kevin Gray would fail to hear any differences between the
fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape. Nothing more
nothing less. IMO we have learned more about how people react to
undesirable results than anything else from this thread.
isw
Audio Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote
> (in article <8gm7jh...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> > In article <i83ip...@news7.newsguy.com>,
> > Audio Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
> >> (in article <8gk2cg...@mid.individual.net>):
> >>
[ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ]
> >>>
> >>> How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
> >>> vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
> >>> of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".
> >>>
> >>> Isaac
> >>
> >> I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in
> >> Direct
> >> Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of
> >> those
> >> DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
> >> available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
> >> Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies
> >> unless he asks for something better.
> >>
> >> Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing
> >> as
> >> a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
> >> 'transparent' reproduction."
> >
> > I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method
> > above.
>
> No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior
> results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear
> the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is
> not my problem.
My point (evidently lost) was that you are, undoubtedly, dealing with
considerably more data than necessary. Or to put it another way, it is
undoubtedly the case that some of the data you've recorded could be
removed without your being able to detect that it had been.
Isaac
C. Leeds
>>> nothing a person reports from
>>> listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
>>> they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
>>> association.
I answered (in full):
>> That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every
>> sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination
>> of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained
>> under blind conditions.
>>
>> It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any
>> sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be
>> validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken.
Scott now says:
> The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing
> association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really
> believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect
> the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions
> please explain how...
Don't be silly. I never expressed that "belief." Neither has anyone else
in this group who disputes your original claim.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gnill...@mid.individual.net>):
If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit instead
of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will
yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.
high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues,
more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and
ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. Granted, normal CD
resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths are
much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument of
analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skeptics
completely.
Arny Krueger
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <8gm8ef...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> This is of course totally false. As long as the audible
>> effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally
>> non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet
>> again that it is generally non-subtle.
>> For example, mastering involves changes to levels and
>> spectral balance that are widely known and easily
>> demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for
>> reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole
>> purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes.
>
>
> That's interesting. And here I always thought that the
> purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into
> another format which can be easily and economically
> distributed to customers via mass production.
That's the purpose, but that is not a detailed description of what the
process we know as mastering involves.
Here's an independent description of some of the details of mastering from
an independent source:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/
Q6.3 - What is mastering?
" Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.
The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.
Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.
A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.
Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]
"
Particularly:
"Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: ...
...(adjustment of the) relation of levels between tracks...
...(adjustment of) program EQ to achieve a desired consistency..
IOW:
...mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance...
"Program Eq" and "changes to spectral balance" are two ways to describe the
identical same processing.
Scott
I said
1, "nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions
in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind
conditions." That means previous experiences under sighted conditions
will not give direction to or affect the results of new tests under
blind conditions. Nothing more nothing less. That is all *I* (the
author) meant.
which you say is "absurd." If you think that is absurd then you must
by logical deduction "believe that previous experiences under sighted
conditions will affect or give direction to the results of completely
new listening tests under blind conditions."
To which you say you never "expressed that 'belief'" ..
Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? I am
saying they were not. Nothing more nothing less.
Dick Pierce
> Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
> comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
> acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?
Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,
that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of
blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the
number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other
than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that
there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged
in and reported.
Arny Krueger
> If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say,
> 20 or 16-bit instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates
> (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will yield sound
> indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.
This is a clear case of someone trying to establish their opinon by fiat as
being the only valid opinion, in the face of a world of evidence that is
seemingly far more compelling than the limited and questionable data which
he himself has presented.
Just to repeat the obvious, there is considerable evidence, gathered under
highly controlled circumstances by a large number of independent qualified
and amateur observers that says that shorter word length (say,> 20 or 16-bit
instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1
KHz) will yield sound
indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz.
Understanding this puts you are in total agreement with the best information
that is currently available, both theoretical and real-world.
Reliable and up-to-date knowlege of the real world performance of recording
setups and psychoacoutics, predicts this result. IOW, if you know how
listeners perform and you know what kind of results you obtain when you
actually record acoustic music, the above real-world results are no surprise
to you at all.
> high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better
> localization cues, more "air" around the instruments, and
> much better low-level detail and ambience than is
> possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz.
