Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Two More Takes
Two More Takes
Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
World thread):
http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
are few and far between.
Meanwhile, Terry Teachout's tired old ears don't care no more:
http :// online.wsj,com /public/article/SB119464399153888326.html
Reducing MP3s to "they take out the highs I can't hear anymore" misses
the mark. But he also makes this point, which should be of concern:
"In September the Journal's Lee Gomes reported in his "Portals" column
that "those who work behind-the-mic in the music industry --
producers, engineers, mixers and the like -- say they increasingly
assume their recordings will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music
player." Accordingly, these audio professionals are now custom-
tailoring their product to sound best on iPods, the same way that pop
record producers of the early '60s are said to have tailored their
product to sound best on car radios."
bob
Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
World thread):
http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
are few and far between.
Meanwhile, Terry Teachout's tired old ears don't care no more:
http :// online.wsj,com /public/article/SB119464399153888326.html
Reducing MP3s to "they take out the highs I can't hear anymore" misses
the mark. But he also makes this point, which should be of concern:
"In September the Journal's Lee Gomes reported in his "Portals" column
that "those who work behind-the-mic in the music industry --
producers, engineers, mixers and the like -- say they increasingly
assume their recordings will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music
player." Accordingly, these audio professionals are now custom-
tailoring their product to sound best on iPods, the same way that pop
record producers of the early '60s are said to have tailored their
product to sound best on car radios."
bob
Re: Two More Takes
bob <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
> jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
> Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
> World thread):
> http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
> Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
> glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
> experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
> recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
> he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
> with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
> somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
> are few and far between.
Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and
seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD.
As I wrote in the comments, he is seriously misinformed on these topics.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
bob <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
> jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
> Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
> World thread):
> http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
> Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
> glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
> experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
> recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
> he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
> with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
> somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
> are few and far between.
Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and
seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD.
As I wrote in the comments, he is seriously misinformed on these topics.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Two More Takes
On Dec 5, 6:33 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
> bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> > Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
> > jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
> > Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
> > World thread):
> > http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
> > Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
> > glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
> > experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
> > recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
> > he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
> > with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
> > somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
> > are few and far between.
>
> Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and
> seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD.
Like I said: Kool-Aid. (IIRC, one of his little sidebars ranks vinyl
above SACD and DVD-A in sound quality.)
Ironically, Kaplan uses compressed audio clips to illustrate his jazz
columns. He had a great tribute the week Max Roach died, comparing the
Gillespie-Parker quintet before and after the arrival of Roach.
Despite the lo-rez, the difference was obvious.
Which gets back to Tommasini's point: Compression can obscure sonic
details, but that's not the same as obscuring musical details. It can
if it's bad enough, but much of the time it isn't. Which is why most
music lovers feel no need to obsess over fidelity.
bob
On Dec 5, 6:33 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
> bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> > Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
> > jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
> > Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
> > World thread):
> > http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
> > Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
> > glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
> > experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
> > recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
> > he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
> > with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
> > somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
> > are few and far between.
>
> Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and
> seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD.
Like I said: Kool-Aid. (IIRC, one of his little sidebars ranks vinyl
above SACD and DVD-A in sound quality.)
Ironically, Kaplan uses compressed audio clips to illustrate his jazz
columns. He had a great tribute the week Max Roach died, comparing the
Gillespie-Parker quintet before and after the arrival of Roach.
Despite the lo-rez, the difference was obvious.
Which gets back to Tommasini's point: Compression can obscure sonic
details, but that's not the same as obscuring musical details. It can
if it's bad enough, but much of the time it isn't. Which is why most
music lovers feel no need to obsess over fidelity.
bob
Re: Two More Takes
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:fj4q4g0olf@news3.newsguy,com
> Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering
> defense issues or jazz--has also drunk the High End
> Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at Anthony Tommasini's
> article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod World
> thread):
> http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
> Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of
> MP3s, and also glosses over Tommasini's point that
> musicians and music lovers can experience music even
> without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity recording
> and playback provides.
Tommasini does more than a little exagerration of his own:
"Tommasini says this doesn't matter. A "cymbal crash in a symphonic
orchestra, for example, will temporarily obscure the sound of other
instruments," he writes. "So why not remove some of the covered sounds,
which could not be heard anyway, to compress the file into a transferable
format?"
The old saying goes - a little knowlege is a dangerous thing.
