[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Kind of a waste for playing MP3s Posted by Snowmobile [Email]  (#686)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Snowmobile) on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:12:46
In Reply to: Kind of a waste for playing MP3s, Bill Homer  [Profile/Gallery]
, Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:16:20
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
The article (in my mind) went a little too far in terms of "ranking" formats... FLAC and ALAC essentially do the same thing as ZIP does. The data is encoded in a way that is exactly recoverable... obviously if not, ZIP files of software would not work! While that sometimes happens, it is awfully rare, and probably not in most cases a result of the algorithm so much as in the file transfer. So really, a WAV file is no better than a FLAC, except that it does not need to be unencoded in real time, ie a processing advantage. That could be an issue on a slow processor, but so long as it is working, the data going to the DAC is identical. The downside of WAV is massive file size.
DSD is just another way of representing audio - it is "1 bit" instead of "24 bit" words... DSD is great if you have the right hardware. Otherwise, the data just gets converted anyway, so it is moot (and depending on implementation, the conversion could be worse anyway).
All of this stuff about formats comes down to resolution, bandwidth, and distortion. It is possible to get equivalent resolution and bandwidth in any of the file choices. The distortion characteristics will vary slightly depending on the implementation, but in many respects that has more to do with hardware than recording format. The exception being lossy formats, where perceptual encoding is used, and when done well, introduces distortions that we have difficulty distinguishing, but they are still there. The way to train yourself to hear the artifacts is to re-MP3 an MP3, iterating a dozen or more times and listen to the result.
I'm guessing that at Neil Young's age, his high frequency hearing is probably sufficiently diminished such that the widest bandwidth formats are unnecessary. Actually, the main reason to have a bandwidth of 96kHz or more is to simplify the filter design, to avoid passband artifacts. 24 bits represents a dynamic range of 144dB, which is pretty much unattainable. The idea that CDs only contain 15% of the original recording information speaks more to the implementation than the file format per se. The overuse of compression on most recordings today has a much bigger impact than limitations of the format (see link).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
->Posting last edited on Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:27:12.
, Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:44:14
1
, Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:15:47, Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:10:13, Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:37:11, Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:16:20, Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:12:46 <-- Viewing This Message, Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:03:18, Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:07:19, Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:01:32
, Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:57:141, Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:13:51, Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:29:33
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