This is one of those effects, like the benefits of talking to plants, that
disappers under reasonble experimental controls.
> Granted, normal CD
> resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and
> longer word lengths are much better yet. They gild the
> lily in such a way as to make the argument of analog vs
> digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital
> skeptics completely.
Intreresting that so many (probably thousands) have done comparisons like
this and been reduced to random guessing, once the statistical results are
known.
Unfortunately our correspondent's approach to this problem has seemingly
been to simply avoid gathering enough data for a proper statistical
analysis.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gp0q4...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Audio Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8gmmgj...@mid.individual.net
>
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <8gm8ef...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>
>>> This is of course totally false. As long as the audible
>>> effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally
>>> non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet
>>> again that it is generally non-subtle.
>
>>> For example, mastering involves changes to levels and
>>> spectral balance that are widely known and easily
>>> demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for
>>> reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole
>>> purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes.
>>
>>
>> That's interesting. And here I always thought that the
>> purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into
>> another format which can be easily and economically
>> distributed to customers via mass production.
>
> That's the purpose, but that is not a detailed description of what the
> process we know as mastering involves.
> Here's an independent description of some of the details of mastering from
> an independent source:
I was being sarcastic. Of course I know the process. I used to do it for a
living. 8^)
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/
>
> Q6.3 - What is mastering?
>
> " Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
> the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
> the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
> variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
> be properly rendered on vinyl.
>
> The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
> There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
> eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
> As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
> simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
> PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
> number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
> track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
> is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
> pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.
>
> Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
> recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
> the recording sounding the way it ought to.
Interesting that the phrase "...make it sound like it ought to..." More
often than not, means "screw it up out of all recognition so that it has
little in common with the actual recording capture master".
> Tasks often done in
> mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
> fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
> doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
> program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
> disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.
>
> A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
> and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
> recording sound terrible.
Bingo! There seem to be a lot more bad ones these days than there are good
ones.
>Some recordings are so well produced,
> mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
> sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
> think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
> that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.
And some recordings are excellent and the commercial mastering process turns
them into "wretched trash".
Dick Pierce
Mr. Hoffman himself can't seem to even remember what he wrote.
In his original post, he never once uses the word "blind" nor
describes anything that would suggest there was any blind
protocol used.
QUoting from his first post, this is is ONLY description of the
protocol:
"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching
levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as
Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and
listening)."
There's no "blind testing" there. There's no randomization, no
controls. There's nothing in his article that suggests anything
you're claiming. As you correctly quoted, he says:
"These were Blind as I mentioned in my first post. Kevin did
the knobs and then I did..."
He did NOT, in his first post, state the tests were blind.
And since when is:
"Kevin did the knobs and then I did..."
an acceptable blind protocol.
Until Mr. Hoffman is willing to reveal the details of said test
so that others can indendently evaluate his off-handed claim that
it was a blind test, there is no reliable evidence to support his
claim and your assumption that it was blind.
KH
> Scott wrote:
>> Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
>> comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
>> acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?
>
> Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,
> that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of
> blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the
> number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other
> than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that
> there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged
> in and reported.
>
affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
experiences are the basis for any extant biases.
But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post to
which you're objecting (and if not, it's in *my* mind)is that a man who
believes the "hallograph" hogwash that Steve has endorsed, is either
ignorant of physics and engineering in the specific, or scientific rigor
in general, assuming his veracity is not in question. That he believes
in such snake oil raises significant doubt about his technical ability
to design, proctor, or execute a valid controlled test. Lacking any
evidence to indicate a proper test was conducted, one should be very
skeptical of his unusual results. And no, just letting someone else
"fiddle with the knobs" doesn't indicate "blinding" conditions were
utilized. Nor does being a mastering wizard, should you be of that
opinion, in any way demonstrate possession of technical expertise in
test design.
Keith
jwvm
<snip>
> If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit inst=
ead
> of =A024-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) w=
ill
> yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.
> high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues=
,
> more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and
> ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. Granted, normal CD
> resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths=
are
> much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument=
of
> analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skept=
ics
> completely. =A0
This is a remarkable claim. Can you cite any credible unbiased tests
that have been published in reputable publications to back this up?
Scott
> On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:> Scott wrote:
> >> Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
> >> comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
> >> acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?
