Lossy or Lossless which is better?
Lossy or Lossless?
0
Well, nowadays there two type of data compression which is lossless (near identical to the source) and lossy (lost some off the un-need data from the stream).
This is apply to video, images and audio file.
If lossy you need to compress some data and losing a bit of data in the process, but its more the file size is much more smaller than lossless.
If lossless, it is near to the original source with a bit of data lost. Well the problem is the size is also big.
So now we discuss, what would choose lossy or lossless.... If i forgot to add some info, be glad to accept any addition info and your point of view in this poll.
As for me, I'll choose lossless over lossy but still both....
This is apply to video, images and audio file.
If lossy you need to compress some data and losing a bit of data in the process, but its more the file size is much more smaller than lossless.
If lossless, it is near to the original source with a bit of data lost. Well the problem is the size is also big.
So now we discuss, what would choose lossy or lossless.... If i forgot to add some info, be glad to accept any addition info and your point of view in this poll.
As for me, I'll choose lossless over lossy but still both....
0
For music, a properly encoded 320kbps mp3 is pretty damn near lossless quality at less than 1/3 of the size of a flac. Flac is good because it retains the lossless quality while trimming the size down by discarding unused elements and is one of the best at doing so. A wav file is basically a raw version thats been untouched and takes up a good chunk of space. I haven't used ogg much but it is about to jump in popularity if WebM becomes mainstream.
As for videos you are definitely going to want to encode it as raw video will quickly deplete your hard drive of all of the space it has to offer. If you don't want to encode it then the only sane solution would be to directly copy it from one DVD/Blu-ray to another. Notable formats include H.264 and divx/xvid. VP8, that has just been GPLd by Google, aims to be H.264's replacement as it is part of the heavily-backed WebM format.
As for videos you are definitely going to want to encode it as raw video will quickly deplete your hard drive of all of the space it has to offer. If you don't want to encode it then the only sane solution would be to directly copy it from one DVD/Blu-ray to another. Notable formats include H.264 and divx/xvid. VP8, that has just been GPLd by Google, aims to be H.264's replacement as it is part of the heavily-backed WebM format.
0
Nashrakh
Little White Butterflies Staff
I think to properly appreciate lossless encoding, you need to have decent equipment that shows these subtle differences.
Yesterday, I hooked up my computer to my stereo and yeah... on my stereo, I can hear the differences between the CD and 320kbps mp3 (drum cymbals are really easy to identify, compressed cymbals sound... how do I put it, 'blocky'), while on my PC sound setup, these differences are negligible.
If you're an audiophile, I see no reason not to go with lossless, but since most people don't even give a shit, it doesn't matter for them (lol 'playing music' on cellphone speakers). So, to each his own.
Yesterday, I hooked up my computer to my stereo and yeah... on my stereo, I can hear the differences between the CD and 320kbps mp3 (drum cymbals are really easy to identify, compressed cymbals sound... how do I put it, 'blocky'), while on my PC sound setup, these differences are negligible.
If you're an audiophile, I see no reason not to go with lossless, but since most people don't even give a shit, it doesn't matter for them (lol 'playing music' on cellphone speakers). So, to each his own.
0
This was already discussed in a thread I can't be damned looking for.
Lossless is the best in terms of quality while decent lossy is good for carting around.
With a decent pair of speakers or headphones you can hear the subtle differences.
If you plan to have an archive invest in more space and have your collection in lossless and then convert to lossy for your ipod needs.
As for video Lossless video is by far the best simply because of image quality, lossy video is horrible.
Lossless is the best in terms of quality while decent lossy is good for carting around.
With a decent pair of speakers or headphones you can hear the subtle differences.
If you plan to have an archive invest in more space and have your collection in lossless and then convert to lossy for your ipod needs.
As for video Lossless video is by far the best simply because of image quality, lossy video is horrible.
0
I tend to stick with 320kbs lossy audio (MP3/Lame) as the majority of data on lossless audio tends to be white noise (frequencies of sound humans can't hear). I would however download lossless if I had a better set of headphones because there are noticeable differences in quality depending on what you're listening to your audio file with.