It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that
will not be heard anyway, but that is not the same as a cymbal crash
obscuring the sound of all other instruments. The sounds of various musical
instruments inhabit different, sometimes intertwined segments of the audible
spectrum, and sounds that inhabit different parts of the spectrum do not
compete with each other to the point of extinction.
> To some extent, Kaplan reveals
> that he is listening for different things than Tommasini
> is. Nothing wrong with that (unless you make the claim
> that Tommasini is therefore somehow an inferior
> listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles are few
> and far between.
Here we see that common failure of logic known as the excluded middle.
Audiophiles are not few and far between if you allow that audiophilia is a
condition that exists in various degrees. If one rephases the basic idea
more accurately, one says something like: Extreme audiophiles are extremely
few and far between.
> Meanwhile, Terry Teachout's tired old ears don't care no
> more:
> http :// online.wsj,com /public/article/SB119464399153888326.html
This one wastes no time in its rush to wallow in the pit of the excluded
middle:
"The trouble with this approach, Mr. Gomes explained, is that MP3 files are
highly compressed in order to make them easier to store and transmit."
In fact there are not just two classes of perceptually compressed files -
compressed and uncompressed. File compression works over a nearly continuous
scale ranging from compressed until it hurts, to hardly compressed at all.
> Reducing MP3s to "they take out the highs I can't hear
> anymore" misses the mark.
....and does not have to be done. Instead of bopping until you drop, you just
dance as long and hard as it feels (and sounds) good.
> But he also makes this point,
> which should be of concern:
> "In September the Journal's Lee Gomes reported in his
> "Portals" column that "those who work behind-the-mic in
> the music industry -- producers, engineers, mixers and
> the like -- say they increasingly assume their recordings
> will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music player."
> Accordingly, these audio professionals are now custom-
> tailoring their product to sound best on iPods,
This is actually not new news. Seminars about how to produce music and drama
that survives compression and still sounds good have been around since near
the beginning of the millenium.
> the same way that pop record producers of the early '60s are said
> to have tailored their product to sound best on car
> radios."
This definately did happen. An important part of the Motown sound in the 60s
was the fact that the inputs on Motown's recording consoles were high-pass
filtered very steeply at about 80 Hz. This was done early in the signal path
so that everybody produced music that sounded as good as possible, all
things considered.
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:fj4q4g0olf@news3.newsguy,com
> Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering
> defense issues or jazz--has also drunk the High End
> Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at Anthony Tommasini's
> article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod World
> thread):
> http :// www .slate,com /id/2179093/
> Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of
> MP3s, and also glosses over Tommasini's point that
> musicians and music lovers can experience music even
> without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity recording
> and playback provides.
Tommasini does more than a little exagerration of his own:
"Tommasini says this doesn't matter. A "cymbal crash in a symphonic
orchestra, for example, will temporarily obscure the sound of other
instruments," he writes. "So why not remove some of the covered sounds,
which could not be heard anyway, to compress the file into a transferable
format?"
The old saying goes - a little knowlege is a dangerous thing.
It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that
will not be heard anyway, but that is not the same as a cymbal crash
obscuring the sound of all other instruments. The sounds of various musical
instruments inhabit different, sometimes intertwined segments of the audible
spectrum, and sounds that inhabit different parts of the spectrum do not
compete with each other to the point of extinction.
> To some extent, Kaplan reveals
> that he is listening for different things than Tommasini
> is. Nothing wrong with that (unless you make the claim
> that Tommasini is therefore somehow an inferior
> listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles are few
> and far between.
Here we see that common failure of logic known as the excluded middle.
Audiophiles are not few and far between if you allow that audiophilia is a
condition that exists in various degrees. If one rephases the basic idea
more accurately, one says something like: Extreme audiophiles are extremely
few and far between.
> Meanwhile, Terry Teachout's tired old ears don't care no
> more:
> http :// online.wsj,com /public/article/SB119464399153888326.html
This one wastes no time in its rush to wallow in the pit of the excluded
middle:
"The trouble with this approach, Mr. Gomes explained, is that MP3 files are
highly compressed in order to make them easier to store and transmit."
In fact there are not just two classes of perceptually compressed files -
compressed and uncompressed. File compression works over a nearly continuous
scale ranging from compressed until it hurts, to hardly compressed at all.
> Reducing MP3s to "they take out the highs I can't hear
> anymore" misses the mark.
....and does not have to be done. Instead of bopping until you drop, you just
dance as long and hard as it feels (and sounds) good.