>
> > Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,
> > that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of
> > blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the
> > number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other
> > than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that
> > there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged
> > in and reported.
>
> Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be
> affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
> experiences are the basis for any extant biases.
How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a
false negative from that?
>
> But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post
Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original
post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer.
KH
> On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, KH<keithahug...@q.com> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:> Scott wrote:
>>>> Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
>>>> comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
>>>> acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?
<snip>
>> Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be
>> affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
>> experiences are the basis for any extant biases.
>
> How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a
> false negative from that?
I don't *know* that the controls were inadequate, and I made no such
claim, nor has any evidence of adequacy been provided or cited. But
that point is irrelevant to the question you asked, i.e. did Steve's
previous experiences with room treatments affect his "blind"
comparisons. The answer is, clearly they *can*, in the absence of
adequate controls. And a false negative is absolutely trivial to
achieve with inadequate controls, e.g. all I need to know is that a
switch has taken place (A/B etc.), and as long as I am convinced that
there is no difference, then it is likely that I will perceive none,
despite it being above the audible threshold.
Hence the need for "X" in the ABX test. As long as you know that a
binary switch is in use (i.e. *either* A or B), and as long as that
switching function is perceivable, you *know* a change has been made,
and your biases are given free range to predetermine the outcome -
either positive or negative - relative to *difference* discrimination.
Such a test is not even close to blind, and based on all the information
provided for the cited test, nothing suggests that it was indeed "blind"
other than one assertion, sans definition.
>
>>
>> But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post
>
>
> Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original
> post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer.
Nor was one needed, in that I clearly stated that the argument that
followed the snipped disclaimer was mine, irrespective of Dick's
concurrence. Although from his followup post he certainly appears to
agree with the premise.
Keith
Dick Pierce
> On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, KH <keithahug...@q.com> wrote:
>>
>>Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be
>>affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
>>experiences are the basis for any extant biases.
>
> How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a
> false negative from that?
How do YOU know there were ANY controls?
>>But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post
>
> Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original
> post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer.
I suppose I didn't have to: You stated that you knew fully
what I had in mind. Didn't make any difference what I thought
was or was not in my mind, YOU had the answer.
A remarkable mind reader you are. Too bad you were remarkably
wrong. Our friend Keith here was significantly closer to
the mark than you were. YOU ask wether a person's prior
experience in sighted tests can or can not influence his
performance in subsequent blind tests, and I say his endorsement
of a shameless sham product seriously compromises his
credibility in claims regarding any onjective test methodology,
which itself is rendered moot since he never once provides
ANY description of ANY protocol regarding a blind test.
It speaks not to ANYTHING having to do with sighted vs blind
test: it speaks to his credibility im making laims. Period.
Your complete and obvious misinterpretation of my words
notwithstanding.
Scott
> Scott wrote:
> > Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
> > comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
> > acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?
>
> Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,
No the question is relevant since you chose to make an issue out of
it. One need not have any "evidence" of anything other than what is
already presented to answer the question. Do you or do you not think
Steve Hoffman's comparisons
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328&highlight=master+tape
were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic
treatments of a dubious nature under sighted conditions.
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
I can understand why at this point you would like to avoid this
question but you are wrong about what is needed to answer it.
Everything one needs to answer this specific question is in this
thread already.
Heck I'll answer it. NO. Why? Because there is no cause and effect
here. Impressions formed under sighted conditions in a previous
experience like the one Steve Hoffman had with said room treatments
will not affect one's aural perceptions in a blind comparison between
a fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape with which the
laquer was cut. They are mutually independent events.
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, KH <keithahug...@q.com> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:> Scott wrote:
>>>> Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's
>>>> results of his blind comparisons were affected by his
>>>> previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of
>>>> a subious nature under sighted conditions?
>>
>>> Your question is irrelevant because we have no
>>> definitive evidence, that is, we have no description of
>>> the protocol, no statement of blinding conditions, no
>>> mention of controls, no revelation of the number of
>>> trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other
>>> than a casual, off the cuff comment which is
>>> contradictory, that there was ANY truly blind,
>>> objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged in and
>>> reported.
>>
>> Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and
>> likely will be affected by *any and all* prior
>> experiences - i.e. such prior experiences are the basis
>> for any extant biases.
