IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Is Hydrogenaudio losing it's direction?, Going from Hi-Fi -> Mid-Fi
Floydian Slip
post Dec 12 2003, 15:02
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 18-January 03
Member No.: 4621



First, please bear with me for this long post.

Second, My apology to Roberto for bringing this issue from a different perspective. I really respect you for previous listening tests, taking initiative and creating momentum in the HA community for these kind of actions.

But, recent thread about Roberto's intention to conduct couple of more 128kbps listening test provoked some thought in my mind. I am not really sure what are the goals of these tests all at 128kbps? (elmar3rd raised very good and similar question http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....dpost&p=161909).

The first and foremost agenda behind creating Hydrogenaudio was to create a community who looks for the best quality audio without any compromise. Otherwise we could very well stayed within r3mix community. Where Roel thought his presets are "good enough" for majority of the audiences, and denied to move forward.

Honestly, I am not sure, from those tests whatever format wins, what is that going to prove other than knowing this particular format at this particular bitrate with this particular settings are better than other codec at this bitrate with these settings. Say that AAC won the test. We can only say that, yeah AAC has been improved and does better at this bitrate. But then what? Will AAC at 128kbps be recommended by Hydrogenaudio for the mass? If not, then why does it matter which format performs better at this bitrate? Don't you think that the average users are going to misinterpret this test and think that it is a recommended bitrate/encoder/setting.

If these tests are for non-audiophile users then we are doing a disservice by not making them aware that they shouldn't use any of these format at this bitrate, as they are not transparent. Again if it is targeted at the developers, I don't think this is the kind of test that they need.

Hydrogenaudio is famous for it's uncompromising stand on scientifically proven quality audio. If we keep on conducting listening tests again and again at 128kbps then average users are going to get a false message that it is now good to use newer codecs at this bitrate (otherwise why HA is giving that much importance on this bitrate?).

I don't think that just because some big companies like Apple are trying to push low quality DRM infected music to clueless people, it justifies giving any attention by an elite group like HA. Apple is actually harming the audio community by polluting average people's music collection with inferior quality music. This might in future help them getting more revenue by selling another round of same music at higher bitrate (this time with transparent quality). But from a consumer's point of view, why should we fall prey to their scam? I really hate it when Apple introduce HDD based player with as big as 10/20/30/40GB drives and try to shove down inferior quality music at 128kbps. What was their problem? Storage size wasn't an issue, newer format (AAC) is even more efficient. Why not give transparent music?

Heck, people at Hydrogenaudio were running after nothing less than transparent quality music at the age when storage size was really an issue (650-700MB CD-R based or usually 64-128MB flash player). Why then, at this age, HA community should give any hoot about 128kbps non-transparent music?

If we, as a consumer, don't demand higher quality then no industry is gonna give that. One example is that there are growing number of paid music sites are offering LAME -aps encoded files, just because of people's awareness and demand. I'm quite sure, Hydrogenaudio is, at a large, responsible for that awareness. The downside of giving much importance at Mid-bitrate (128kbps) is using this bitrate we are not achieving any goal. Neither transparency nor ability to stream at this bitrate.

It might be more useful to conduct some test at low bitrate (~64kbps) at which sound might not be transparent but will be vary useful for streaming media, or maybe even lower bitrate for voice communication.

If we really want some tests, It would be more useful to conduct a test at a bitrate where every codec reach transparency level. That will give a sense to the average user that how efficient one codec is against other and at what bitrate they become transparent. Granted, that type of test is not going to be very easy to conduct, but if done properly it will give very useful information.

Otherwise we are moving backward by giving more importance on the holy grail of 128kbps bitrate that big industry players are trying to shove down to our throat making us believe that this is the de facto standard of "quality audio".

Any comments or flames are welcome. ph34r.gif

Edit: some spellings.

This post has been edited by Floydian Slip: Dec 12 2003, 15:08


--------------------
-- Floydian Slip
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Dec 12 2003, 18:01
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5364
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 04:26 PM)
For audio, as I said, it will serve no purpose - it is neither transparent nor we are facing storage limitations.

I'll remember that when I've burnt some CD-Rs full of ~120-140kbps mp3s, and I'm listening to them in the car.