0
I completely agree with St. Vitale, you're not supposed to hear the differences, so i'm fine with 320kbps mp3 :D
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Time to debunk another myth:
Proper lossy encoding is indistinguishable from lossless encoding!
...anything else is just audiophiles circle jerking each other over how much better they listen to music than anyone else.
Double blind tests have proven even CBR 224 kbps mp3 to be "transparent". Even on the best equipment, subjects couldn't distinguish between the mp3 and the losless source.
...so this is likely not true either. Probably both encodings used the same damn CD, so you wouldn't notice *any* difference.
Lossless is the best in terms of quality while decent lossy is good for carting around.
With a decent pair of speakers or headphones you can hear the subtle differences.
If you plan to have an archive invest in more space and have your collection in lossless and then convert to lossy for your ipod needs.
As for video Lossless video is by far the best simply because of image quality, lossy video is horrible.
...while you sir, don't know what the hell you are talking about!
There is no such thing as lossless video encoding! Wake up and smell the ...err digits! Video is usually chroma sub-sampled, even the very HD sources you salivate in front of your big-ass tv. It also uses something called delta frames.
All of this technology is used on DVDs and BDs which are encoded in MPEG-2.
Meanwhile your average HD broadcast will use the MPEG-4 standard, that does a lot more. Do you notice? You don't! I'm not going into details as this is a lot more complicated then audio encoding.
Sindalf could probably properly educate you, as subbers are more educated as to what a good encode entails.
So, when should you use lossy and when lossless?
-If you are under any physical limit as to how big your files can be, use lossy. If you need to accommodate the widest range of devices, use mp3. (It's still more widely supported than flac).
-If you ever need to remix, edit or process the music or sound, use lossless. Even the best lossy algorithms will build up artifacts if you repeatedly re-encode the data.
Proper lossy encoding is indistinguishable from lossless encoding!
...anything else is just audiophiles circle jerking each other over how much better they listen to music than anyone else.
Double blind tests have proven even CBR 224 kbps mp3 to be "transparent". Even on the best equipment, subjects couldn't distinguish between the mp3 and the losless source.
St. Vitale wrote...
I tend to stick with 320kbs lossy audio (MP3/Lame) as the majority of data on lossless audio tends to be white noise (frequencies of sound humans can't hear). I would however download lossless if I had a better set of headphones because there are noticeable differences in quality depending on what you're listening to your audio file with....so this is likely not true either. Probably both encodings used the same damn CD, so you wouldn't notice *any* difference.
spectre257 wrote...
This was already discussed in a thread I can't be damned looking for.Lossless is the best in terms of quality while decent lossy is good for carting around.
With a decent pair of speakers or headphones you can hear the subtle differences.
If you plan to have an archive invest in more space and have your collection in lossless and then convert to lossy for your ipod needs.
As for video Lossless video is by far the best simply because of image quality, lossy video is horrible.
...while you sir, don't know what the hell you are talking about!
There is no such thing as lossless video encoding! Wake up and smell the ...err digits! Video is usually chroma sub-sampled, even the very HD sources you salivate in front of your big-ass tv. It also uses something called delta frames.
All of this technology is used on DVDs and BDs which are encoded in MPEG-2.
Meanwhile your average HD broadcast will use the MPEG-4 standard, that does a lot more. Do you notice? You don't! I'm not going into details as this is a lot more complicated then audio encoding.
Sindalf could probably properly educate you, as subbers are more educated as to what a good encode entails.
So, when should you use lossy and when lossless?
-If you are under any physical limit as to how big your files can be, use lossy. If you need to accommodate the widest range of devices, use mp3. (It's still more widely supported than flac).
-If you ever need to remix, edit or process the music or sound, use lossless. Even the best lossy algorithms will build up artifacts if you repeatedly re-encode the data.
0
Flaser wrote...
Proper lossy encoding is indistinguishable from lossless encoding!
You are totally right, why do i always left behind important fact.