> How do you know the controls were inadequate?
I've never seen any evidence of scientfic rigor in Mr. Hoffman's writings.
People who actually read the scientific literature and understand it
understand what this is and notice it when it goes missing.
> And how would one get a false negative from that?
The purpose of bias controls is to eliminate or vastly reduce errors due to
experimental bias. Errors can be composed of either false positives or false
negatives.
Dick Pierce
> I can understand why at this point you would like to avoid this
> question but you are wrong about what is needed to answer it.
You have demonstrated time and again, as you have here, your
ability to understand what I think is disatserously flawed,
regardless of how sure you are of it.
> Heck I'll answer it. NO. Why? Because there is no cause and effect
> here. Impressions formed under sighted conditions in a previous
> experience like the one Steve Hoffman had with said room treatments
> will not affect one's aural perceptions in a blind comparison between
> a fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape with which the
> laquer was cut.
There was no evidence there was such a blind comparison. End of story.
Edmund
news:8gk80u...@mid.individual.net...> news:8gcbo8...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I think it is pointless to use information
>> reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio
>> system that
>> can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live
>> performances.
>
> ??????????
>
> Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate
> reproduction
> anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for
> convenience sake?
That doesn't sound logical to me at all.
To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity
now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible.
And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality
right
at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest
of the
audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be
perfect, the sound
never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start
with.
On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can,
it is
very useful to continue to improve the audio systems.
It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled
data source.
Edmund
>
>
>
KH
> "Arny Krueger"<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:8gk80u...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Audio Empire"<audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:8gcbo8...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate
>> reproduction
>> anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for
>> convenience sake?
>
> That doesn't sound logical to me at all.
Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency".
> To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity
> now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible.
Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where
mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to
correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving,
moving, and backing up massive quantities of data.
> And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality
> right
> at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest
> of the
> audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be
> perfect, the sound
> never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start
> with.
No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If
perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside
of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. Past
that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will
improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes,
you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the
*listener*.
Now one can, and some obviously do, argue endlessly about which
reduction scheme(s) is sufficient, but the fact remains that once the
limit of human perception is reached, additional data is irrelevant - by
definition.
> On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can,
> it is
> very useful to continue to improve the audio systems.
> It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled
> data source.
Again, as long as the source is sufficient to encompass all data
required to meet or exceed the range of human perception, continued
improvement is source independent.
Keith
Audio Empire
(in article <i8ata...@news7.newsguy.com>):
But that's not the case. The information excised, when played back, can be
easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. Perceptual
coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. Assumptions
which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners.
It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that
that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. Video
perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing
with video. However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with
artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often,
especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast
action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like
pattern on the screen. While lasting only a few seconds at most, it can be
easily noticed by anyone. The problem is so bad, that movies transfered to
DVD or HD Blue-Ray are coded by hand. IOW, a "craftsman" known as a video
compressor actually manually chooses the amount of compression used for each
scene based on watching the movie, literally frame-by-frame and reduces the
amount of compression or increases it depending on content. Done this way,
perceptual video coding works and works well, but left to a fixed or
"automatic variable" compression algorithm, the the results are not without
artifacts. The same is true with music.
> Past that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will
> improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes,
> you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the
> *listener*.
> Now one can, and some obviously do, argue endlessly about which
> reduction scheme(s) is sufficient, but the fact remains that once the
> limit of human perception is reached, additional data is irrelevant - by
> definition.
That is true and I agree. But what we are using these days is not the ideal
perceptual compression scheme that you describe, above.
>> On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can,
>> it is
>> very useful to continue to improve the audio systems.
>> It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled
>> data source.
>
> Again, as long as the source is sufficient to encompass all data
> required to meet or exceed the range of human perception, continued
> improvement is source independent.
But since higher resolution (than CD) recording schemes continue to improve
the quality of perceived sound. it looks as if this "sufficient source" sets
the bar very high indeed.
Sebastian Kaliszewski
[...]
> But that's not the case. The information excised, when played back, can be
> easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music.
You're making an error here. It simply does not matter if information
excised is by itself a music, since that music is determined (by
perceptual encoder designers) to be inaudible when played together with
information not removed.
Wether an encoder removed right information is another story, though.
