The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.
Yup. the mic, the pre, the desk, the headstack, the tape formulation, the transport, the playback compensation, the amp, and the speakers to name a few things that adulterate the original signal in the "analog" world of reproduction (and we haven't even gotten to the lathe).
They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.
"loss-less sample" is an oxymoron. As soon as you've taken a sample, you have introducted loss, from a purely technical perspective.
But from a practical perpective, for the purposes of this discussion, and as far as 99.99% of the humans on this planet are concerned, CDs are considered lossless (because that is the highest quality generally available).
Now can we all stop pissing in the wind and get back to how the record labels are the embodiment of pure evil?
You know what? I don't really care except for the fact that if I see someone saying something (like your original post), that is inaccurate, I have to point it out. I really think people who obsess over tiny details like this are missing the whole point of life in general.
That being said, all you have done here is put a link to a site that proves my point. I agreed with you that the differences at high rates are small, but I've said all along that your perception that MP3's "sound better" than equivalent AAC files is false. The graph you point to (I assume this is your "best case" argument), shows that ...
... at high bitrates the difference is small but AAC still sounds better to most ears.
I'm not sure what your point is with all this, and as I said, I really don't care enough about it to continue arguing especially when all your evidence seems to prove me right.
I don't disagree that you CAN do it with CD when it wasn't possible with vinyl. I'm just saying that with CD you have the choice of mastering that way or not. And that's evidenced by CD's that sound great because they choose NOT to master that way.
Mastering engineers have very little choice in the matter and most "artists" don't either (or don't know enough to care) when faced with a corporate behemoth that is cranking out the next manufactured hit.
I've attended more than one mastering panel discussion at AES and witnessed the head hanging, foot shuffling, and weak excuse making by the finest mastering engineers in the business. They all finally admit that it comes down to this: the client has the money and calls the shots whether they know what's good or not for the music. 99% of the time at the mass appeal level, the decision is not at "artistic" one made by someone with artistic sensibilities. I'd be willing to bet that after a few drinks, more than a few mastering engineers would be willing to admit that they are a bit embarrassed by what they're forced to do.
This is a lose-lose proposition for everyone but the labels.
...
I suspect it's even a lose for them too. The record labels have fought against their own interest since the Napster years when it took 1.5 years for them to accept Steve Jobs' advice that they give up trying to sue teenagers and housewives and instead compete with piracy by offering a better service.
They forced a DRM agreement, but have always opposed the simple price model of iTunes that Steve Jobs insisted upon. Again, I think Jobs understands the market better than the labels and his stubbornness was to the benefit of the labels and artists, but the labels just don't get it. So they made variable-pricing the cost of DRM-free music.
I think the reason Steve Jobs insisted on a delay between DRM-free music and the start of variable pricing is so that he could separate the public approval of the DRM removal from the public condemnation of variable pricing. So complain really loudly and help make Steve's case against variable pricing.
The 10 songs you get every month are DRM free. For $2.50 / month / person (splitting between 2 people) for unlimited amount of music, you can't even touch the price.
I won't buy into another DRM scheme. What if I want more than 10 songs in a month? Not interested, not in the slightest. Its 180° backward of what everyone else (Apple, Amazon, etc.) are doing. I'm glad you like your Zune, but there is no way I'd buy one just so I could get DRM'ed music from Microsoft. Even if they give me 10 DRM-free songs, like an allowance or something...
You are right. I should have said that iTunes could offer AIFF and WAV formats in the store. Maybe they could borrow some storage from Google.
Two issues:
1. Do either AIFF or WAV file formats support metadata fields? I honestly don't know. If they don't, that might be a consideration for using those formats for online music purchases.
2. Apple is moving away from hard drive based music players. Flash based players have not caught up to hard drives in capacity. Selling music in uncompressed AIFF/WAV files would require many users to recompress the music files in order to get more than a handful of albums loaded onto their portable devices.
