IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Is lossless really as good as wav?
countryman
post Nov 13 2006, 14:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 18-July 05
Member No.: 23396



Is lossless really as good as wav?

I understand that in theory FLAC is lossless and therefore should be as accurate as the original wav file. However, given the extra processing required to ‘unpack’ the data on replay, does FLAC really sound as good? I am about to rip all of my classical CDs to hard disc for use with Foobar and a Squeezebox3 and want to get it right!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
keytotime
post Nov 13 2006, 14:53
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26582



Yes
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Nov 13 2006, 14:56
Post #3





Group: Developer
Posts: 1318
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



> Is lossless really as good as wav?
No. It usually is even better (in terms of meta data storing capabilities)
wink.gif

The "Is this better than that" questions largely depend on what things are important to you. You seem to be mostly concerned about sound quality. In this case FLAC and the like are fine (= can't get any better).

This post has been edited by SebastianG: Nov 13 2006, 14:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ggf31416
post Nov 13 2006, 15:10
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 1-June 06
Member No.: 31342



QUOTE (countryman @ Nov 13 2006, 10:50) *
However, given the extra processing required to ‘unpack’ the data on replay, does FLAC really sound as good?


The decoding may cause some increase in the CPU fan noise, but only for the higher levels of some CPU-intensive formats (e.g. OptimFrog --mode bestnew), not for FLAC. But it's external noise, not a distortion of the audio signal.

This post has been edited by ggf31416: Nov 13 2006, 15:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Nov 13 2006, 15:57
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



You really should have done some reading before posting such a question!

I would reiterate SebastianG's response that lossless is better in the fact that it is smaller and has good support for storing metadata.

There will be no audio quality difference.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
keynell
post Nov 13 2006, 16:33
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 16-September 06
Member No.: 35269



just run bitcompare in foobar, or decode flac back to wav and compare files (for example in total commander)

yeah, and post the result asap
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jens Rex
post Nov 13 2006, 16:53
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 605
Joined: 18-December 01
Member No.: 680



QUOTE (countryman @ Nov 13 2006, 15:50) *
in theory FLAC is lossless
Not just in theory mate. Lossless is lossless in reality too. Stop being dumb. I don't want another "lossless isn't lossless" thread again. It either is or it isn't, and it very much is. Consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that lossless isn't lossless. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bourne
post Nov 13 2006, 17:37
Post #8





Group: Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28599



Hi, I was just wondering here.... Is it possible for developers to create a special version of the FLAC encoder, such as VBR FLAC? We all know that MP3 is limited to 320kbps, but FLAC is not. What if someone created or modified the existent FLAC algorithm to support VBR FLAC... I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!

We could think of a new concept of lossless... REAL LOSSLESS that is what we have now with FLAC... and VIRTUAL LOSSLESS, that is, in terms of audio quality is exactly the same but the dramatic samples are stored without discarding any of its information!

This post has been edited by Bourne: Nov 13 2006, 17:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pest
post Nov 13 2006, 18:01
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 208
Joined: 12-March 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 12686



QUOTE (Bourne @ Nov 13 2006, 18:37) *
Hi, I was just wondering here.... Is it possible for developers to create a special version of the FLAC encoder, such as VBR FLAC? We all know that MP3 is limited to 320kbps, but FLAC is not. What if someone created or modified the existent FLAC algorithm to support VBR FLAC... I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!

We could think of a new concept of lossless... REAL LOSSLESS that is what we have now with FLAC... and VIRTUAL LOSSLESS, that is, in terms of audio quality is exactly the same but the dramatic samples are stored without discarding any of its information!


FLAC is VBR by it's definition. and virtual lossless is anything which is transparent to you...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bourne
post Nov 13 2006, 19:43
Post #10





Group: Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28599



oh i see... but you're cutting short... virtual lossless would be something definitely without any kind of artifacts, contrary on current lossy schemes...
this virtual lossless would be "lossy" anyway and not able to restore data bit by bit back as FLAC usually does. I think the better definition for this is... to have a lossy data compressor without any artifact present.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HbG
post Nov 13 2006, 19:53
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 12-May 03
From: The Hague
Member No.: 6555



The best way to think of lossless is that it's like zipping your .wav file and have a decoder that can playback wavs straight from the .zip. Lossless doesn't change any bits, hence the term.

