MP3 doesn't have a lossless compression type though Lossless AAC is no different to WAV is what im saying.
I was referring to FLAC vs WAV, we didnt try any other form of lossless compression. If there is less processing involved extracting PCM from AAC than from FLAC, it might well not make a difference. But if the processor is doing a lot of work extracting the PCM from AAC, I bet it will cause a similar issue. We were very surprised to find there was a difference with FLAC vs WAV on our kit. We also found differences that were more marked changing output to the DAC between optical, PC USB and HDMI, best to worst in that order. We found HDMI not so good for high end music audio quality, it had a harshness to it, as if the very fine detail had been mangled. Optical was the most laid back and exposed a little more detail than PC USB. I since found different USB ports on my PC change the sound quite drastically as well. If I use USB 3.0 ports on my Asus Maximus Hero VIII I lose quite a bit of detail and imaging, its not good at all. The USB 2.0 ports restore it back to normal. I'm worried what will happen when I upgrade to my next processor, if the mobo has no USB 2.0 ports. Perhaps it wont matter on that motherboard, who knows.
If memory serves me right the last patent for the technology ran out and it became a free standard, but yeah it's still around (half of my library), but nothing beats lossless.
Something wrong with using a Sony Walkman and WAV files? Something wrong with using the highest quality format of RAW (through WAV) ? When did this forum become full of people who simply have no clue? Riddle me this: What is the highest RAW format inside of a container? I stand to be corrected here, but I think it is WAV, bit by bit - and ipsofacto; what is your problem with me wanting the highest quality I can get my hands on? Compression is not needed anymore. We got internet speeds in the GB/s and home storage in the TB's. Why would you want or need to compress anything?
You lost your validity when you complained that loseless codecs are compressed (as if that altered the format). Quick, let's stop using 7zip or some other file compression for our computers my poor photographs and documents are ruined forever the original files will never be the same again!!! I have more than capable equipment so don't bother trying to compare me to the majority of others that listen to music. How do you ever get by with those compression codecs for movies like DTS Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD???
I use WAV or FLAC at this point. The whole reason MP3 even got popular was to save space. When's the last time you needed to save space? Storage is huge and cheap these days. The best advantage of WAV format is that pretty much ANY player will play it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression AND I QUOTE! "Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data." Well...that sounds pretty convincing...it's almost like it is saying that lossless is...how can I put this...hmm, let me think...COMPRESSED?? I could be wrong here, all jokin' aside, and if I am, then fine, I have found something on Wikipedia that needs to be amended - but as it stands, that looks fairly convincing to me. It's so convincing, that later on when it lists all of the codecs, not one of the containers/codecs it lists are WAV, which is the very thing I am saying I prefer due to the RAW nature of the container. CTD?...or would you be so kind as to not try and call me out on something when it wasn't needed. I was replying to the thread title, and I (correctly) identified the codec and container. I will take your silence as warm, amicable acceptance, thank you.
I still have my mp3 library but I rarely download files these days. It happens occasionally when something isn't on Spotify or I want to support someone on Bandcamp.
@Loobyluggs Key words are "lossless" and "perfectly reconstructed". Lossless formats (codecs) just compress original data (to decompress while playing) - just like archive formats. Not lossless formats (codecs) remove some portion of original data to achieve better (smaller) sizes. I bet N0sferatU meant namely that - altering the original data. But confused "compressed" with some other term. PS Do you think GB/s is enough to stream uncompressed audio and video to millions of customers?
No, but it is enough to transfer data and if one wishes to store it, they will have the space. Movies (sadly) are already compressed once they leave the camera, Black Magic have their own compression in the camera using what they call 'BRAW' which is 'Black Magic RAW'.
Didn't the WAV format use to be code for 'complete n00b throws his favorite -so heavily scratched- CD on napster/kazaa/emule after 'ripping' it with a five year old 4X-speed CD-rom' in the early p2p filesharing days...so you'd already get 12 glitches in the first 20 seconds or so. Anyone remember that? Not to mention WAV was a biatch in size. So they'd make a 8 bit/24kHz WAV or whatever...basically audiobook quality...for music. Ah...the nostalgia. And all the ultra low quality real media crap...at least they got personal videos out. Either that or blocky as hell MPEG...
Not sure, but WAV is basically RAW - so if the source material is a poor quality encode by the producer, not much any codec or container is gonna do to make that better, WAV, AIFF or w/e, because bad source material is bad source material. If I can find the post on these forums I made nearly 8 years ago regarding YouTube compression, I will link it here at some point, but in summary; as YouTube compresses uploaded content to whatever format is suitable for the device the video is going to be viewed on, there is no point whatsoever compressing video files for YouTube, because of this very reason. Source material should never be compressed.
I'm still digging around in my memory so I'll just go on LOL...Decades ago, you'd get a wav creator demo with a soundcard, computer, PC mag...so people would create WAV files, be shocked about the size and then scale back the settings. That has nothing to do with your WAVs, of course....but creating a WAV still means depending on error correction, a decent CD, and reflective plastic is an issue. Even if you -in general- have a brand new CD with perfect production values, the optical reader's error correction and software conversion process may introduce significant losses, and not a single WAV of the same CD will contain the exact same data, maybe just enough bits. In Japan they've managed to bypass a lot of the issue using different plastic -from computer monitors- so you actually get the correct bits out more often. The difference between a regular CD rip and SHM-CD rip can be staggering (let alone the CD's battling it out on a budget CD player), but those SHM-CD releases are usually also remasters, of course. Get a WAV from SHM and you can expect being closer to the actual source which apparently often wasn't even that bad compared to vinyl. Audio quality has been problematic in every direction you can process and distribute it ever since it went digital, which was supposed to be noiseless, easy to edit etc. But recording an album digitally for CD in the 80s/90s AFAIK was usually an ugly losing game when it came to getting the final product on a CD, with 192kHz/analog/etc degrading significantly through conversion until of course better software, hardware and the 24 bit tracks (and high quality vinyl rips) arrived. I've always found it fascinating how 128 kbps MP3 vinyl rips would sound better than the oversized 320 kbps CD rips of the same album. And recording music myself it was always frustrating to lose so much crispness when moving it to PC and burning it. That's why it's sad so many masters were lost in that 2008 Fire.
So you agree that lossless is compressed? Glad we agree. Now, retract your earlier comment and the other gurus can move on. RAW/WAV is not compressed, unless the original file that was put into the WAV container is compressed, but if you put RAW into a WAV container, it isn't. MY case is now rested. Thank you.
I do not need streaming. My portable player has 256GB MicroSD card (and those cards become bigger and cheaper). PS I do not listen music at home (have better things to do), but at work I do not need streaming even more because I use big cans and big external headphone amp (with USB DAC interface). @Loobyluggs When you are on the way (bus, subway, street) you do not need very good sound quality because no matter how good your headphones isolate the noise it still leaks through them (and through bones). Just a side note somewhat related to GB/s speeds of streaming.
I failed to distinguish uncompressed audio from lossless audio - and theoretically this is impossible to do. MP3 can be distinguished in ideal listening environment (mostly low frequencies). What is the point of wanting to get rid of compression if you can`t notice the effect of compression? (Just for the sake of conversation.)
I would just like to point out that if you're listening to your music through a cheap player or stereo or whatever, it probably won't make a difference whether it's compressed or not (unless it's a really low bitrate or something). Honestly, if it isn't through my home stereo I can't really tell between compressed and uncompressed. My car stereo is just meh, and my PC speakers are built into my monitor, so you can guess what that sounds like. In fact, I'd say about 90 percent of the crap they sell to people today isn't worth listening to good music through.
