Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default 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 mo

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...153888326.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
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Two More Takes

bob 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
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default Two More Takes

On Dec 5, 6:33 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob 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
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Two More Takes

"bob" wrote in message


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
mo


http://online.wsj.com/public/article...153888326.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.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Doug McDonald Doug McDonald is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
MC MC is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Two More Takes

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
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?
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Doug McDonald Doug McDonald is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Two More Takes

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message
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.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Two More Takes

"MC" wrote in message

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message ...
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.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Two More Takes

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"MC" wrote in message

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message ...
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.



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Two More Takes

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"MC" wrote in message

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message ...
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.

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Two More Takes

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


"MC" wrote in message

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message ...
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
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone Know what tubes a Cembalet takes? nmm Pro Audio 6 June 1st 06 05:23 AM
Sony Takes DRM Too Far Klay Anderson Pro Audio 0 November 1st 05 09:52 PM
They say the picture only takes 480 lines Pro Audio 10 August 31st 05 03:47 PM
Howard Takes His Break Howard Ferstler Audio Opinions 12 May 15th 05 01:05 AM
Music takes vision Carey Carlan Pro Audio 4 October 9th 03 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"