Lossless vs. Compression

No loss: vinyl

:)

No loss: vinyl

:)

That should make for interesting conversation:sqwink:

No lossiness in CDs, either. It ain't live sound... but it's all we got. :)

I'm more about convienence. I don't have time to rerip all of my music, nor do I ever plan to do so, 192k MP3 is fine for me.

I recently dropped using vob for viedo because they take up to much space. I am now using avi.

With a good sound card the differance is so minimal I would never suggest that anyone worry about how things sound. If you want to sound better, buy better equipment your mp3's are not going to make the difference.

I would suggest someone upgrading speakers, adding a sub, or a second sub, or adding a drive rack, or sonic maximizer before ever suggesting someone rerip all of their mp3's.

okay we might want to take this MP3 talk to a new thread this was originally about DJ Egos!! The current info though not any less important could easily be of better use and found easier by others wanting to know more about loseless CPS/ MP3/Flac information.

Woah, woah, woah, back up there a bit.

Vinyl. Lossless? We take the hardest substance known to man, a diamond and drag it through an undulating groove. At the point of contact the surface vinyl is liquified and then reconstituted after the stylus passes.

An acetate, a mother, then a stamper, no loss? Stampers that are typically used longer than they should be. Mothers used to make too many stampers. You guys know that I think that vinyl is capable of very fine quality but calling it lossless (in all its meanings) is getting a bit carried away.

Everything requires tradeoffs. I still think many of the biggest tradeoffs are made out of our control by people that too often don’t exercise nearly same passion as the end user. There are dreadful quality records and dreadful quality CDs. Still, in the quality war I’ll take the CD hands down. You want me to carry how many of them? MP3 @ 192Kbs will do nicely thank you.

Take care guys.

While I my hobby is usually NOT contributing to the hijacking of threads, I wanna be in with the cool crowd, so here is my reasoning:

I don't see vinyl as "lossless". I see it as "gainful". Why? With each rotation, each spec of dust and each little scratch, it GAINS personality.

Eh?

I meant it as good ol' food for thought. Mmmmm...food.

Well that is worth a good laugh before turning in.

VS, NO ONE can argue with that.

YES, and now for a snack.

So in a sense the fact we are continuing to take this thread off topic is folks exuding the ego. There are other words to describe it but it would be off topic once again. Lets check the egos and move to a new lossless thread as this thread looks as if it may need to be split into two threads.
MMMmmm Snack...................

So in a sense the fact we are continuing to take this thread off topic is folks exuding the ego. There are other words to describe it but it would be off topic once again.

My ego is large enough to admit that it was MY fault for taking this thread off topic, by asking for clarification on the first post which took this thread off topic.

There's something humorous in that statement, but I think that it is only dependent on my ego.

Its good to have laughs before bedtime thanks Johnny.

To hear the difference in Lossless compared to a MP3 ripped at 320 on a pro system in a large room you would have to have a mighty good set of ears.

Its even more unlikley that a client would have the ability to notice from one event to the next the difference between an MP3 and a CD


Actually, I have heard the difference and it is huge. Originally I was very hesitant to convert because of the sound quality.

Sorry for the length but some of these posts take time to answer.

Over the years I have heard all sorts of complaints, claims and counter claims for all manner of audio gear. It is funny how the sense of hearing is doubted more than our sense of sight. I have satellite TV. The signal I receive is compressed for transmission. Do I bemoan something is lost? The picture presented to me is superior to a standard NTSC terrestrial transmission. I’ve never heard a claim to the contrary. In fact, Comcast touts its digital COMPRESSED service. When audio is discussed, all certainty goes out the window. The fuzzy nature of sound encourages the doubt not suffered by visual media.

FLAC is now the flavor of the month. That is fine. I have nothing against the algorithm. The claim forwarded is that such large hard drives are available that it makes MP3 unnecessary. OK I’ll bite. Why not buy a larger or two hard drives and cut out the FLAC? I’ll take my pulse code modulation straight. Thanks.

The only credible means to test claims for the superiority of one device, algorithm or cable is double blind testing. Neither the tester nor the tested person knows what is in the signal chain. When this is scrupulously followed all manner of miraculous results are served up.

It is discovered many cannot discern distortion levels up to 5%. Persons cannot tell one amplifier from another once all input variances have been eliminated. In one such test a live violinist hidden behind a curtain along with the test speakers was described as “tinny” and “unnatural”. Differences between cables? You might as well flip a coin.

MP3s sound damn good, my opinion. The algorithm has been steadily improved. It has not remained stagnant. Many of the arguments about something missing were said about CDs when they first appeared. If not 44kHz why not 96? Less missing no? No, maybe Johnny’s right we should never have gone digital. Vinyl (analog) is the best and only “professional” media. How many of those older catalog purchases use the analog tape source?

And by the way, the level of [power] amplification does not enter into it. Either the dynamic range is reproduced or it is not. A pair of headphones retailing for between $100 - $200 are easily the match of a $5000/pair speakers without power amplification. They will easily reproduce the dynamic ranges originally recorded. You want to compare, start with your headphones. For the moment, never mind the FLAC. Compare the CD to a high quality MP3 encoded file. Encode at 192kbs Have somebody mix up some files and see if you can tell the difference between file types. It may not be blind-blind but it is better than nothing. If you can tell the difference make sure to wear hearing protection around power tools as you have golden ears. They're keepers.

You will never find me defending the benefit of lower quality...

Too bad you missed the Computer DJ Summit.... You should attend in 2007.
Balanced Line,

Lossless vs. Lossy = a Lossy Loss

FLAC is not a flavor of the month for me - I've incorporated FLAC since FLAC 1.0.1 was released some five plus years ago. After great research I shared with others what and why I was using this format and many individuals since have started the same. This includes individuals such as Drax, Kent, Jorgen and many others who are pioneers in computer DJing.

Please understand, FLAC is just the source I use, LOSSLESS is the dedicated focus of what I believe professional DJs should use. You will have to excuse me for giving such a limited overview of my reasons. I prefer not to make public the details for many who just could careless, wanting the lowest compression, to carry the most music, no matter the Loss.

I concede, you’re correct; I will end this nonsense and remain silent of such considerations. Also, I use Vinyl, I use CDs, I was using 192 mpegs from the start and Lossless formats to archive my library for years, so I have no agenda to steer.

I will have to stop this insanity.

Split Into new thread [Bounce]