NorthStar
New member
But AJ, CD has a brick wall in the high frequencies that affects the midrange with harmonic distortion.
Is CD lossless or lossy?
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
No Bob, not in reality. Elsewhere, sure.
NorthStar
New member
Bob, do you actually read the links you post? None of these articles have anything to do with the discussion here, and almost nothing to do with how CD's can sound (absent the dynamic compression from the loudness wars, and the often deleterious effects of other DSP)
NorthStar
New member
I do read them, and I like to go beyond. But you don't have to read them, you're free.
• https://www.emusician.com/gear/brickwall-limiting
• http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml
The compact disc is flawed; the frequency response should be extended from twice the 44.1khz to 88.2khz. ...And the bit rate from 16 to 20 bits.
• https://www.emusician.com/gear/brickwall-limiting
• http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml
The compact disc is flawed; the frequency response should be extended from twice the 44.1khz to 88.2khz. ...And the bit rate from 16 to 20 bits.
NorthStar
New member
Lossy is anything missing, from the master recording to the playback system...plus anything added that's not supposed to be there; noise and distortion.
Lossless contains everything from a quality recording; the ambiance of the recording room has been captured by the mics and nothing is pumping/artificial. The full canopy has been recorded intact without digital artifacts. The digital recording machines, Nagra, have a resolution of 88.2khz/20-bit or higher, and same for the playback system. And forget the compact disc, even if uncompressed because it is simply too limited of its own nature...standard below true high fidelity.
Lossless contains everything from a quality recording; the ambiance of the recording room has been captured by the mics and nothing is pumping/artificial. The full canopy has been recorded intact without digital artifacts. The digital recording machines, Nagra, have a resolution of 88.2khz/20-bit or higher, and same for the playback system. And forget the compact disc, even if uncompressed because it is simply too limited of its own nature...standard below true high fidelity.
Once again, either irrelevant (the first) or wishful thinking (i.e., no actual scientific or engineering information, just an uninformed opinion) in the second.
Yes, the CD may well be flawed, but you given no real reasons that demonstrate this
NorthStar
New member
History: https://www.philips.com/a-w/research/technologies/cd/beginning.html
There is a pdf link @ the very end, by clicking on the very last word.
____
• https://cardinalpeak.com/blog/why-do-cds-use-a-sampling-rate-of-44-1-khz/
Bob Stuart from MLP Meridian wrote an article years ago saying that we need 88.2 kHz and 20-bit rate for hitting the plateau of true high fidelity in audio. DVD-Audio reached that.
Stereophile has measurements from graphs showing the abrupt brick wall of CDs @ 22 kHz with harmonics of different orders impeding in the lower frequencies of the sensitive human hearing, the mid-range from 1 to 8 kHz.
Is CD lossless or lossy? It is uncompressed and flawed. The words lossy and lossless have to be interpreted in their right context, and the results.
Today we have compression algorithms that are more efficient than in the past; like in photography, moving pictures, multichannel audio soundtracks.
There is a pdf link @ the very end, by clicking on the very last word.
____
• https://cardinalpeak.com/blog/why-do-cds-use-a-sampling-rate-of-44-1-khz/
Bob Stuart from MLP Meridian wrote an article years ago saying that we need 88.2 kHz and 20-bit rate for hitting the plateau of true high fidelity in audio. DVD-Audio reached that.
Stereophile has measurements from graphs showing the abrupt brick wall of CDs @ 22 kHz with harmonics of different orders impeding in the lower frequencies of the sensitive human hearing, the mid-range from 1 to 8 kHz.
Is CD lossless or lossy? It is uncompressed and flawed. The words lossy and lossless have to be interpreted in their right context, and the results.
Today we have compression algorithms that are more efficient than in the past; like in photography, moving pictures, multichannel audio soundtracks.
NorthStar
New member
Rob, do you take the time to read the articles?
Some CDs sound great because they were recorded with care.
Many sound like total crap, even today.
Vinyl, the same thing, and tape too...the speed being a quality factor.
I prefer my SACD and DVD-Audio music collection.
Many people prefer hi res audio files.
Others prefer analog tape and vinyl.
I prefer lossless audio soundtracks over the lossy ones. Dolby Digital and DTS are inferior to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. And I can hear the difference, same as between CD and SACD.
I don't care about the words lossless and lossy, I care about the music in my ears, quality music recordings, including CDs, tapes and vinyls.
I agree that CD is both lossless and lossy; one, or the other or/and both. I don't disagree with anyone.
I have zero preference and zero bias, I love it all when quality created/recorded and reproduced.
Live is best.
Some CDs sound great because they were recorded with care.
Many sound like total crap, even today.
Vinyl, the same thing, and tape too...the speed being a quality factor.
I prefer my SACD and DVD-Audio music collection.
Many people prefer hi res audio files.
Others prefer analog tape and vinyl.