It's always VBR because some parts of the music are simpler and thus can be written down more efficiently than others. Like with data compression (where not all files and all parts in one file are equally compressed), a file that is truly random (white noise in audio terms) cannot be written down smaller than it already is, and this is the case for lossless, but codecs like mp3 will just write it down with however as many bits as you tell it to use.


--------------------
Veni Vidi Vorbis.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sunhillow
post Nov 13 2006, 19:53
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 483
Joined: 13-October 01
From: Stuttgart
Member No.: 286



Please think for a few minutes.

without any artifacts means lossless. Or are you talking about a lossy lossless scheme? blink.gif
It cannot be both.

Those weird lossless topics over the past few hours are really entertaining biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Nov 13 2006, 20:08
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



wacko.gif I think we all need some sleep... emot-v.gif


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 13 2006, 20:13
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I suppose it's late at night over in Jakarta. I've only been awake for a few hours.

Bourne, at what point artifacts can't be heard is pretty subjective.

Is Lame -b 320 or Ogg q10 not transparent to you?

This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 13 2006, 20:17


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Nov 13 2006, 20:16
Post #15





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Bourne @ Nov 13 2006, 17:37) *
I mean, you could get a VIRTUAL LOSSLESS file, if that thing could store VBR at its maximum consistency, that is... 32kbps for silence and up to 1411kbps for dramatic samples... we would be able to get real small file sizes... just an idea!

Your idea has several names: Musepack, Vorbis, AAC... and more generally lossy encoding with transparent quality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
memomai
post Nov 13 2006, 20:45
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: 13-February 05
From: Germany, Kempten
Member No.: 19808



QUOTE
oh i see... but you're cutting short... virtual lossless would be something definitely without any kind of artifacts, contrary on current lossy schemes...
this virtual lossless would be "lossy" anyway and not able to restore data bit by bit back as FLAC usually does. I think the better definition for this is... to have a lossy data compressor without any artifact present.


Have you ever tested WavPack in hybrid mode for example (around 384 bkps)? This is in fact transparency without detecting artifacts cause no psymodel is used here (well, I've never detect some, maybe others who say they can hear artifacts on Lame VBR -V 2 --vbr-new with their 2 dollar earphones lol)


--------------------
FB2K,APE&LAME
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
countryman
post Nov 13 2006, 20:56
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 18-July 05
Member No.: 23396



QUOTE (JensRex @ Nov 13 2006, 15:53) *
QUOTE (countryman @ Nov 13 2006, 15:50) *
in theory FLAC is lossless
Not just in theory mate. Lossless is lossless in reality too. Stop being dumb. I don't want another "lossless isn't lossless" thread again. It either is or it isn't, and it very much is. Consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that lossless isn't lossless. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.


I will assume that your response is a result of a reduced IQ and not just being an ars*hole….

If you had bothered to read my post properly before dispatching the heap of vitriol (look it up) you will have seen that I stated that; “I understand that in theory FLAC is lossless and therefore should be as accurate as the original wav file”. In other words, I understand the theory why FLAC is as lossless as wav. I suppose I should have used ‘is’ as opposed to ‘should’ but I didn’t think for a minute that anybody on this Forum would be stupid enough to think that FLAC wasn’t lossless. What I was asking, was if the extra processing introduced any quality change. I did not start a “lossless isn't lossless" thread again. I also didn’t say that mathematics is bollocks!

Anyway, it’s time you returned to your crayoning….
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sunhillow
post Nov 13 2006, 21:02
Post #18





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 483
Joined: 13-October 01
From: Stuttgart
Member No.: 286



eeerm...
You did ask if lossless is as good as wav.
Is full moon today?