Apple is about delivering what would be sufficient for 80% of customers. I don't see them going the extra mile by adding AIFF/WAV formats that would beneift only a few users. This philosophy is througout Apple. Look at the iPods, Mac OS, iCal, Addresse Book, the iLife applications, web services, etc. Apple does a beautiful job getting the basics down, but they seldom deliver those last few features that would make their products truly great. It's as if they get close, and then lose interest in finishing the job.
It was Steve Jobs who wanted to sell DRM free music for $0.99 long time ago but the labels refused demanding that Apple charge more.
Anyone with half a brain knows that the only reason Amazon sells cheaper DRM free music is because the labels wanted to force Apple into accepting their terms. Now that Apple accepted their terms expect them to force Amazon to similar terms very very soon. Why very soon? because now they make more money if you buy music from iTunes not Amazon.
It is about the labels love for money not Amazon.
I never said they loved Amazon, but they hated Steve Jobs and Apple. Sometimes things are simply done for personal reasons. Time will tell. In my part of the world it is night so tomorrow when I wake up we will see if suddenly Amazon tunes are now higher priced.
Either way, I could not care less. If a song is $1.69 or $10.69, or $169.00 and I want it, I will simply buy it. Luckily I can usually afford what I want to purchase. It is about the record companies pushing crap music (BEP's new song) on us and wanting consumers to pay a premium for it. It was like when Jay-Z got pissed at iTunes and decided to pull his American Gangster trax. Who suffered? He did. Then Jermaine the Midget Dupree actually had the gall to call consumers stupid and say that we should be thankful for the music they make. What a bunch of arrogant effers.
While there are people who can hear minute differences, there are also many people who fall victim to the placebo effect and think they are hearing a difference when they really can't. I've learned to be skeptical of people who claim to be able to hear tiny differences unless they are doing blind comparisons.
Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
I've had many people come over who were complete skeptics, only to leave complete believers.
Mind you, this is on an audiophile system:
Paradigm Studio 100's V.3 speakers
Bi-wired with 14/16 gauge Ultralink cables
Marantz CD player with SACD Grade Cirrus Logic CS4392 DAC
Yamaha high current HTR 5760 receiver
Airport express and gold plated connections on everything
And most importantly... walls covered with sound panels.
This is a low/mid range system as far as audiophile systems go. Sub $6000.
On a system this precise thou, nuances become mountains. And of the 15 - 20 people that have come and auditioned the system expecting to hear minute detail changes, were completely blown away from the first 5 seconds of listening. Literally, it's like taking off earmuffs.
I also have a $350 JVC micro system with exceptional sound. The difference between 320 AAC and CD is, well... nothing.
This whole argument is ridiculous. It's no different then someone with a standard TV watching a VHS cassette, looking at an HD 1080p Plasma playing a blue-ray movie and saying... "I don't see any difference... the human eye can only see so many colors, HD is a placebo".
The only difference I guess is that it's tougher to do a 'blind' comparison of TV resolution.
1. Do either AIFF or WAV file formats support metadata fields?
AIFF does, WAV doe snot.
Quote:
I don't see them going the extra mile by adding AIFF/WAV formats that would beneift only a few users.
Agreed. If they did offer huge files, many, many users would complain they can only get 2 dozen songs on their iPods, without understanding anything about file size vs. quality.
iTunes and iPod are meant to be simple with very little interaction required by the average schmoe.
A majority of users will settle for mediocre products. Doesn't necessarily mean the mediocre products are bad.
Agreed, go listen to a DVD-Audio disc and see if you still think CDs are lossless.
Blind tests have in the past proven no difference between DVD-Audio and CD. For that matter, the same holds true between 256kbps mp3's and CD's on very expensive and highly respected setups. People who say otherwise need to prove it in a blind test before they go boasting how they are audiophiles and they have superior ears or trained ears that can hear the difference.
Having said that, yes, TECHNICALLY, 24 bit 96khz audio SHOULD produce better quality audio. We certainly won't be able to hear it though.
Same goes for SACD - all marketing.
For all practical purposes, CD's are lossless - and even by popular definition.
EDIT: I wrote the above post after reading only the first page of posts - I take it back as there are a few ppl claiming they can easily tell the difference on high end equipment and a good treated room, however I personally cannot tell on my low end dynaudio (sub $2000) or sennheiser HD600's.
