Can lossy digital audio be better than lossless?

Рет қаралды 11,629

9 ай бұрын

Data compressed audio trashes 90% of the original recording so surely it's worse than lossless audio. But what if lossy, data-compressed, audio could be better than lossless?
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE AUDIO MASTERCLASS VIDEOS
CAMERA - Sony Alpha A6600 amzn.to/3uj7Dtq
COMPUTER - Apple Mac Mini M2 Pro amzn.to/47tW6Wg
MICROPHONE - Sennheiser KH 416 amzn.to/3QWWvuO
ALTERNATIVE MICROPHONE - AKG C414 amzn.to/3SLqCad
BUDGET MICROPHONE CHOICE - Rode shotgun amzn.to/3G0ni36
MICROPHONE PREAMPLIFIER - Comica LinkFlex AD2 amzn.to/40SMHFT
TELEPROMPTER - Padcaster Parrot alternatives amzn.to/40A55TJ
TELEPROMPTER SOFTWARE - PromptSmart Pro promptsmart.com/
AUDIO INTERFACE - Behringer UMC202HD amzn.to/3ugj6db
HEADPHONES - Sony wired amzn.to/3sEjlht
KEYLIGHT- Amaran 100d amzn.to/40A5Gor
FILL LIGHTS - Switti RGB amzn.to/3ufhOPu
SOFTBOX Phot-R alternatives amzn.to/3QGoTjJ
LIGHTING STANDS Phot-R alternatives amzn.to/3QWXOKe
MONITOR - Samsung UJ59 amzn.to/3MEoBsk
MONITOR ARM - Invision alternatives amzn.to/40SLqi5
MIC ARM - Neewer amzn.to/49Ob0sD
TRIPOD - Velbon alternatives amzn.to/46gu2oa
GREEN SCREEN - Elgato alternatives amzn.to/3SG2F3L
DESK - FlexiSpot E7 Pro amzn.to/3QVIWvS
VIDEO EDITING - Apple Final Cut Pro www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/
IMAGE EDITING - Adobe Photoshop amzn.to/3FZ7Ww0
AUDIO EDITING - Avid Pro Tools amzn.to/3QA5Wz7
NOTEBOOK - Leuchturm 1917 hardback amzn.to/47zonKX
PEN - Sakura Pigma archival pen Sakura Pigma archival pen amzn.to/47zz3cP
OSCILLOSCOPE - Hameg HM 203 alternatives amzn.to/47tWN1O
BEAUTY - Philips 3000 nose hair trimmer amzn.to/40BdLJo
Disclaimer: Videos on this channel may include affiliate links and may feature software that has been received free of charge with an NFR (not for resale) licence, equipment that has been loaned or donated by a manufacturer or distributer, or equipment that has been bought for less than full retail price.

Пікірлер: 196

@darryldouglas6004

I do know if I want my CDs to sound like vinyl I place a bowl of Rice Krispies between the speakers and my listening position. 😃

@radman8321

Mastering is far more important to sound quality than lossy/lossless comparisons. I've never met anyone who can tell the difference between lossless and lossy at 320kbps (MP3) or 256kbps (AAC) when tested under scientific conditions, regardless of the quality of "the system". Encoders are now so good now that even the "difficult samples" are encoded to a quality that hardly anyone can distinguish.

@geoff37s38

I have a highly resolving system with large full range electrostatic speakers. The recording quality is very obvious through these speakers. I have tried most streaming services but Spotify Premium at 320KB/s is indistinguishable from so called lossless. If you listen intently for a difference then you will hear it. This is how the brain works. The quality of the original recording is far more important than the distribution format. In a home system room acoustics and loudspeaker choice have a huge effect on the listening experience.

@JimhawthorneNet

Brilliant idea my man, I couldn't agree with you more! Just give us the highest resolution possible the most important 10%, and dither it (with noise shaping of course). I'm ALL in.

@northsurrey

There’s another issue with lossy coding and that’s generational loss. Run audio through 3-4 generations of lossy codecs and the effects caused by that lost 90% (ok 89% to keep Betty happy) soon become apparent. This is an issue for broadcasters and studios as well as anyone who isn’t disciplined with their audio management. The main reason to use lossy audio is to save storage or bandwidth but these days these are cheap and plentiful so lossy codecs are becoming less important. I’m curious therefore why we need to represent audio in small files when linear lossless does it just fine. If space is at a premium then use FLAC or ALAC both of which are lossless and about 50% of the size of the equivalent linear file.