I'll remember just what you said: that finding out how to get the best sound quality with ten discs per disc served no purpose at all.

The thing is, it might be a bit difficult to remember this with the music playing!


Just because you don't use these bitrates, doesn't mean that no one does. If you don't like this thread/test, don't participate.


And let's be bluntly honest: if we don't talk about this low bitrate stuff, what are we going to talk about? Musepack -q5 still transparent for most samples? wink.gif

It's not like the discussion about a 128kbps test pushes out the high quality discussion - anytime someone finds a sample which causes problems with lame aps or Musepack, people do get very excited.

So it's like any discussion - dip into the parts that interest you, and ignore those that don't - and don't complain because not everyone is talking about something that interests you!

Whats more, if your thing is to go around the world screaming "hey guys - you're being ripped off - this 128kbps audio isn't CD quality" then this test is exactly what you need.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Dec 12 2003, 18:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Floydian Slip   Is Hydrogenaudio losing it's direction?   Dec 12 2003, 15:02
- - 2Bdecided   The test will show how many listeners find each en...   Dec 12 2003, 15:21
- - sthayashi   Roberto is doing a test at 128kbps because that...   Dec 12 2003, 15:31
- - dev0   I don't have much to add to 2BDecided's co...   Dec 12 2003, 15:36
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE The Hydrogenaudio "transparent encoding...   Dec 12 2003, 16:15
- - Dibrom   I don't quite see how we're making the lea...   Dec 12 2003, 16:30
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 12:02 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 16:35
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Dec 12 2003, 11:30 AM)Other t...   Dec 12 2003, 16:48
- - ChristianHJW   I am outing myself now : As i am not using music ...   Dec 12 2003, 17:00
- - JohnV   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 05:48 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 17:01
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE What is not transparent for you might well b...   Dec 12 2003, 17:07
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 02:07 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 17:15
- - ff123   hydrogenaudio is what its visitors make of it. If...   Dec 12 2003, 17:18
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE (JohnV @ Dec 12 2003, 12:01 PM)I wonder...   Dec 12 2003, 17:26
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 02:26 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 17:41
- - DonP   The coin has two sides. If you want to go to a do...   Dec 12 2003, 17:43
- - honz318712   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 08:26 AM)...   Dec 12 2003, 17:52
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE Do they even want your help? Ignorance is bl...   Dec 12 2003, 17:56
- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 04:26 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 18:01
- - Cey   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 12 2003, 08:15 AM)QUOTE...   Dec 12 2003, 18:04
- - Mac   What I can't understand is why CBR is/was bein...   Dec 12 2003, 18:06
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 02:56 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 18:18
- - Jan S.   Are you suggesting that HA members conclude from t...   Dec 12 2003, 18:28
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Dec 12 2003, 01:01 PM)I...   Dec 12 2003, 18:33
- - Gabriel   Just wanted to point that I am very interested in ...   Dec 12 2003, 18:42
- - rjamorim   QUOTE The issue is that if we encourage with it, l...   Dec 12 2003, 18:43
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 12 2003, 01:43 PM)OK, a...   Dec 12 2003, 19:14
- - john33   I should have thought that these tests are all abo...   Dec 12 2003, 19:18
- - salpro   i some time use 96 cbr mp3 resampled to 32kh lame ...   Dec 12 2003, 20:06
- - DigitalMan   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 06:02 AM)...   Dec 12 2003, 21:05
- - sven_Bent   What i always lovede (and do love) about HA is tha...   Dec 12 2003, 21:06
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Floydian Slip @ Dec 12 2003, 04:14 PM)...   Dec 12 2003, 21:57
- - fairyliquidizer   Seasons Greetings! Ehm I welcome all research...   Dec 12 2003, 22:09
- - Floydian Slip   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Dec 12 2003, 04:57 PM)What ...   Dec 12 2003, 23:26
- - William   I am very confused in this discussion. A listenin...   Dec 13 2003, 16:35
- - Big_Berny   Yeah, I like this tests too. I daily record two Si...   Dec 13 2003, 17:12
- - Dologan   Most arguments against Floydian Slip's post ha...   Dec 13 2003, 17:33


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: 29th December 2014 - 05:54