Well what you is actually valid there, because with the right setting any lossy can become achive the quality of a lossless file.
Then agian, this only imply to the file that is encoded from lossless stream to a lossy file. As Flaser said, if the HQ lossy being encode into another lossy stream it'll keep losing data. Even if you compress it into a lossless stream it doesnt means there is no data lost, there will be some but very minimal.
That some knowledge that i got from research on the net. Hope it's useful, but i think i just repeating some statement back.
0
Nashrakh
Little White Butterflies Staff
Flaser wrote...
Sindalf could probably properly educate you, as subbers are more educated as to what a good encode entails.
Haha, Sindalf totally bought the whole lossless deal. I already know the answer.
0
Edit 2: Got a hold of a former encoder for a fansub group, he says Blu-Ray releases encoded with lossless for people that want to encode the files themselves in order to play them on their T.V. etc, this way they don't lose sound quality if it's an MP3 file (see explanation below).
Edit: I've just done some testing of my own, using a FLAC audio file which I personally encoded into an MP3 file to test them out and see if there are any large differences between them, this is what I found out:
As you can see, there is literally no noticeable difference between MP3/FLAC when encoded properly at a high bitrate.
- Encoded with FOOBAR (With a few plugins to enhance the process).
The only reason I see to be using FLAC is for encoding purposes only. As with .JPEG, each time you save the file you lose quality. It's generally the same idea with MP3, every time you encode it, it also loses quality. You can convert an audio file between FLAC and WMA as much as you want without any quality loss.
As for me, I am permanently archiving all of my music into 320kbs MP3 and sticking with it. There is no reason at all to keep large amounts of unneeded data on your hard-drive unless you actually have a legitimate use for it. Though there is still the fact that quite a few MP3 files only support 2 sound channels. for this reason you should be encoding your own MP3 files in order to have them support more than just basic Stereo.
Edit: I've just done some testing of my own, using a FLAC audio file which I personally encoded into an MP3 file to test them out and see if there are any large differences between them, this is what I found out:
As you can see, there is literally no noticeable difference between MP3/FLAC when encoded properly at a high bitrate.
- Encoded with FOOBAR (With a few plugins to enhance the process).
The only reason I see to be using FLAC is for encoding purposes only. As with .JPEG, each time you save the file you lose quality. It's generally the same idea with MP3, every time you encode it, it also loses quality. You can convert an audio file between FLAC and WMA as much as you want without any quality loss.
As for me, I am permanently archiving all of my music into 320kbs MP3 and sticking with it. There is no reason at all to keep large amounts of unneeded data on your hard-drive unless you actually have a legitimate use for it. Though there is still the fact that quite a few MP3 files only support 2 sound channels. for this reason you should be encoding your own MP3 files in order to have them support more than just basic Stereo.
1
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
The reason why you should use a lossless format is because if you work on something you don't want to deal with *any* compression artifacts. You may also use the data that people don't even here as your modulation of sound may bring it into the audible range.
If you used a lossy format, you'd re-encode your piece each time you saved it and more and more compression artifacts would crop up.
...however once you're done, there is no reason to insist that everyone should carry around that big file.
If properly encoded - and only *once* encoded - then your music will be indistinguishable from the lossless one you created while the file will be a lot smaller.
How much you can encode the music also depends on what kind are you encoding. The more polyphonic it is, the more harmonics the instruments have, the higher your bitrate will have to be. Conversely some electronic music could be ridiculously compressed as it's that simple to sample.
CBR 320 kbps will be good for everything, but most of the time I use VBR (variable bit-rate) encoding as you don't need that resolution for each and every minute of the piece.
To sum it up: Don't believe the audiophiles. Make a simple test with them where you randomly switch (or don't switch!) between a lossless and a lossy compression... and see if they can guess what they're hearing with better than 50% accuracy...
...if your compression was at least 224 kbps it turns out, they can't!
This is just another myth like the one still living among us that analogue is better then digital. There is no hard evidence to support it (there are issues, but all technologies have their limits and proper use)... however these people give more adherence to anecdotes and hearsay then real lab tests with hard data.
