Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

I singled out redbook as it is the most common source for digital conversion to M:P3/AC3. Indeed the article does state the only noticible sound degradation noticed by the subject group was the 128k compression.

 

It is also true the job of most compression codecs is to preserve as much of the original source as possible while reducing file and data size. The argument is that in that process detail and transparency is lost. I believe this is true starting with the highest transparent and detailed source which could be anything from a high data uncompressed digital file to an analog studio tape master.

 

On the other hand, starting with a 44.1/16 data source already compressed and already having lost a fair amount of detail and transparency (redbook CD standard) by compressing it more that will result in very little audiable change to most listeners except the most discriminating who have heard the source material in at it's best whether that is vinyl or source analog tape or digital high sample rate audio files. Those original  sources would show significant audiable loss identifiable to even the casual subject listener at 320k, 128k, and 160k I theorize.

 

That was my point. i hope that makes sense somewhat.

 

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:14:46 PM UTC-5, zoop wrote:

> This is proof positive that Redbook CD can be converted to anything you
> please and still will never sound any better than it does in it's native
> state.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but:  lossy codecs aren't
designed or intended to subjectively improve sound -- they are designed to
at best preserve it with as few audible artifacts as possible, while
reducing the file size. This is just as true for hi rez source as it is
for Redbook source. So why single out Redbook?



> I would like to see someone perform the same test recording that same song
> (We Built This City) from a 1st pressing vinyl at 96/24 or there abouts
> and
> use the same MP3 encoding and then see if anyone can tell a difference.
> Bet
> they can :)


But this doesn't speak to the idea of a conversion sounding *better* than
its source, which is what you seemed to be getting at up there.


(If what you're getting at is that that vinyl sources captured at high
rates and bit depths are harder to lossy compress than CD sources -- why
do you believe that to be the case?)













>
>
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:08:28 PM UTC-5, zoop wrote:
>
>> > Interesting mp3 listening test results here
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
>> >
>> >
>> > some discussion of them here:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=52423ce8ae62ebae08da0b76d7c668e6&showtopic=95754
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound