[Jack]

I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA built a
reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps) and was also said
to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it did/does have a more crystalline
quality on a lot of music. Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real
distortion on my good quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the
other day.

I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on Neil Young's "Down By
The River." That track has repetitive dull cymbal/brush hits throughout and
it's not a pristine recording to begin with. Apparently the WMA (9.2)
encoder treats those hits as some sort of lo-res background noise. This may
be compounded by distorted guitar harmonics that chase along.

At certain points the hazy cymbals fade in and out with a breathing effect;
an artifact nonexistent in the original WAV. It's quite evident between
3:30 and 4:00 in this 9-minute song. Parts of the song have crisper highs
and those seem to be handled OK, but it's still a disappointment.

When you increase the WMA bitrate to 160 kbps, it seems to lose this
affliction, and at 192 kbps sounds close to the CD. But MP3 (tested with
LAME & FhG) handles that track noticeably better at 128 kbps. With a
thousand songs encoded at WMA 128 kbps, I'm rethinking formats. This slush
might show up elsewhere.

Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound better than it
really does? If anyone knows other "WMA torture tests," please post song
names.

Jack

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:48:17 -0000, Jack wrote:

I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA built a
reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps) and was also said
to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it did/does have a more crystalline
quality on a lot of music. Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real
distortion on my good quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the
other day.

I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on Neil Young's "Down By
The River." That track has repetitive dull cymbal/brush hits throughout and
it's not a pristine recording to begin with. Apparently the WMA (9.2)
encoder treats those hits as some sort of lo-res background noise. This may
be compounded by distorted guitar harmonics that chase along.

At certain points the hazy cymbals fade in and out with a breathing effect;
an artifact nonexistent in the original WAV. It's quite evident between
3:30 and 4:00 in this 9-minute song. Parts of the song have crisper highs
and those seem to be handled OK, but it's still a disappointment.

When you increase the WMA bitrate to 160 kbps, it seems to lose this
affliction, and at 192 kbps sounds close to the CD. But MP3 (tested with
LAME & FhG) handles that track noticeably better at 128 kbps. With a
thousand songs encoded at WMA 128 kbps, I'm rethinking formats. This slush
might show up elsewhere.

Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound better than it
really does? If anyone knows other "WMA torture tests," please post song
names.

Jack

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple of
ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma. That
way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and say
"really?".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dadiOH]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:48:17 -0000, Jack wrote:

I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA
built a reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps)
and was also said to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it
did/does have a more crystalline quality on a lot of music.
Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real distortion on my good
quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the other day.

I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on Neil Young's
"Down By The River." That track has repetitive dull cymbal/brush
hits throughout and it's not a pristine recording to begin with.
Apparently the WMA (9.2) encoder treats those hits as some sort of
lo-res background noise. This may be compounded by distorted
guitar harmonics that chase along.

At certain points the hazy cymbals fade in and out with a
breathing effect; an artifact nonexistent in the original WAV.
It's quite evident between 3:30 and 4:00 in this 9-minute song.
Parts of the song have crisper highs and those seem to be handled
OK, but it's still a disappointment.

When you increase the WMA bitrate to 160 kbps, it seems to lose
this affliction, and at 192 kbps sounds close to the CD. But MP3
(tested with LAME & FhG) handles that track noticeably better at
128 kbps. With a thousand songs encoded at WMA 128 kbps, I'm
rethinking formats. This slush might show up elsewhere.

Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound better
than it really does? If anyone knows other "WMA torture tests,"
please post song names.

Jack

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple
of ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma.
That way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and
say "really?".

The newsgroup name has "binary" in it? Binaries should be posted to
binary groups, not text groups. Alternatively, they can be stashed
somewhere and an URL posted.

Besides, he is asking for other *title* examples.



--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:54:13 GMT, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:48:17 -0000, Jack wrote:

I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA
built a reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps)
and was also said to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it
did/does have a more crystalline quality on a lot of music.
Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real distortion on my good
quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the other day.

I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on Neil Young's
"Down By The River." That track has repetitive dull cymbal/brush
hits throughout and it's not a pristine recording to begin with.
Apparently the WMA (9.2) encoder treats those hits as some sort of
lo-res background noise. This may be compounded by distorted
guitar harmonics that chase along.

At certain points the hazy cymbals fade in and out with a
breathing effect; an artifact nonexistent in the original WAV.
It's quite evident between 3:30 and 4:00 in this 9-minute song.
Parts of the song have crisper highs and those seem to be handled
OK, but it's still a disappointment.

When you increase the WMA bitrate to 160 kbps, it seems to lose
this affliction, and at 192 kbps sounds close to the CD. But MP3
(tested with LAME & FhG) handles that track noticeably better at
128 kbps. With a thousand songs encoded at WMA 128 kbps, I'm
rethinking formats. This slush might show up elsewhere.

Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound better
than it really does? If anyone knows other "WMA torture tests,"
please post song names.

Jack

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple
of ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma.
That way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and
say "really?".

The newsgroup name has "binary" in it? Binaries should be posted to
binary groups, not text groups. Alternatively, they can be stashed
somewhere and an URL posted.

Besides, he is asking for other *title* examples.

Nobody should be posting binaries into news groups any more. Just
about every Internet account comes with free web space. That is where
postings should go. You just put a link in the news article.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Jack wrote:

I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA built a
reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps) and was also said
to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it did/does have a more crystalline
quality on a lot of music. Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real
distortion on my good quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the
other day.

And in a few years it will all be history anyway as improved data storage etc
renders compression unnecessary.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"Jack" wrote ...
I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on
Neil Young's "Down By The River."

128 kbps is rather pushing the bottom, isn't it?
Isn't 320 kbps considered to be "near-CD" (at least
in MP3 land). I think I would rather be surprised at
how good WMA sounds at 128.

Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound
better than it really does?

LOL! :-))

[Jack]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in
:

"Jack" wrote ...
I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on
Neil Young's "Down By The River."

128 kbps is rather pushing the bottom, isn't it?
Isn't 320 kbps considered to be "near-CD" (at least
in MP3 land). I think I would rather be surprised at
how good WMA sounds at 128.

It actually sounds quite good for most tracks, relatively I suppose. I'm
using that bitrate to conserve future space on a large flash drive, which
will of course be obsolete by the time it's filled! I was truly surprised
by these artifacts because I hadn't noticed such obvious shortcomings
before. EAC + LAME VBR is looking better now.

Jack

[Jack]

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple of
ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma. That
way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and say
"really?".

Well, I figured a lot of people own Neil Young - "Decade" and could check
it out. Nobody seems to be in disagreement anyhow!

Jack

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article ,
Jack wrote:

I have been happy with WMA sound quality at 128 kbps (44 kHz CBR),
believing it to be generally cleaner than its MP3 equivalent. WMA built a
reputation as excelling at lower bitrates (i.e. 64 kbps) and was also said
to surpass MP3 at 128 kbps. To my ears, it did/does have a more crystalline
quality on a lot of music. Subjective? Maybe. I hadn't noticed any real
distortion on my good quality car stereo (main usage for WMA) until the
other day.

I was stunned to hear how bad WMA 128 kbps sounds on Neil Young's "Down By
The River." That track has repetitive dull cymbal/brush hits throughout and
it's not a pristine recording to begin with. Apparently the WMA (9.2)
encoder treats those hits as some sort of lo-res background noise. This may
be compounded by distorted guitar harmonics that chase along.

At certain points the hazy cymbals fade in and out with a breathing effect;
an artifact nonexistent in the original WAV. It's quite evident between
3:30 and 4:00 in this 9-minute song. Parts of the song have crisper highs
and those seem to be handled OK, but it's still a disappointment.

When you increase the WMA bitrate to 160 kbps, it seems to lose this
affliction, and at 192 kbps sounds close to the CD. But MP3 (tested with
LAME & FhG) handles that track noticeably better at 128 kbps. With a
thousand songs encoded at WMA 128 kbps, I'm rethinking formats. This slush
might show up elsewhere.

Could this be a fluke or has WMA been using tricks to sound better than it
really does? If anyone knows other "WMA torture tests," please post song
names.

Jack

128Kbps is highly lossy with today's technology. MP3 doesn't do all
that well with that loss. It tends to ring, howl, or have a reflected
effect. Newer codecs are extremely good at hiding the loss. Try
listening to satellite radio, which uses extremely low AAC+ bitrates.
It only sounds OK if you haven't heard the song before. There's a lot
of the music that's missing with hardly a clue that it was ever there.

[Eeyore]

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

128Kbps is highly lossy with today's technology.

'Today's technology' has eff all to do with it.

ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
principle.

Provided that all compression schemes were *coded competently*, the trade-off in
perceived audio performance vs bit rate would be virtually identical. And it is
indeed quite close to that. Some methods of perceptual encoding may favour
perceived better results with certain styles of music than others at the usual
cost of performing worse with other types.

Mark my words, audio compression will be almost non-existent in 10 years time.
The genuine advances in technology that DO exist in respect of ever higher
network speeds and ever lower cost mass storage will render audio compression
almost superfluous.

Graham

[vlad]

On Nov 28, 1:21 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
128Kbps is highly lossy with today's technology.

'Today's technology' has eff all to do with it.

ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
principle.

Provided that all compression schemes were *coded competently*, the trade-off in
perceived audio performance vs bit rate would be virtually identical. And it is
indeed quite close to that. Some methods of perceptual encoding may favour
perceived better results with certain styles of music than others at the usual
cost of performing worse with other types.

Mark my words, audio compression will be almost non-existent in 10 years time.
The genuine advances in technology that DO exist in respect of ever higher
network speeds and ever lower cost mass storage will render audio compression
almost superfluous.

Graham

I hope, you did not mean lossless compression. Even now Apple
lossles in iTunes compresses original CD to 53-46% of original size.
Using lossless compression in data transfer means increasing capacity
if the channel by 100%. At the same time, if CD's would use lossless
compression now we would have 2.5 hours of sound on CD vs. 75 min now.
I think in a future losless codecs will scratch more percents and
become more effective.

vlad

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jack wrote:
(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple of
ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma. That
way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and say
"really?".

Well, I figured a lot of people own Neil Young - "Decade" and could check
it out. Nobody seems to be in disagreement anyhow!


wav (Decade, track 11, first 30 sec)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333899

wma Blaze 128 CBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333875

mp3 LAME 192 VBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333913




___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Jack wrote:
(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is
post a couple of ten second samples - one of the
original wav and one of the wma. That way we can do
something a bit more helpful than sit here and say
"really?".

Well, I figured a lot of people own Neil Young -
"Decade" and could check it out. Nobody seems to be in
disagreement anyhow!


wav (Decade, track 11, first 30 sec)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333899

wma Blaze 128 CBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333875

mp3 LAME 192 VBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333913

The dynamic range of even the .wav file is pretty mediocre. There seem to
have been two mediums involved - one with about 60 dB dynamic range, and the
other with about 65. There is clearly audible hiss mixed in with the first
4.6 seconds of the piece.

However, my initial ABXing between WMA and .WAV were pretty futile.

[Bill Dukenfield]

Jack wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

You see, what you are supposed to do at this point is post a couple of
ten second samples - one of the original wav and one of the wma. That
way we can do something a bit more helpful than sit here and say
"really?".

Well, I figured a lot of people own Neil Young - "Decade" and could check
it out. Nobody seems to be in disagreement anyhow!

Jack

I have Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere on vinyl.

JAM

[Doug McDonald]

Eeyore wrote:


ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
principle.

While that is true, there is a big caveat.

That is that above a certain bitrate, the "error" that remains can sound
just like ordinary noise. If say 128 kbps actually results in an
error signal that sounds allows you to tell what the piece is, 160 kbps
might sound like 1/3 octave noise generators that are tuned with the
frequencies in the piece. 192 could very well sound like pink noise.
I'm not implying that those numbers are meaningful in an absolute sense ...
it could be 128 - 256 - 320.
Once you get to that point the effect of throwing away info is the same
as just adding ordinary noise. People, most people, didn't scream
and shout about added noise from tape or LPs. And they didn't talk about
"losing information" even though that indeed was what was happening.



Doug MCDonald

[Richard Crowley]

"Doug McDonald" wrote ...
Once you get to that point the effect of throwing away info is the same
as just adding ordinary noise. People, most people, didn't scream
and shout about added noise from tape or LPs. And they didn't talk about
"losing information" even though that indeed was what was happening.

Masking existing information is NOT the same as
throwing it completely away without possibility of
recovery (i.e. "lossy compression").

Anyone who has cleaned a black-vinyl LP, or used
Cedar (etc.) to extract a conversation out of the noise
would agree.

[Eeyore]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
principle.

While that is true, there is a big caveat.

That is that above a certain bitrate, the "error" that remains can sound
just like ordinary noise. If say 128 kbps actually results in an
error signal that sounds allows you to tell what the piece is, 160 kbps
might sound like 1/3 octave noise generators that are tuned with the
frequencies in the piece. 192 could very well sound like pink noise.
I'm not implying that those numbers are meaningful in an absolute sense ...
it could be 128 - 256 - 320.
Once you get to that point the effect of throwing away info is the same
as just adding ordinary noise. People, most people, didn't scream
and shout about added noise from tape or LPs. And they didn't talk about
"losing information" even though that indeed was what was happening.

Added noise can be relatively inoccuous.

The same doesn't apply to lost information. Your comparison isn't valid.

Check out the effect of audio compression on different styles of music. The more
detailed it is, the more damaging it is.

Graham

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

128Kbps is highly lossy with today's technology.

'Today's technology' has eff all to do with it.

ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that
fundamental
principle.

Technology makes all the difference. It's a matter of how well the
digital data can describe the original audio signal given a limited
bandwidth. Remember the early ADPCM encoders? They produced hissy
audio with 350Kbps because the adaptive delta technique has all of its
loss concentrated in the high frequencies. Lower ADPCM bitrates were
mostly unusable. MP3 did much better but it couldn't adapt to some
situations. AAC does better still and there's no chance that it's the
last codec to be invented.


Provided that all compression schemes were *coded competently*, the trade-off
in
perceived audio performance vs bit rate would be virtually identical. And it
is
indeed quite close to that. Some methods of perceptual encoding may favour
perceived better results with certain styles of music than others at the
usual
cost of performing worse with other types.

Mark my words, audio compression will be almost non-existent in 10 years
time.
The genuine advances in technology that DO exist in respect of ever higher
network speeds and ever lower cost mass storage will render audio compression
almost superfluous.

Graham


Audio compression will stay around for some uses. CPUs and algorithms
will always be much cheaper than long distance bandwidth and wireless
bandwidth. Regardless of how fast the internet gets, 10x compression
still means 10x customer capacity. 10x compression on your mobile
player means 10x the room for music.

[Jack]

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

I was too lazy to upload anything but you got me started now.

wma Blaze 128 CBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333875

Oddly, that WMA file is actually 192 kbps per Winamp and Windows file
properties.

mp3 LAME 192 VBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333913

That MP3 shows as 131 kbps (VBR) per EncSpot Pro (analyzes MP3 headers).
EncSpot also shows the encoder as FhG, not LAME. Were those typos?

Also, is that a remastered version of the song? Those "slushy" highs sound
a lot crisper than on my original CD. I have Reprise Records Catalog #
2257-2.

Your recording sounds noticeably cleaner, but of course that's moot to the
WMA/MP3 comparison. The part WMA really mangles (on my CD version) is
between 3:30 and 4:00, plus similar sections. The very dullness of the
recording confuses it, IMO.

Since you gave such an easy site to work with, here are my samples. Notice
the muffled "breathing" effect in the WMA file. Very unusual in my
experience with WMA. I used GoldWave 5.22 to encode these.

http://www.badongo.com/file/5340634 (WAV 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340662 (WMA 9.2 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340669 (MP3 FhG 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)

Don't get the impression that I'm picking on WMA. The artifacts are truly
puzzling. On many other tracks WMA sounds crisper to me than the MP3
counterpart. For example, LAME 3.97 128 kbps adds notable distortion to the
background strings on The Eagles "Take It To The Limit" (encoded using
EAC). WMA 128 kbps seems to shine on that track.

My working theory is that each encoder uses different tricks that get
tripped up by unique harmonics.

Jack

[Jack]

Kevin McMurtrie wrote in
:

Audio compression will stay around for some uses. CPUs and algorithms
will always be much cheaper than long distance bandwidth and wireless
bandwidth. Regardless of how fast the internet gets, 10x compression
still means 10x customer capacity. 10x compression on your mobile
player means 10x the room for music.

Also, there are now warnings of Internet bottlenecks by 2010 due to
multimedia content and increased population/usership.

I doubt we'll see a return to pure WAV files for a number of reasons. 16-
bit PCM is outmoded and inefficient in terms of bit allocation (80s
technology). Psycho-acoustic compression has big advantages beyond
filesize.

I have few complaints with compressed audio at 192+ kbps in almost any
format except the old Xing encoders. As soon as 32gb flash drives get
cheaper, I'll re-encode my library and not worry about mushy anything.

Jack

[Arturus]

Jack wrote in
:

http://www.badongo.com/file/5340634 (WAV 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340662 (WMA 9.2 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340669 (MP3 FhG 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)

CORRECTION: those are actually segments from 3:30 to 4:00 (30 secs. each).
Purists should rename the downloaded files.

Funny thing about badongo; there are no controls on who can download what.
You can grab random stuff by changing the link suffix. Nobody ought to put
personal stuff there.

Jack

[Jack]

Jack wrote in
:

http://www.badongo.com/file/5340634 (WAV 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340662 (WMA 9.2 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340669 (MP3 FhG 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)

CORRECTION: those are actually segments from 3:30 to 4:00 (30 secs. each).
Purists should rename the downloaded files.

Funny thing about badongo; there are no controls on who can download what.
You can grab random stuff by changing the link suffix. Nobody ought to put
personal stuff there.

Jack

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

I was too lazy to upload anything but you got me started
now.

wma Blaze 128 CBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333875

Oddly, that WMA file is actually 192 kbps per Winamp and
Windows file properties.

mp3 LAME 192 VBR
http://www.badongo.com/file/5333913

That MP3 shows as 131 kbps (VBR) per EncSpot Pro
(analyzes MP3 headers). EncSpot also shows the encoder as
FhG, not LAME. Were those typos?

Also, is that a remastered version of the song? Those
"slushy" highs sound a lot crisper than on my original
CD. I have Reprise Records Catalog # 2257-2.

Your recording sounds noticeably cleaner, but of course
that's moot to the WMA/MP3 comparison. The part WMA
really mangles (on my CD version) is between 3:30 and
4:00, plus similar sections. The very dullness of the
recording confuses it, IMO.

Since you gave such an easy site to work with, here are
my samples. Notice the muffled "breathing" effect in the
WMA file. Very unusual in my experience with WMA. I used
GoldWave 5.22 to encode these.

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences in blind tests, or
admit they can't.

[Eeyore]

Jack wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote

Audio compression will stay around for some uses. CPUs and algorithms
will always be much cheaper than long distance bandwidth and wireless
bandwidth. Regardless of how fast the internet gets, 10x compression
still means 10x customer capacity. 10x compression on your mobile
player means 10x the room for music.

Also, there are now warnings of Internet bottlenecks by 2010 due to
multimedia content and increased population/usership.

The usual scaremongering. Journalists are clueless about technology.

The pipes will simply get bigger to take the load.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

Graham

[CQ]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
in 474EBA02.8A21EA95
@hotmail.com enlightened us like so:

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

The most widely used lossless compression codecs average a bit more than
a 40% reduction in file size. That's a significant compression by any
standard.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....ess_comparison

--
CQ

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away'
information to get the desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression
schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver
? I've never investigated. I imagine it can't be that
much.

About 50% more or less.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
compression and restoration systems.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away'
information to get the desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression
schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver
? I've never investigated. I imagine it can't be that
much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs -
just data compression and restoration systems.

Chips that contain nothing but an ADC and a DAC are commonly called codecs
by their makers - like AKM.

[Arny Krueger]

"Arturus" wrote in message

Jack wrote in
:

http://www.badongo.com/file/5340634 (WAV 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340662 (WMA 9.2 128 kbps
3:30 to 3:40) http://www.badongo.com/file/5340669 (MP3
FhG 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)

CORRECTION: those are actually segments from 3:30 to 4:00
(30 secs. each). Purists should rename the downloaded
files.

Funny thing about badongo; there are no controls on who
can download what.

Really?

http://www.badongo.com/compare?act=1

says that you can password project files.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:50:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away'
information to get the desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression
schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver
? I've never investigated. I imagine it can't be that
much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs -
just data compression and restoration systems.

Chips that contain nothing but an ADC and a DAC are commonly called codecs
by their makers - like AKM.


I think they have their terminology wrong. That goes against normal
usage.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Randy Yates]

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
compression and restoration systems.

Lossless data compression is formally a type of "source coding," so
codec (meaning "coder/decoder") is a perfectly accurate term for the
process.

A/D conversion is a type of quantization, which also falls under the
classification of source coding, so the application of codec is accurate
in this sense as well.
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:

ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.


I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
compression and restoration systems.

Yes, that must be true of course. Like zip files.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:42:21 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
compression and restoration systems.

Lossless data compression is formally a type of "source coding," so
codec (meaning "coder/decoder") is a perfectly accurate term for the
process.

A/D conversion is a type of quantization, which also falls under the
classification of source coding, so the application of codec is accurate
in this sense as well.

Sure, I know all that; but that is kind of against the spirit of the
word.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
Eeyore writes:

ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away'
information to get the desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression
schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver
? I've never investigated. I imagine it can't be that
much.

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs -
just data compression and restoration systems.

Chips that contain nothing but an ADC and a DAC are commonly called codecs
by their makers - like AKM.

I think they have their terminology wrong. That goes against normal
usage.

That is what they call them though.

Graham

[Randy Yates]

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:42:21 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
compression and restoration systems.

Lossless data compression is formally a type of "source coding," so
codec (meaning "coder/decoder") is a perfectly accurate term for the
process.

A/D conversion is a type of quantization, which also falls under the
classification of source coding, so the application of codec is accurate
in this sense as well.

Sure, I know all that; but that is kind of against the spirit of the
word.

How so?
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:50:28 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:42:21 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:09:22 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:
[...]
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result.

I suppose you meant to say "ALL lossy audio compression schemes ...".

Fair enough.

How much data compression can the non-lossy ones deliver ? I've never investigated. I imagine
it can't be that much.

Graham

I don't think the non-lossy ones are strictly codecs - just data
compression and restoration systems.

Lossless data compression is formally a type of "source coding," so
codec (meaning "coder/decoder") is a perfectly accurate term for the
process.

A/D conversion is a type of quantization, which also falls under the
classification of source coding, so the application of codec is accurate
in this sense as well.

Sure, I know all that; but that is kind of against the spirit of the
word.

How so?

Because, as Graham has pointed out, under that terminology a Zip file
would be a codec, and that isn't really what codecs are all about.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Doug McDonald]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Doug McDonald" wrote ...
Once you get to that point the effect of throwing away info is the same
as just adding ordinary noise. People, most people, didn't scream
and shout about added noise from tape or LPs. And they didn't talk about
"losing information" even though that indeed was what was happening.

Masking existing information is NOT the same as
throwing it completely away without possibility of
recovery (i.e. "lossy compression").

But, what most people do not understand, is that masking
by adding white (or pink) noise IS throwing away information,
and is in fact identical to what MP3 compression does if
the residual error of the MP3 is white or pink noise.


Anyone who has cleaned a black-vinyl LP, or used
Cedar (etc.) to extract a conversation out of the noise
would agree.



Cleaning an LP is not for removal of white noise ...
it's very very far from that.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Eeyore wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
principle.
While that is true, there is a big caveat.

That is that above a certain bitrate, the "error" that remains can sound
just like ordinary noise. If say 128 kbps actually results in an
error signal that sounds allows you to tell what the piece is, 160 kbps
might sound like 1/3 octave noise generators that are tuned with the
frequencies in the piece. 192 could very well sound like pink noise.
I'm not implying that those numbers are meaningful in an absolute sense ...
it could be 128 - 256 - 320.
Once you get to that point the effect of throwing away info is the same
as just adding ordinary noise. People, most people, didn't scream
and shout about added noise from tape or LPs. And they didn't talk about
"losing information" even though that indeed was what was happening.

Added noise can be relatively inoccuous.

The same doesn't apply to lost information. Your comparison isn't valid.



What I said IS true: if the lost information sounds like (and is)
white (or pink) noise, it is exactly the same as adding
white (or pink) noise. Really. At some bitrate the error
in MP3 approaches white (or pink) noise.

Doug McDonald