All those screaming about Amazon, they also have 1.29 songs, but it's less noticeable than on itunes because itunes has 10 million songs compared to 5 for Amazon.
256 kbps AAC is a "lossy" compression scheme, only a better one than MP3. If Apple were allowed to do away with DRM ie. iTunes + they could offer the same quality download found on a store bought CD.
This loss can be heard in most any current consumer sound system.
I can tell you from experience that (depending on the song) 256 vs. pulling the song uncompressed from a CD can mean the difference of going from 4 megs to 50 megs. Multiply that by every song on itunes and think what that would mean to server strain. I'm not an IT person but I'm guessing that would cost some money. I try to keep my bit rate to 256 except for the original itunes stuff I bought that isn't being offered at a discount to upgrade.
There is a noticeable difference going from 128 ACC to 256 (many 128 bit songs have perceptible tunneling or cell phone-ish SQ) I bring in CDs at 320. For most people I would venture to say they won't hear the difference from 256 to 320.
Unless you are listening to mega expensive high-end audio equipment and speakers most listeners don't need over 320, probably not over 256 for many.
Mastering engineers have very little choice in the matter and most "artists" don't either (or don't know enough to care) when faced with a corporate behemoth that is cranking out the next manufactured hit.
While that choice is in the hands of the artist, the mastering engineer, or the president of the record company, the point is that SOMEONE has a choice. It's not an inherent quality of the CD medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffhrsn
Well...technically, they could be compressed from their original studio sample rate but why split hairs?
Wrong. Technically, they can't be data compressed AT ALL, the CD technology simply doesn't support compression. If you put compressed audio files on a CD, the CD player won't play it back. CD's are by definition an uncompressed format, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
Have you done a blind comparison or not?
Because many of the people who think they hear a night and day difference can't pick out which is which once they switch to blind comparison.
I also hope if you're comparing mp3 with lossless you are doing it on the same playback hardware (both mp3 and wav or aiff via the airport), otherwise you're comparing the differences in hardware, not in the formats themselves.
Wrong. Technically, they can't be data compressed AT ALL, the CD technology simply doesn't support compression. If you put compressed audio files on a CD, the CD player won't play it back. CD's are by definition an uncompressed format, period.
You don't understand because you're not in the business. There are two uses of the word "compression" and I failed to make it clear that I wasn't talking about data compression, although I think I used it in conjunction with "limiting" more than once as in "compression/limiting."
Sorry, but you're just making up your own definition for "lossy". No, CD's aren't the highest resolution available. But that doesn't make them lossy, which means data compression that throws out audio that is in the original digital recording.
If you're going to define "lossy" as anything that isn't absolutely perfect, then not only would every recording format in existence be lossy, so would even live listening since the atmosphere and listening environment change the sound as well.
This redefining of "lossy" to mean whatever people want it to mean reminds me of the incessant "Apple is a monopoly!" comments you see on boards like this.
lossy |ˈlôsē; ˈläsē|
adjective
? Computing of or relating to data compression in which unnecessary information is discarded.
CD simply doesn't fit that definition.
No I'm not defining lossy. I'm merely stating that any recording medium that takes what is often an analog signal records it and replays it is lossy by nature.
CD
16 bit word length that requires dithering algorithms to reproduce an accurate waveform.
44, 100, 000 samples per second.
= lossy
The only debate remaining is the level of data that is lost.
You don't understand because you're not in the business. There are two uses of the word "compression" and I failed to make it clear that I wasn't talking about data compression, although I think I used it in conjunction with "limiting" more than once as in "compression/limiting."
Don't make assumptions about me or what I understand, you're just going to make a fool of yourself.
That comment was in response to jeffhrsn (as should be obvious since my comment followed the quote of his I was responding to) - it seems pretty obvious he was talking about DATA compression, but if he wasn't, he should be the one who clarifies what he was saying.
I'm perfectly aware that you were talking about compression of dynamic range in your earlier posts...but that comment wasn't responding to you.