I prefer lossless audio soundtracks over the lossy ones. Dolby Digital and DTS are inferior to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. And I can hear the difference, same as between CD and SACD.
I don't care about the words lossless and lossy, I care about the music in my ears, quality music recordings, including CDs, tapes and vinyls.
I agree that CD is both lossless and lossy; one, or the other or/and both. I don't disagree with anyone.
I have zero preference and zero bias, I love it all when quality created/recorded and reproduced.
Live is best.
Yes.
Actually, Bob Stuart postulated that 18 bits and 56 kHz sampling rate would be adequate for reproduction of sound to the limits of our hearing. This was a theory, not a theorem, and in addition to not being proven mathematically there is no experimental data to confirm or deny its validity.
The Stereophile graphs are representative of what can occur when recording at 16/44.1. Recording at higher resolutions and then properly dithering and resampling results in no such errors. That's not to say there aren't still problems even with that approach, but they are not the ones Stereophile mentions there.
NorthStar
New member
Even the professionals can change their mind, and have different opinion among them.
Some of the greatest scientists didn't agree with the top scientists.
Hundred years from now all this ultra high end audio reproducing gear and hi res audio files will sound prehistoric and so far off from the real tones of musical instruments.
Some of the greatest scientists didn't agree with the top scientists.
Hundred years from now all this ultra high end audio reproducing gear and hi res audio files will sound prehistoric and so far off from the real tones of musical instruments.
And your point is?
NorthStar
New member
Music is bliss. The less lossy the better. 
Music is bliss. The less lossy the better.
The most sensible comment on this entire thread!
Do we have a consensus Btw - would have thought this is a yes or no answer.
still-one
Active member
Jim Smith
Member
Received this newsletter this am - another perspective:
"Taming the Terminology: Lossy vs. Lossless
Dr. AIX
Can a PCM digital audio file at any sampling rate and word length ever level be considered "lossy"? Despite a recent article on a popular audiophile website, the answer is an unambiguous NO...never! By definition Pulse Code Modulation is a lossless digital encoding scheme that preserves 100% of the original signal given the right filtering and parameters. How the simplest terms can get twisted and recast by casual — and uninformed audio writers — is not really surprising but problematic for readers looking for accurate information. Let's briefly take a look at these terms and explore the underlying fallacy put forth in the piece.
The terms lossy and lossless ONLY apply to compressed audio formats like MP3, AAC, AC3, and MQA. Lossy means that some of the source audio information is lost — forever — when the compressed digital audio information in the file is converted back into an analog signal. If the process doesn't restore 100% of the original signal — which a properly designed PCM digital encode can do — then it is considered "lossy". It really doesn't matter if listeners can detect that there is information missing. I'll grant you that it can be very difficult to perceive the difference between a lossy algorithm and a lossless one. In fact, some listeners may prefer an encoding technique that "masks" some low amplitude signal or "folds" ultrasonic partials under the "in band" information. However, one's subjective preference doesn't change the technical reality.
A truly lossless audio format like MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing by the same folks that are behind MQA) — now known as Dolby TrueHD due to a licensing arrangement with the SF-based company — guarantees that every single digital bit of information that was present at the input of the encoder is present at the output of the decoder. When the DVD Forum was casting around for a scheme to reduce the bandwidth needed for 6 channels of 96 kHz/24-bit (high-resolution surround sound) on a single speed DVD disc, the very bright people at Meridian accepted the challenge, demonstrated their amazing process, and were awarded the exclusive contract for the DVD-Audio format. MLP, Dolby THD, FLAC, FLAC, DTS HD Master Audio and a few other codecs have demonstrated their ability to restore the bits from the source to the destination.
One of the examples discussed in the article focused on the fact that many — if not most — new recordings are being done using sample rates and word lengths higher than 44.1 / 16-bits. In fact, iTunes requires that labels submit their digital masters at 96/24. If the engineer at the studio captures the sessions at 48 kHz/24-bits and then downconverts those recordings to 44.1 kHz/16-bits, "then the CD version would thus in effect be lossy". Wrong! The downsampled CD version would still be lossless because as I pointed out above, there is no such thing as "lossy" PCM. The Redbook specification for compact discs doesn't include a chapter on data compression or codecs.
The process of downconverting or downsampling can be done a number of different ways. Usually, a software program does the conversion in real time or out of real time depending on the complexity of the algorithm. It's possible to downconvert from a higher sample rate and longer words during an analog transfer. The output of a DAC is passed to the input of an ADC running with a slower clock. However, in all of these processes the end result is still lossless.
