Is CD lossless or lossy?

You either believe in the Nyquist theory or you don’t.
 
According to many pundits, the major labels are hoping to have MQA the only "better than CD quality" offerings. I wonder how they will fit that into the lossy/lossless paradigm?
 
Mike said:
https://audiophilereview.com/sacddvd-audio/loss-for-words-is-cd-quality-lossless-or-lossy.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

All schemes of modulation or encoding are lossy. They all truncate frequency and dynamic range to some extent that pundits will argue endlessly as to whether they are relevant. I guess the more appropriate question would be is some form of compression coding used in digital formats and whether those are lossy over and above that of the master digital format.
 
CGabriel said:
All schemes of modulation or encoding are lossy. They all truncate frequency and dynamic range to some extent that pundits will argue endlessly as to whether they are relevant. I guess the more appropriate question would be is some form of compression coding used in digital formats and whether those are lossy over and above that of the master digital format.
Click to expand...

So with that said, just from a subjective listening perspective - Redbook is definitely lossy. JMO of course.
 
Mike said:
https://audiophilereview.com/sacddvd-audio/loss-for-words-is-cd-quality-lossless-or-lossy.html
Click to expand...
Absurd argument, given all encoding of sampled soundfields are lossy.
No recorded music exceeds 16 bits of dynamic range, no audiophile can hear > 20kHz (vs imagine hearing).
"CD" is audibly "lossless" in that sense.
It also makes great fun blind tests of audiophiles who believe in uber sample rates for their 50-80 year old ears, especially when done unknowingly :hey:

cheers,

AJ
 
And although it is often used to justify the idea that 16/44.1 PCM (aka "Redbook CD") is adequate to encode all audio information, it actually says (means) nothing of the sort. There is nothing in the theorem about bit depth or signal to noise ratio, nothing about software/hardware implementation of the pure mathematics, and nothing about the "limits" of human auditory perception. It simply states that mathematically, a sampling rate just over 2x the highest frequency desired can perfectly encode (and decode) all audio information below that frequency threshold. And AFAIK there is no experimental, or even anecdotal, evidence to deny the validity of the theorem.
 
I suppose that anyone who has ever been to a live concert can easily confirm there is no such thing as a lossless recording format [emoji3].

Try ambience.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
I suppose that anyone who has ever been to a live concert can easily confirm there is no such thing as a lossless recording format [emoji3].

Try ambience.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What do you mean when you say "Try ambience"?
 
IMHO the main thing lost is transients, second is detail (which is where "ambience" or "atmosphere" is)
 
Kuoppis said:
That is one element where IHMO a lots gets lost. You could also call it atmosphere.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I thought that was what you meant, but I have lots of live recordings that have very realistic ambience. For me, it's the loss of dynamics between live and recorded. Unfortunately, we have gone backwards in the amount of average dynamic range captured thanks to the digital compression loudness wars. That for me has been the great irony of many digital recordings. With RBCD, it is possible to capture something close to 96dB of dynamic range, but the reality is many digital recordings aren't capturing as much dynamic range as pro tape decks did in the late 1950s. The funny thing is some people believe every digital recording has 96dB of dynamic range.
 
rbbert said:
IMHO the main thing lost is transients, second is detail (which is where "ambience" or "atmosphere" is)
Click to expand...

There is plenty of ambience captured in many live jazz recordings.
 
mep said:
There is plenty of ambience captured in many live jazz recordings.
Click to expand...

Sure, lots of background noise on many live jazz recordings, like e.g. Jazz at the Pawnshop.

Being there is different. YMMV.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
mep said:
With RBCD, it is possible to capture something close to 96dB of dynamic range
Click to expand...
Once again, "CD" is a playback medium/format. Capture has exceeded 16bit and 22k for over 2 decades. With noise shaping and dither, perceived dynamic range can exceed 120. Everyone with technical literacy in the field understands this.
Now we just need examples of recordings with 120db dynamic range above the noise floor.

mep said:
but the reality is many digital recordings aren't capturing as much dynamic range as pro tape decks did in the late 1950s.
Click to expand...
That has zero to do with digital and everything to do with the idiots in studios. Fact remains todays digital capture vastly exceeds analog antiquated technology from the 50s, in every single metric, including dynamic range.

mep said:
The funny thing is some people believe every digital recording has 96dB of dynamic range.
Click to expand...
Even funnier are those who believe analog can remotely compare to digital by any measurable metric, including dynamic range, except of course "I prefer it".
 
rbbert said:
IMHO the main thing lost is transients, second is detail (which is where "ambience" or "atmosphere" is)
Click to expand...
I agree with the latter, disagree with former. We can certainly capture the transients. What's missing is about 90% of the soundfield (aka the ambience, etc). I've posted this numerous times, but here it is:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136
More detail: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/acoustics-hearing.htm
It's possible. The results (2001!!): http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Once again, "CD" is a playback medium/format. Capture has exceeded 16bit and 22k for over 2 decades. With noise shaping and dither, perceived dynamic range can exceed 120. Everyone with technical literacy in the field understands this.
Click to expand...

I knew about dynamic range > 100 dB, but 120 dB?

That has zero to do with digital and everything to do with the idiots in studios. Fact remains todays digital capture vastly exceeds analog antiquated technology from the 50s, in every single metric, including dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Right. I listen to lots of classical and classical avant-garde where many modern digital recordings have outstanding dynamic range. A good number of jazz recordings are also excellent for that. Blaming the digital medium itself, rather than its misuse, for the loudness wars in rock/pop is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top