No I'm not defining lossy. I'm merely stating that any recording medium that takes what is often an analog signal records it and replays it is lossy by nature.
And that's not what "lossy" means, did you miss the dictionary definition I quoted?
EVERY recording format in existence (and playback hardware) is going to do the best it can to try and capture the live sound...but will inevitably fail. But that doesn't mean that every recording format is "lossy", it just means that every recording format is imperfect.
And for that matter, data is lost between a violin playing a note and those vibrations getting to your ear.
In a nutshell "lossy" doesn't mean "not as good as some other format". Nor does a format being lossy mean that it necessarily sounds worse than a particular lossless format. It's an actual word with an actual definition, and if you are going to ignore the meaning of the word and just use it to mean whatever you want, you will be saying something that is incorrect.
And that's not what "lossy" means, did you miss the dictionary definition I quoted?
EVERY recording format in existence (and playback hardware) is going to do the best it can to try and capture the live sound...but will inevitably fail. But that doesn't mean that every recording format is "lossy", it just means that every recording format is imperfect.
And for that matter, data is lost between a violin playing a note and those vibrations getting to your ear.
In a nutshell "lossy" doesn't mean "not as good as some other format". Nor does a format being lossy mean that it necessarily sounds worse than a particular lossless format. It's an actual word with an actual definition, and if you are going to ignore the meaning of the word and just use it to mean whatever you want, you will be saying something that is incorrect.
Why would I need a dictionary to explain what i've known for two decades?
My statement was
Quote:
The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.
The "by any stretch" is there to refrence that even a live instrument playing music will suffer some sort of auditory deterioration.
I really don't engage in the "I don't like iTunes because it's lossy" hyperbole because most people that say that have very little grasp on audio. I'm no Bob Katz by I know many of the limitations of today's audio tech at a conversational level.
Comments
The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.
Yup. the mic, the pre, the desk, the headstack, the tape formulation, the transport, the playback compensation, the amp, and the speakers to name a few things that adulterate the original signal in the "analog" world of reproduction (and we haven't even gotten to the lathe).
gc
They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.
"loss-less sample" is an oxymoron. As soon as you've taken a sample, you have introducted loss, from a purely technical perspective.
But from a practical perpective, for the purposes of this discussion, and as far as 99.99% of the humans on this planet are concerned, CDs are considered lossless (because that is the highest quality generally available).
Now can we all stop pissing in the wind and get back to how the record labels are the embodiment of pure evil?
Well, as for example this one: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=36465? If you looks at lab tests (e.g. http://www.soundexpert.info/coders256.jsp) you can see that there is almost no difference between AAC CBR and MP3 CBR at 256 kbps, only AAC VBR is achieving a significantly better result (but MP3 VBR was not tested).
You know what? I don't really care except for the fact that if I see someone saying something (like your original post), that is inaccurate, I have to point it out. I really think people who obsess over tiny details like this are missing the whole point of life in general.
That being said, all you have done here is put a link to a site that proves my point. I agreed with you that the differences at high rates are small, but I've said all along that your perception that MP3's "sound better" than equivalent AAC files is false. The graph you point to (I assume this is your "best case" argument), shows that ...
... at high bitrates the difference is small but AAC still sounds better to most ears.
I'm not sure what your point is with all this, and as I said, I really don't care enough about it to continue arguing especially when all your evidence seems to prove me right.
I don't disagree that you CAN do it with CD when it wasn't possible with vinyl. I'm just saying that with CD you have the choice of mastering that way or not. And that's evidenced by CD's that sound great because they choose NOT to master that way.
Mastering engineers have very little choice in the matter and most "artists" don't either (or don't know enough to care) when faced with a corporate behemoth that is cranking out the next manufactured hit.
I've attended more than one mastering panel discussion at AES and witnessed the head hanging, foot shuffling, and weak excuse making by the finest mastering engineers in the business. They all finally admit that it comes down to this: the client has the money and calls the shots whether they know what's good or not for the music. 99% of the time at the mass appeal level, the decision is not at "artistic" one made by someone with artistic sensibilities. I'd be willing to bet that after a few drinks, more than a few mastering engineers would be willing to admit that they are a bit embarrassed by what they're forced to do.
gc
This is a lose-lose proposition for everyone but the labels.