The confusion may lie in the notion that there is a difference between the original master and the final CD specification audio. If a 96 kHz/24-bit PCM master is "mastered" for CD release, some of the data of the original recording will not make it onto the final CD. That's a fact. But that still doesn't mean that we should call the CD a lossy format. But it gets even more confusing when you understand why recording engineers use higher sample rates of longer words in the first place. I've written about this before. There is increased "headroom" available at the time of the original recording offered by the additional 8-bits. Recording engineers don't want to exceed the available headroom of their recording system. We had limits during the analog tape days and we still have limits today — thankfully high-resolution has brought great potential fidelity. However, mastering engineers have a different task than the recording and mixing engineers. Their job is to adjust the tonal balances, reduce the dynamic range, and increase the amplitude of the overall track. The reduction of dynamic range and increase of amplitude takes the original 24-bits down to 8-10 bits — remember that each digital bit is roughly equivalent to 6 dB of dynamic range.
So even the master won't be different when downconverted from 24-bits to 16-bits because the mastering engineers already knocked off the extra 8-bits. That's just the way it is for most commercial releases — including jazz and classical titles.
CD are not lossy. There should never have been any doubt."
"Taming the Terminology: Lossy vs. Lossless
Dr. AIX
Can a PCM digital audio file at any sampling rate and word length ever level be considered "lossy"? Despite a recent article on a popular audiophile website, the answer is an unambiguous NO...never! By definition Pulse Code Modulation is a lossless digital encoding scheme that preserves 100% of the original signal given the right filtering and parameters. How the simplest terms can get twisted and recast by casual — and uninformed audio writers — is not really surprising but problematic for readers looking for accurate information. Let's briefly take a look at these terms and explore the underlying fallacy put forth in the piece.
The terms lossy and lossless ONLY apply to compressed audio formats like MP3, AAC, AC3, and MQA. Lossy means that some of the source audio information is lost — forever — when the compressed digital audio information in the file is converted back into an analog signal. If the process doesn't restore 100% of the original signal — which a properly designed PCM digital encode can do — then it is considered "lossy". It really doesn't matter if listeners can detect that there is information missing. I'll grant you that it can be very difficult to perceive the difference between a lossy algorithm and a lossless one. In fact, some listeners may prefer an encoding technique that "masks" some low amplitude signal or "folds" ultrasonic partials under the "in band" information. However, one's subjective preference doesn't change the technical reality.
A truly lossless audio format like MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing by the same folks that are behind MQA) — now known as Dolby TrueHD due to a licensing arrangement with the SF-based company — guarantees that every single digital bit of information that was present at the input of the encoder is present at the output of the decoder. When the DVD Forum was casting around for a scheme to reduce the bandwidth needed for 6 channels of 96 kHz/24-bit (high-resolution surround sound) on a single speed DVD disc, the very bright people at Meridian accepted the challenge, demonstrated their amazing process, and were awarded the exclusive contract for the DVD-Audio format. MLP, Dolby THD, FLAC, FLAC, DTS HD Master Audio and a few other codecs have demonstrated their ability to restore the bits from the source to the destination.
One of the examples discussed in the article focused on the fact that many — if not most — new recordings are being done using sample rates and word lengths higher than 44.1 / 16-bits. In fact, iTunes requires that labels submit their digital masters at 96/24. If the engineer at the studio captures the sessions at 48 kHz/24-bits and then downconverts those recordings to 44.1 kHz/16-bits, "then the CD version would thus in effect be lossy". Wrong! The downsampled CD version would still be lossless because as I pointed out above, there is no such thing as "lossy" PCM. The Redbook specification for compact discs doesn't include a chapter on data compression or codecs.
The process of downconverting or downsampling can be done a number of different ways. Usually, a software program does the conversion in real time or out of real time depending on the complexity of the algorithm. It's possible to downconvert from a higher sample rate and longer words during an analog transfer. The output of a DAC is passed to the input of an ADC running with a slower clock. However, in all of these processes the end result is still lossless.
The confusion may lie in the notion that there is a difference between the original master and the final CD specification audio. If a 96 kHz/24-bit PCM master is "mastered" for CD release, some of the data of the original recording will not make it onto the final CD. That's a fact. But that still doesn't mean that we should call the CD a lossy format. But it gets even more confusing when you understand why recording engineers use higher sample rates of longer words in the first place. I've written about this before. There is increased "headroom" available at the time of the original recording offered by the additional 8-bits. Recording engineers don't want to exceed the available headroom of their recording system. We had limits during the analog tape days and we still have limits today — thankfully high-resolution has brought great potential fidelity. However, mastering engineers have a different task than the recording and mixing engineers. Their job is to adjust the tonal balances, reduce the dynamic range, and increase the amplitude of the overall track. The reduction of dynamic range and increase of amplitude takes the original 24-bits down to 8-10 bits — remember that each digital bit is roughly equivalent to 6 dB of dynamic range.
So even the master won't be different when downconverted from 24-bits to 16-bits because the mastering engineers already knocked off the extra 8-bits. That's just the way it is for most commercial releases — including jazz and classical titles.
CD are not lossy. There should never have been any doubt."