> Perceptual
> coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. Assumptions
> which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners.
That's a possibility.
> It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that
> that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. Video
> perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing
> with video. However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with
> artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often,
> especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast
> action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like
> pattern on the screen. While lasting only a few seconds at most, it can be
> easily noticed by anyone. The problem is so bad, that movies transfered to
> DVD or HD Blue-Ray are coded by hand. IOW, a "craftsman" known as a video
> compressor actually manually chooses the amount of compression used for each
> scene based on watching the movie, literally frame-by-frame and reduces the
> amount of compression or increases it depending on content. Done this way,
> perceptual video coding works and works well, but left to a fixed or
> "automatic variable" compression algorithm, the the results are not without
> artifacts. The same is true with music.
Well, our (human) visual band is much wider and significantly more
precise (total dynamic of human sight is about 170dB vs 130~120dB for
audio) and more complex. Then video compression is much more severe tha
audio -- 256kbps is just about 1 to 3 compression (don't forget that
losless compression brings about 1:2, so you're copmparing vs ~750kbps
losless; 1:2 lossless times 1:3 loss bring 1:6 total compression of
audio data stream) while video is compressed about 1:10 (1:5 lossless
compression times that 1:10 loss brings 1:50 compression of video data
stream). IOW typical video compression is on the level of compression of
96kbps stereo audio stream -- and here artifacts are rather obvious :)
[...]
rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
Edmund
news:i8ata...@news7.newsguy.com...
> On 10/3/2010 10:41 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger"<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:8gk80u...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Audio Empire"<audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8gcbo8...@mid.individual.net...
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate
>>> reproduction
>>> anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for
>>> convenience sake?
>>
>> That doesn't sound logical to me at all.
>
> Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency".
>
>> To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage
>> capacity
>> now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality
>> possible.
>
> Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate.
> Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are
> closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead
> associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive
> quantities of data.
Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones.
>
>> And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality
>> right
>> at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the
>> rest
>> of the
>> audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be
>> perfect, the sound
>> never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start
>> with.
>
> No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate.
> If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised
> is outside of human perception, then the information stored is
> sufficient.
Yes, but that is clearly not the case, at least you cannot know
that.
> Past that point, no amount of additional information or
> resolution will improve the result. And no matter how good the
> playback chain becomes, you still cannot perceive a deficit,
> because the limiting factor is the *listener*.
No it is not, I can clearly tell the difference between live
performances
and reproduced sound from a multi billion dollar audio set.
( if that exists )
As long as people can tell that difference, one cannot say that a
certain
resolution is enough, the most you can say is the difference is
inaudible
on a certain audio system and the poorer the audio system used,
the more
music information you can throw away before it become
distinguisable
with the better storage formats.
You must not compare the storage formats on limited audio systems
( at the moment even the best and most expensive system is
limited! )
You reference must be real live unampified music.
Edmund
>
> Keith
>
Arny Krueger
>> Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not
>> accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not
>> issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a
>> lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and
>> backing up massive quantities of data.
This is very true. My Sansa Clip+ with 2 GB of onboard memory can hold well
over 600 songs when perceptually coded with reasonable amounts of lossy
compression, but only about 120 songs with the best available lossless file
formats.
>>> And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away
>>> quality right
>>> at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to
>>> improve the rest of the
>>> audio link since even if the rest of the audio system
>>> will be perfect, the sound
>>> never will be because we have thrown away the quality
>>> to start with.
Furthremore, some of the resolution and bandwidth that we throw away is
things we can't even properly play in a real world room or pick up with the
best available microphones in a real world recording situation. Audio
Empire demands 96 KHz bandwidth and 144 dB or better dynamic range. The
normal resolution and bandwidth of performance spaces and the microphones
that are generally used, or even the best availble are dwarfed by those
numbers. To actually have overtones at 96 KHz fall on your body in your
listening room only happens in a miniscule sweet spot, and is well beyond
the capability of more than 95% of all high end and quality high monitoring
grade speakers currently in use.
>> No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't
>> accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the
>> information excised is outside of human perception, then
>> the information stored is sufficient.
> But that's not the case. The information excised, when
> played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is
> even recognizable as music.
Saying this unfortunately does not make it true. Thousands of people of all
ages, equipment ownership, and musical preferences have tried and failed to
support this claim. Our correspondent has failed to provide compelling
evidence supporting this claim due to obvious failings in his own personal
work.
> Perceptual coding works on
> assumptions made about the way humans hear.
These assumptions are well-known, the underlying work has been duplicated by
others, and they are generally accepted in the scientific community.
Saying that perceptual coding does not work is based on ignorance of this
fundamental scientific work, or perhaps a total disrespect for science as we
know it today.
> Assumptions
> which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid
> for some listeners.
Science tells us that the range of frequencies that we can hear is limited
by the structure of the inner ear. Basically, if there are no sensory
apparatus in the ear that is stimulated by very high frequencies, then there
is no way that they can be heard. Enough work has been done with animal and
human cadavers and live experiments to ascertain what these limits are for
all members of our species.
We generally recognize that bats and dogs have different ranges of hearing
than humans. The difference is in the structure of our ears. There are no
known instances of humans with the ears of bats. Yet bat ears would be
required to hear the benefits of 192 KHz sampling.
> It would also have to remove this
> "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly
> transparent to the listener under all conditions.
This has been sucessfully done for the better part of a decade, if not
longer.
> Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does
> an equivalent thing with video.
The amount of compression that is used for quality video vastly transcends
the amount of compression that is usually used for quality audio.
Conflating the two casts serious doubts on the technical knowlege and
crediblity of a person who would do such a thing. For example, the
equivalent of 720x480 DVD-video when uncompressed runs on the order of a
quarter of a 250 million bytes per second or more. MPEG-4 video for the same
resolution runs about 3 million bytes per second (usually less) for a
compression ratio of over 80:1. 320K MP3 represents a compression ratio of
about 4.4 . What reasonble person would knowingly conflate the two?
>However, a fixed
> algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as
> anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often,
> especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a
> running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene
> "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern
> on the screen.
Perceptual coders for audio do not necessarily involve fixed algorithms.
There are coders that vary their parameters dynamically based on the needs
of the music being compressed.
There's no need to spread fear and doubt about audio based on
misapprehensions.
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 2, 10:47 am, Dick Pierce <dpie...@cartchunk.org>
> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results
>>> of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous
>>> experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious
>>> nature under sighted conditions?
>>
>> Your question is irrelevant because we have no
>> definitive evidence,
>
> No the question is relevant since you chose to make an
> issue out of it. One need not have any "evidence" of
> anything other than what is already presented to answer
> the question. Do you or do you not think Steve Hoffman's
> comparisons
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328&highlight=master+tape
> were affected by his previous experiences with room
> acoustic treatments of a dubious nature under sighted
> conditions.
Given that Mr. Hoffman seems to *not* be suffering from Alzheimer's, mini
strokes, or other serious problems with his memory, I would have to say
that a normal understanding of human perceptions supports the contention
that any perceptions he has are at least residually affected by his prior
experiences.
This is a key point - one of the purposes of well-run blind listening tests
is changing the source of the results from perceptions to sensations. Every
time we see an optical illusion or hear an audible illusion we show that our
perceptions and even some of our sensations can be highly unreliable. The
essence of scientific knowlege is reliability.
jwvm
> Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones.
There is no reason why a mobile phone which can play back stored files
or the much-maligned portable audio players should be incapable of
producing high-quality audio. Even some posters here have commented on
the excellent quality that ipods and similar gear provide when using
good-quality headphones. Sweeping statements like this are one reason
why there is so much skepticism about high-end audio claims.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gu4df...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Audio Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8gsjo5...@mid.individual.net
[ Excessive quotation deleted. --dsr ]
>> Perceptual coding works on
>> assumptions made about the way humans hear.
>
> These assumptions are well-known, the underlying work has been duplicated by
> others, and they are generally accepted in the scientific community.
>
> Saying that perceptual coding does not work is based on ignorance of this
> fundamental scientific work, or perhaps a total disrespect for science as we
> know it today.
>
>> Assumptions
>> which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid
>> for some listeners.
>
> Science tells us that the range of frequencies that we can hear is limited
> by the structure of the inner ear. Basically, if there are no sensory
> apparatus in the ear that is stimulated by very high frequencies, then there
> is no way that they can be heard. Enough work has been done with animal and
> human cadavers and live experiments to ascertain what these limits are for
> all members of our species.