...
I suspect it's even a lose for them too. The record labels have fought against their own interest since the Napster years when it took 1.5 years for them to accept Steve Jobs' advice that they give up trying to sue teenagers and housewives and instead compete with piracy by offering a better service.
They forced a DRM agreement, but have always opposed the simple price model of iTunes that Steve Jobs insisted upon. Again, I think Jobs understands the market better than the labels and his stubbornness was to the benefit of the labels and artists, but the labels just don't get it. So they made variable-pricing the cost of DRM-free music.
I think the reason Steve Jobs insisted on a delay between DRM-free music and the start of variable pricing is so that he could separate the public approval of the DRM removal from the public condemnation of variable pricing. So complain really loudly and help make Steve's case against variable pricing.
CDs are lossless my friend. i don't know who told you that but they have not a clue what they're talking about
CDs are 16-bit 44.1kHz sample rate. there is no compression of any kind.
Well...technically, they could be compressed from their original studio sample rate but why split hairs?
The 10 songs you get every month are DRM free. For $2.50 / month / person (splitting between 2 people) for unlimited amount of music, you can't even touch the price.
I won't buy into another DRM scheme. What if I want more than 10 songs in a month? Not interested, not in the slightest. Its 180° backward of what everyone else (Apple, Amazon, etc.) are doing. I'm glad you like your Zune, but there is no way I'd buy one just so I could get DRM'ed music from Microsoft. Even if they give me 10 DRM-free songs, like an allowance or something...
You are right. I should have said that iTunes could offer AIFF and WAV formats in the store. Maybe they could borrow some storage from Google.
Two issues:
1. Do either AIFF or WAV file formats support metadata fields? I honestly don't know. If they don't, that might be a consideration for using those formats for online music purchases.
2. Apple is moving away from hard drive based music players. Flash based players have not caught up to hard drives in capacity. Selling music in uncompressed AIFF/WAV files would require many users to recompress the music files in order to get more than a handful of albums loaded onto their portable devices.
Apple is about delivering what would be sufficient for 80% of customers. I don't see them going the extra mile by adding AIFF/WAV formats that would beneift only a few users. This philosophy is througout Apple. Look at the iPods, Mac OS, iCal, Addresse Book, the iLife applications, web services, etc. Apple does a beautiful job getting the basics down, but they seldom deliver those last few features that would make their products truly great. It's as if they get close, and then lose interest in finishing the job.
It was Steve Jobs who wanted to sell DRM free music for $0.99 long time ago but the labels refused demanding that Apple charge more.
Anyone with half a brain knows that the only reason Amazon sells cheaper DRM free music is because the labels wanted to force Apple into accepting their terms. Now that Apple accepted their terms expect them to force Amazon to similar terms very very soon. Why very soon? because now they make more money if you buy music from iTunes not Amazon.
It is about the labels love for money not Amazon.
I never said they loved Amazon, but they hated Steve Jobs and Apple. Sometimes things are simply done for personal reasons. Time will tell. In my part of the world it is night so tomorrow when I wake up we will see if suddenly Amazon tunes are now higher priced.
Either way, I could not care less. If a song is $1.69 or $10.69, or $169.00 and I want it, I will simply buy it. Luckily I can usually afford what I want to purchase. It is about the record companies pushing crap music (BEP's new song) on us and wanting consumers to pay a premium for it. It was like when Jay-Z got pissed at iTunes and decided to pull his American Gangster trax. Who suffered? He did. Then Jermaine the Midget Dupree actually had the gall to call consumers stupid and say that we should be thankful for the music they make. What a bunch of arrogant effers.
While there are people who can hear minute differences, there are also many people who fall victim to the placebo effect and think they are hearing a difference when they really can't. I've learned to be skeptical of people who claim to be able to hear tiny differences unless they are doing blind comparisons.
Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
I've had many people come over who were complete skeptics, only to leave complete believers.
Mind you, this is on an audiophile system:
Paradigm Studio 100's V.3 speakers
Bi-wired with 14/16 gauge Ultralink cables
Marantz CD player with SACD Grade Cirrus Logic CS4392 DAC
Yamaha high current HTR 5760 receiver
Airport express and gold plated connections on everything
And most importantly... walls covered with sound panels.
This is a low/mid range system as far as audiophile systems go. Sub $6000.
On a system this precise thou, nuances become mountains. And of the 15 - 20 people that have come and auditioned the system expecting to hear minute detail changes, were completely blown away from the first 5 seconds of listening. Literally, it's like taking off earmuffs.
I also have a $350 JVC micro system with exceptional sound. The difference between 320 AAC and CD is, well... nothing.
This whole argument is ridiculous. It's no different then someone with a standard TV watching a VHS cassette, looking at an HD 1080p Plasma playing a blue-ray movie and saying... "I don't see any difference... the human eye can only see so many colors, HD is a placebo".
The only difference I guess is that it's tougher to do a 'blind' comparison of TV resolution.
1. Do either AIFF or WAV file formats support metadata fields?
AIFF does, WAV doe snot.
I don't see them going the extra mile by adding AIFF/WAV formats that would beneift only a few users.
Agreed. If they did offer huge files, many, many users would complain they can only get 2 dozen songs on their iPods, without understanding anything about file size vs. quality.
iTunes and iPod are meant to be simple with very little interaction required by the average schmoe.
A majority of users will settle for mediocre products. Doesn't necessarily mean the mediocre products are bad.
Agreed, go listen to a DVD-Audio disc and see if you still think CDs are lossless.
Blind tests have in the past proven no difference between DVD-Audio and CD. For that matter, the same holds true between 256kbps mp3's and CD's on very expensive and highly respected setups. People who say otherwise need to prove it in a blind test before they go boasting how they are audiophiles and they have superior ears or trained ears that can hear the difference.
Having said that, yes, TECHNICALLY, 24 bit 96khz audio SHOULD produce better quality audio. We certainly won't be able to hear it though.
Same goes for SACD - all marketing.
For all practical purposes, CD's are lossless - and even by popular definition.
EDIT: I wrote the above post after reading only the first page of posts - I take it back as there are a few ppl claiming they can easily tell the difference on high end equipment and a good treated room, however I personally cannot tell on my low end dynaudio (sub $2000) or sennheiser HD600's.
256 kbps AAC is a "lossy" compression scheme, only a better one than MP3. If Apple were allowed to do away with DRM ie. iTunes + they could offer the same quality download found on a store bought CD.
This loss can be heard in most any current consumer sound system.
I can tell you from experience that (depending on the song) 256 vs. pulling the song uncompressed from a CD can mean the difference of going from 4 megs to 50 megs. Multiply that by every song on itunes and think what that would mean to server strain. I'm not an IT person but I'm guessing that would cost some money. I try to keep my bit rate to 256 except for the original itunes stuff I bought that isn't being offered at a discount to upgrade.
There is a noticeable difference going from 128 ACC to 256 (many 128 bit songs have perceptible tunneling or cell phone-ish SQ) I bring in CDs at 320. For most people I would venture to say they won't hear the difference from 256 to 320.
Unless you are listening to mega expensive high-end audio equipment and speakers most listeners don't need over 320, probably not over 256 for many.
Mastering engineers have very little choice in the matter and most "artists" don't either (or don't know enough to care) when faced with a corporate behemoth that is cranking out the next manufactured hit.
While that choice is in the hands of the artist, the mastering engineer, or the president of the record company, the point is that SOMEONE has a choice. It's not an inherent quality of the CD medium.
Well...technically, they could be compressed from their original studio sample rate but why split hairs?
Wrong. Technically, they can't be data compressed AT ALL, the CD technology simply doesn't support compression. If you put compressed audio files on a CD, the CD player won't play it back. CD's are by definition an uncompressed format, period.
Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
Have you done a blind comparison or not?