> But he also makes this point,
> which should be of concern:
> "In September the Journal's Lee Gomes reported in his
> "Portals" column that "those who work behind-the-mic in
> the music industry -- producers, engineers, mixers and
> the like -- say they increasingly assume their recordings
> will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music player."
> Accordingly, these audio professionals are now custom-
> tailoring their product to sound best on iPods,
This is actually not new news. Seminars about how to produce music and drama
that survives compression and still sounds good have been around since near
the beginning of the millenium.
> the same way that pop record producers of the early '60s are said
> to have tailored their product to sound best on car
> radios."
This definately did happen. An important part of the Motown sound in the 60s
was the fact that the inputs on Motown's recording consoles were high-pass
filtered very steeply at about 80 Hz. This was done early in the signal path
so that everybody produced music that sounded as good as possible, all
things considered.
Re: Two More Takes
Arny Krueger wrote:
> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that
> will not be heard anyway,
This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates,
and possibly for very low level high frequency content.
For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
"tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
high frequiency rolled off white noise.
Doug MCDonald
Arny Krueger wrote:
> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones that
> will not be heard anyway,
This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates,
and possibly for very low level high frequency content.
For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
"tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
high frequiency rolled off white noise.
Doug MCDonald
Re: Two More Takes
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones
>> that will not be heard anyway,
>
> This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates,
> and possibly for very low level high frequency content.
>
> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion of the "fine
detail," in either images or sound, is actually noise and can be dispensed
with. Right?
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones
>> that will not be heard anyway,
>
> This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates,
> and possibly for very low level high frequency content.
>
> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion of the "fine
detail," in either images or sound, is actually noise and can be dispensed
with. Right?
Re: Two More Takes
"MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>>
>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
>> content.
>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the
loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of
what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the
quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like
pink noise.
> In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion
> of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is
> actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right?
In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss
of details.
"MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>>
>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
>> content.
>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the
loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of
what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the
quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like
pink noise.
> In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion
> of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is
> actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right?
In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss
of details.
Re: Two More Takes
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fjkiqm02542@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
>> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
>> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>>>
>>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
>>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
>>> content.
>
>>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
>>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
>>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
>>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
>>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
>
> I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the
> loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of
> what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the
> quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like
> pink noise.
And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change,
doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound?
>> In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion
>> of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is
>> actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right?
>
> In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss
> of details.
As long as that same sensory apparatus doesn't notice or mind the artifacts
which accompany "being fooled", I'm sure that's true.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fjkiqm02542@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
>> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
>> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>>>
>>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
>>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
>>> content.
>
>>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
>>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
>>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
>>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
>>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
>
> I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the
> loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of
> what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the
> quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like
> pink noise.
And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change,
doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound?
>> In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion
>> of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is
>> actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right?
>
> In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into perceiving no loss
> of details.
As long as that same sensory apparatus doesn't notice or mind the artifacts
which accompany "being fooled", I'm sure that's true.
Re: Two More Takes
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fjn7ol0hm0@news4.newsguy,com
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fjkiqm02542@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
>> news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
>>> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
>>> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>>>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>>>>
>>>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
>>>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high
>>>> frequency content.
>>
>>>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
>>>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
>>>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
>>>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
>>>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
>>
>> I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that
>> the essence of the loss due to lossy coding was
>> something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of what
>> like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time.
>> Even the quantities were similar. The rise in background
>> noise looked something like pink noise.
>
> And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as
> the dynamics change, doesn't it, causing a nasty
> breathing sound?
Not at all. Not even 0.1 dB changes.
I did some tone burst tests, and there was no trace of dynamics compression.
All tone burst levels in the reconstructed wave were within 0.1 dB of the
originals.
>>> In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion
>>> of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is
>>> actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right?
>> In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into
>> perceiving no loss of details.
> As long as that same sensory apparatus doesn't notice or
> mind the artifacts which accompany "being fooled", I'm
> sure that's true.
When the artifacts are below the thresholds of sensation, there is no choice
about being fooled. You are simply fooled, and blind tests make that very
clear when it is true. With sighted evaluations, people can be fooled by
their expectations, and think they are hearing what they can't hear at all.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fjn7ol0hm0@news4.newsguy,com
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fjkiqm02542@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
>> news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
>>> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
>>> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>>>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>>>>
>>>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
>>>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high
>>>> frequency content.