Who is talking about supersonic frequencies, here? Not me.
>
> We generally recognize that bats and dogs have different ranges of hearing
> than humans. The difference is in the structure of our ears. There are no
> known instances of humans with the ears of bats. Yet bat ears would be
> required to hear the benefits of 192 KHz sampling.
Again, you are obfuscating the argument with irrelevancies. Your premise that
the only advantage of high sampling rates is extended high frequency response
is simply not the advantage of high sample rates. What the advantage is that
by moving that anti-aliasing to high above the range of human hearing, one
avoids the phase shift inherent in the brick-wall cutoff at 22.05 KHz
required for a sample rate of 44,1 KHz. It also eliminates the effects of
pre-ringing that most digital-to-analog conversion schemes have inherent to
them. There may be other advantages as well, I don't know. But 24-bit
certainly has very practical advantages. It gives the recording engineer a
lot more headroom and deals better with low level material. That's one reason
why many have reported that high-resolution formats like DSD and 24/96 or
24/192 handle hall ambience and triple pianissimo sounds better than does
16/44.1.
>
>> It would also have to remove this
>> "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly
>> transparent to the listener under all conditions.
>
> This has been sucessfully done for the better part of a decade, if not
> longer.
I would say NOT. I can hear the MP3 artifacts. I know others who can hear the
artifacts as well, many of them are professionals working in the audio
recording business every day.
>> Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does
>> an equivalent thing with video.
>
> The amount of compression that is used for quality video vastly transcends
> the amount of compression that is usually used for quality audio.
> Conflating the two casts serious doubts on the technical knowlege and
> crediblity of a person who would do such a thing. For example, the
> equivalent of 720x480 DVD-video when uncompressed runs on the order of a
> quarter of a 250 million bytes per second or more. MPEG-4 video for the same
> resolution runs about 3 million bytes per second (usually less) for a
> compression ratio of over 80:1. 320K MP3 represents a compression ratio of
> about 4.4 . What reasonble person would knowingly conflate the two?
It's called an analogy, Mr. Kruger. It is used to illustrate a point, not to
conflate the two technologies. The point is whether audio or video, lossy
compression has to be applied judiciously and intelligently to avoid audible
or visible artifacts. I can't help it if you can't see the analogy for the
purpose it was intended.
>> However, a fixed
>> algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as
>> anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often,
>> especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a
>> running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene
>> "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern
>> on the screen.
>
> Perceptual coders for audio do not necessarily involve fixed algorithms.
> There are coders that vary their parameters dynamically based on the needs
> of the music being compressed.
>
> There's no need to spread fear and doubt about audio based on
> misapprehensions.
I agree. But lossy audio compression such as MP3 is audible to many. To say
that it is not, is. IMHO, going to far in the other direction.
Audio Empire
(in article <8gtu69...@mid.individual.net>):
> "KH" <keitha...@q.com> wrote in message
> news:i8ata...@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On 10/3/2010 10:41 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger"<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8gk80u...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Audio Empire"<audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:8gcbo8...@mid.individual.net...
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate
>>>> reproduction
>>>> anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for
>>>> convenience sake?
>>>
>>> That doesn't sound logical to me at all.
>>
>> Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency".
>>
>>> To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage
>>> capacity
>>> now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality
>>> possible.
>>
>> Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate.
>> Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are
>> closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead
>> associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive
>> quantities of data.
>
> Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones.
He's not talking about mobile phones, he's talking about portable,
battery-powered MP3 players (which these days are included in many mobile
phones like iPhones and Blackberrys et al).
<snip>
Audio Empire
(in article <8gtu5d...@mid.individual.net>):
While I agree that comparing video compression with audio compression is a
rather gross analogy, the point made is still valid. Coding must be done
judiciously in order to avoid audible (or visible) artifacts. In my humble
experience, I find that I can hear so-called "lossy" compression artifacts
(MP3) with bit rates as high as 320 kbps.
By the way, I don't think one can compare lossy compression schemes like MP#
ATRAC, AAL, etc with "lossless" schemes like FLAC or ALC because the latter
are reconstructed to a bit-perfect copy