Why should extra processing alter the result? If the result is bit identical to the original, nothing was altered. That is how simple it is if folks dont always smell conspiracy.

Or did you ever notice any change done to a word document after zipping and unzipping it?

Q: are you another incarnation of Excelsior?

This post has been edited by Sunhillow: Nov 13 2006, 21:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Nov 13 2006, 21:06
Post #19





Group: Developer
Posts: 1318
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



QUOTE (memomai @ Nov 13 2006, 20:45) *
This is in fact transparency without detecting artifacts cause no psymodel is used here

Be careful not to draw the wrong conlusions.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=432927
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=407407
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
countryman
post Nov 13 2006, 21:09
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 18-July 05
Member No.: 23396



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Nov 13 2006, 14:57) *
You really should have done some reading before posting such a question!

I would reiterate SebastianG's response that lossless is better in the fact that it is smaller and has good support for storing metadata.

There will be no audio quality difference.


I did do some reading beforehand but didn’t find an answer to my question. SebastianG's response was interesting (and welcome) but did not address the question. As I said to the other ‘gentleman’ I was not disputing that FLAC was not lossless. I was merely asking if the extra processing on replay had an effect. If I had asked a few years ago on this Forum if all digital outputs were equal, no doubt that I would have been told that digital was digital and ‘consider for a moment the absurdity of claming that digital isn't digital. This can be proven mathematically, so you're saying that mathematics is bollocks.’

Then along came jitter……
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 13 2006, 21:10
Post #21





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I will say this in countryman's defense, playback of a lossless file like ape encoded @insane can get interrupted since it is so demanding of resources, but this isn't going to happen while decoding flac, regardless of the compression level.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jens Rex
post Nov 13 2006, 21:19
Post #22





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 605
Joined: 18-December 01
Member No.: 680



QUOTE
I understand the theory why FLAC is as lossless as wav.
QUOTE
What I was asking, was if the extra processing introduced any quality change.

You're saying you know FLAC is lossless, yet you ask whether the processing introduces a quality change (ie. not lossless). I'm sure I'm not the only one here who can't make sense of that.

QUOTE
Anyway, it’s time you returned to your crayoning…

Very well.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
countryman
post Nov 13 2006, 21:56
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 18-July 05
Member No.: 23396



[quote name='Sunhillow' date='Nov 13 2006, 20:02' post='449176']
eeerm...
You did ask if lossless is as good as wav.
Is full moon today? [/quote]

Yes I did! This is because wav is uncompressed and FLAC is compressed hence the smaller storage requirements. As I understand it, when you replay a FLAC file it has to be uncompressed (unpacked) on the fly whilst undertaking the usual replay processing. My question was whether this had an effect.

[/quote]
Why should extra processing alter the result? [/quote]

Dunno. That is why I asked the question..

[/quote]
If the result is bit identical to the original, nothing was altered. That is how simple it is if folks don’t always smell conspiracy. [/quote]

blink.gif

[/quote]
Or did you ever notice any change done to a word document after zipping and unzipping it? [/quote]

No, but then I don’t read documents whilst they are unzipping.

[/quote]
Q: are you another incarnation of Excelsior?
[/quote]

What? huh.gif

This post has been edited by countryman: Nov 13 2006, 21:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sld
post Nov 13 2006, 22:02
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1017
Joined: 4-March 03
From: Singapore
Member No.: 5312



FLAC, the lossless-but-not-quite-because-of-processing codec. I should go patent this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bhoar
post Nov 13 2006, 22:07
Post #25





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 612
Joined: 31-May 06
Member No.: 31326



http://m-w.com/dictionary/lossless

CODE
Main Entry: loss·less
Pronunciation: 'los-l&s
Function: adjective
: done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission>


e.g. the lack of loss. e.g. no loss. e.g. you get out exactly what you put in.

-brendan


--------------------
Hacking CD Robots & Autoloaders: http://hyperdiscs.pbwiki.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th September 2014 - 01:55