Because many of the people who think they hear a night and day difference can't pick out which is which once they switch to blind comparison.
I also hope if you're comparing mp3 with lossless you are doing it on the same playback hardware (both mp3 and wav or aiff via the airport), otherwise you're comparing the differences in hardware, not in the formats themselves.
Wrong. Technically, they can't be data compressed AT ALL, the CD technology simply doesn't support compression. If you put compressed audio files on a CD, the CD player won't play it back. CD's are by definition an uncompressed format, period.
You don't understand because you're not in the business. There are two uses of the word "compression" and I failed to make it clear that I wasn't talking about data compression, although I think I used it in conjunction with "limiting" more than once as in "compression/limiting."
see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression
Sorry, but you're just making up your own definition for "lossy". No, CD's aren't the highest resolution available. But that doesn't make them lossy, which means data compression that throws out audio that is in the original digital recording.
If you're going to define "lossy" as anything that isn't absolutely perfect, then not only would every recording format in existence be lossy, so would even live listening since the atmosphere and listening environment change the sound as well.
This redefining of "lossy" to mean whatever people want it to mean reminds me of the incessant "Apple is a monopoly!" comments you see on boards like this.
lossy |ˈlôsē; ˈläsē|
adjective
? Computing of or relating to data compression in which unnecessary information is discarded.
CD simply doesn't fit that definition.
No I'm not defining lossy. I'm merely stating that any recording medium that takes what is often an analog signal records it and replays it is lossy by nature.
CD
16 bit word length that requires dithering algorithms to reproduce an accurate waveform.
44, 100, 000 samples per second.
= lossy
The only debate remaining is the level of data that is lost.
You don't understand because you're not in the business. There are two uses of the word "compression" and I failed to make it clear that I wasn't talking about data compression, although I think I used it in conjunction with "limiting" more than once as in "compression/limiting."
Don't make assumptions about me or what I understand, you're just going to make a fool of yourself.
That comment was in response to jeffhrsn (as should be obvious since my comment followed the quote of his I was responding to) - it seems pretty obvious he was talking about DATA compression, but if he wasn't, he should be the one who clarifies what he was saying.
I'm perfectly aware that you were talking about compression of dynamic range in your earlier posts...but that comment wasn't responding to you.
No I'm not defining lossy. I'm merely stating that any recording medium that takes what is often an analog signal records it and replays it is lossy by nature.
And that's not what "lossy" means, did you miss the dictionary definition I quoted?
EVERY recording format in existence (and playback hardware) is going to do the best it can to try and capture the live sound...but will inevitably fail. But that doesn't mean that every recording format is "lossy", it just means that every recording format is imperfect.
And for that matter, data is lost between a violin playing a note and those vibrations getting to your ear.
In a nutshell "lossy" doesn't mean "not as good as some other format". Nor does a format being lossy mean that it necessarily sounds worse than a particular lossless format. It's an actual word with an actual definition, and if you are going to ignore the meaning of the word and just use it to mean whatever you want, you will be saying something that is incorrect.
And that's not what "lossy" means, did you miss the dictionary definition I quoted?
EVERY recording format in existence (and playback hardware) is going to do the best it can to try and capture the live sound...but will inevitably fail. But that doesn't mean that every recording format is "lossy", it just means that every recording format is imperfect.
And for that matter, data is lost between a violin playing a note and those vibrations getting to your ear.
In a nutshell "lossy" doesn't mean "not as good as some other format". Nor does a format being lossy mean that it necessarily sounds worse than a particular lossless format. It's an actual word with an actual definition, and if you are going to ignore the meaning of the word and just use it to mean whatever you want, you will be saying something that is incorrect.
Why would I need a dictionary to explain what i've known for two decades?
My statement was
The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.
The "by any stretch" is there to refrence that even a live instrument playing music will suffer some sort of auditory deterioration.
I really don't engage in the "I don't like iTunes because it's lossy" hyperbole because most people that say that have very little grasp on audio. I'm no Bob Katz by I know many of the limitations of today's audio tech at a conversational level.
My mantra...let your ears decide.