>>
>>>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
>>>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
>>>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
>>>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
>>>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
>>
>> I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that
>> the essence of the loss due to lossy coding was
>> something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of what
>> like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time.
>> Even the quantities were similar. The rise in background
>> noise looked something like pink noise.
>
> And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as
> the dynamics change, doesn't it, causing a nasty
> breathing sound?
Not at all. Not even 0.1 dB changes.
I did some tone burst tests, and there was no trace of dynamics compression.
All tone burst levels in the reconstructed wave were within 0.1 dB of the
originals.
>>> In fact I suppose it can be said that a high proportion
>>> of the "fine detail," in either images or sound, is
>>> actually noise and can be dispensed with. Right?
>> In moderation, either the ear or eye can be fooled into
>> perceiving no loss of details.
> As long as that same sensory apparatus doesn't notice or
> mind the artifacts which accompany "being fooled", I'm
> sure that's true.
When the artifacts are below the thresholds of sensation, there is no choice
about being fooled. You are simply fooled, and blind tests make that very
clear when it is true. With sighted evaluations, people can be fooled by
their expectations, and think they are hearing what they can't hear at all.
Re: Two More Takes
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fjkiqm02542@news3.newsguy,com >):
> > "MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
> > news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
> >> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
> >> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
> >>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
> >>>
> >>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
> >>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
> >>> content.
> >
> >>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
> >>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
> >>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
> >>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
> >>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
> >
> > I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the
> > loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of
> > what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the
> > quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like
> > pink noise.
> And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change,
> doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound?
Perhaps in a badly made mp3. But then again, you still don't believe there are
any 'good' ones, do you?
Dynamic range is not typically affected audibly in a good mp3.
__
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fjkiqm02542@news3.newsguy,com >):
> > "MC" <mc@uga.edu> wrote in message
> > news:fjhr1o01lhg@news3.newsguy,com
> >> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
> >> message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com ...
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
> >>>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
> >>>
> >>> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
> >>> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
> >>> content.
> >
> >>> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
> >>> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
> >>> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
> >>> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
> >>> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
> >
> > I tested this with the FHG pro MP3 coder and found that the essence of the
> > loss due to lossy coding was something like a loss of dynamic range. Sort of
> > what like what analog tape or the LP format do all the time. Even the
> > quantities were similar. The rise in background noise looked something like
> > pink noise.
> And I'll bet that it rides the envelope of the music as the dynamics change,
> doesn't it, causing a nasty breathing sound?
Perhaps in a badly made mp3. But then again, you still don't believe there are
any 'good' ones, do you?
Dynamic range is not typically affected audibly in a good mp3.
__
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Two More Takes
Doug McDonald wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones
>> that will not be heard anyway,
>
> This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates,
> and possibly for very low level high frequency content.
>
> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
I meant >= 160kbps
> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
>
> Doug MCDonald
Doug McDonald wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is eliminating tones
>> that will not be heard anyway,
>
> This is only true at very low, very poor quality, bitrates,
> and possibly for very low level high frequency content.
>
> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
I meant >= 160kbps
> "tones are left out". The only "perceptual" feature
> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
> At very high bitrates the noise becomes pretty much
> high frequiency rolled off white noise.
>
> Doug MCDonald
Re: Two More Takes
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>
> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
> content.
> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
> "tones are left out".
It's been a while since I did any stress testing on MP3 coders, so I created
a torture test composed of about 36 tones spread from 100 Hz to 10 KHz.
In the old days a test signal like this could trick a coder into actually
dropping one or more of the tones.
> The only "perceptual" feature
> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
That's pretty what my test encoder did at 160 kbps. However the noise
wasn't really colored, it was something like pink noise.
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
message news:fjh2f801mtc@news1.newsguy,com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It is true that the essence of perceptual coding is
>> eliminating tones that will not be heard anyway,
>
> This is only true at very low, very poor quality,
> bitrates, and possibly for very low level high frequency
> content.
> For good encoders (such as LAME VBR at <= 160K) no
> "tones are left out".
It's been a while since I did any stress testing on MP3 coders, so I created
a torture test composed of about 36 tones spread from 100 Hz to 10 KHz.
In the old days a test signal like this could trick a coder into actually
dropping one or more of the tones.
> The only "perceptual" feature
> is how the encoder distributes highly colored noise.
That's pretty what my test encoder did at 160 kbps. However the noise
wasn't really colored, it was something like pink noise.