@Antoon55

A crappy recording will still sound bad lossless. A great recordinbg will still sound great lossy. So there are more factors in play.

@jeffgoodnough9704

Just a couple hours ago, I listened to an old 96Kbps mp3 rip of a beloved album on some new Audio Technica earbuds... my FLAC and WAV files sound phenomenal on these, but this album sounded flat, with no separation between instruments, and the electric guitar and bass distorted when they were playes together. Those are somewhat extreme cases to contrast, but it's where my mind is. Thanks for the ever incisive videos!

@SteveWille

I think the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem says that lossless 44kHz PCM is, in part, already what David proposes. The theorem states an analog, 22kHz band-limited signal (generally encompassing human hearing) can be PERFECTLY reconstructed from a 44kHz sampling.

@stevengagnon4777

Stuck with mostly listening to you tube on my phone due to unfortunate circumstances. So I built my latest system out of the aftermath to sound good that way and enjoy the music. Also thanks for the uploads out there and yes many sound pretty good. Even get to see some nice tables and cartridge. It is noticeable.

@stevebowbrick9024

I once worked (not in a technical capacity) on the launch of Radio 3's 320K AAC online streams (we called it 'HD Audio' at the time and trialled it with the Proms in 2013). It was very exciting. We put on listening sessions in a studio in BH with an audiophile set-up. Journalists came in and were played various versions of Radio 3 output through a lovely pair of monitors and not one of them could tell the difference between the 320K AAC streams offered online and uncompressed (in either sense) audio straight from the desk in the next room. The rows in the comments were heated and always fascinating - and many people continued to insist that the existing FM signal must be better…

@joelcarson4602

Even though I'm rapidly approaching 70, my hearing is way better than it should be. I have good sensitivity ( I notice noises my wife who is 12 years younger can't) and I can still hear up to about 13 khz. My fine discrimination is not what it once was though. I can still tell almost any 128 kbit MP3 from a CD, but I'd be hard pressed to tell a 256 or 320 kbit MP3 from a CD. Low bitrates affect some genres of music to a greater or lesser degree depending.

@paulphilippart7395

The popularity of vinyl says it all. For me the main difference is vinyl is mastered much better most digital is bricked, and that's where a phenomenal medium is spoiled by moronic and corporate misuse.

@rsubramanian5524

Interesting idea to focus on what matters

@richardramorino3319

I can definitely hear the difference between Spotify and Tidal and music purchased from HD Tracks. But the difference is not as big as many audiophiles would like to believe. Some people like darko have no use for high rez whatsoever. The quality of the recording is really the ballgame. Compression is the death star. So many modern recordings just have nothing to give no matter what.

@Bob.martens

As long as nothing audible, which means noticeable, is going on I truly think life's too short to be fussing about theoretical improvements in sound quality you might get by demanding hi-res for everything. I grew up with cassette-walkmans. Good ones sounded great, and I have a true fondness for every discarded one of them that has never been matched by any digital format since.

@CaptainJack2048

I think it's very possible to have better audio where unneeded elements are removed. Especially now, that we have tools to measure quality in ways that we didn't before. Aside from locally anecdotal evidence ("I don't like it" or \\"Well, I do!", etc.), we have the ability to send various versions of audio out in to the wild, and have the number of streams, downloads, replays, purchases, and probably other data I can't think of be sliced and diced and reassembled into a cogent picture of preference. I feel certain that your staff there would agree. 😀

@maidsandmuses

Funny you mentioned cameras and lenses, because there is an analogy there. A high resolution lens on a high resolution camera can cause aliasing issues; which is why most digital cameras have an anti-aliasing (low-pass) filter in front of the sensor. In essence, the image is blurred a tiny little bit

@diatonicdelirium1743

Actually, the 44.1kHz/16bit standard is perfectly adequate for the final artifact (not for mixing). Some loss is already there in the form of dynamic range (bits) and frequency representation, but when carefully mastered we should never be able to hear that.

@NewGoldStandard

Resolution can be a novel idea, but, jokes aside, this just makes me ponder my own hearing, and/or lack thereof. I ran a sine wave the other day and was sad to listen to it drop off earlier than it used to. I don't feel I'm missing out when I enjoy music, but I'm clearly not hearing as much of it as I used to.