So called "golden eared" audio experts in Hifi shops are to be feared. When they tell you that "do you hear that?" ...and you don't chances are there really isn't anything to hear. However using their "golden ear" fame they might push you into buying expensive equipment that does *nothing* for you.
...I always bulk when I see high grade equipment in your run of the mill room: the guy just spent a trunk of money, then ruined it by using it in an inferior environment. To get your money's worth you need a studio or a properly setup hall to get the benefit from good speakers. Hence why it's simply not worth it to buy several thousand dollars worth of equipment if you only use it in your flat.
...and some more on these "myths":
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
If you used a lossy format, you'd re-encode your piece each time you saved it and more and more compression artifacts would crop up.
...however once you're done, there is no reason to insist that everyone should carry around that big file.
If properly encoded - and only *once* encoded - then your music will be indistinguishable from the lossless one you created while the file will be a lot smaller.
How much you can encode the music also depends on what kind are you encoding. The more polyphonic it is, the more harmonics the instruments have, the higher your bitrate will have to be. Conversely some electronic music could be ridiculously compressed as it's that simple to sample.
CBR 320 kbps will be good for everything, but most of the time I use VBR (variable bit-rate) encoding as you don't need that resolution for each and every minute of the piece.
To sum it up: Don't believe the audiophiles. Make a simple test with them where you randomly switch (or don't switch!) between a lossless and a lossy compression... and see if they can guess what they're hearing with better than 50% accuracy...
...if your compression was at least 224 kbps it turns out, they can't!
This is just another myth like the one still living among us that analogue is better then digital. There is no hard evidence to support it (there are issues, but all technologies have their limits and proper use)... however these people give more adherence to anecdotes and hearsay then real lab tests with hard data.
So called "golden eared" audio experts in Hifi shops are to be feared. When they tell you that "do you hear that?" ...and you don't chances are there really isn't anything to hear. However using their "golden ear" fame they might push you into buying expensive equipment that does *nothing* for you.
...I always bulk when I see high grade equipment in your run of the mill room: the guy just spent a trunk of money, then ruined it by using it in an inferior environment. To get your money's worth you need a studio or a properly setup hall to get the benefit from good speakers. Hence why it's simply not worth it to buy several thousand dollars worth of equipment if you only use it in your flat.
...and some more on these "myths":
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
0
Flaser wrote...
Spoiler:
I thank you, your original post made me do some research of my own and now I can finally start archiving my music into MP3 files and free up a tonne of space on my hard drive. And it's true what you say about the environment, if you don't have the proper room and perfectly positioned speakers there is no point in grabbing an over-expensive sound system. I found that out the hard way. Thanks again.
You certainly deserve +rep for this.
0
Well, i still keep lossless version of an audio file so i can use them to convert into the lossy version, if ever needed.
0
but the whole purpose of lossless formats like MP3 or WMA are to remove the frequencies that cannot be heard and processed by humans auditory systems
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
will1701-A wrote...
but the whole purpose of lossless formats like MP3 or WMA are to remove the frequencies that cannot be heard and processed by humans auditory systems...actually those are *lossy* compressions.
These use a lowpass and a highpass filter, then they also use an psycho-acoustic filter that means that depending on the frequency the sound has to have a minimum strength otherwise it's filtered out. (This curve is carefully drawn, so it won't remove anything you hear, but everything you don't... since we're not all the same it has some wide margins).
They also use masking, that is remove sound that you can't hear cause something louder is "masking" it. Finally they may use variable bitrate encoding that is only use high bitrate sampling when the signal warrants it.
(...and the result is further compressed with Huffman coding and other standard compression algorithms).
Read more here:
http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
NO. I said there is nothing casual about "casual gaming"...
...it's just that most developers put their shit team on Wii versions instead making a proper game for the platform.
...it's just that most developers put their shit team on Wii versions instead making a proper game for the platform.
0
Flaser wrote...
There is no such thing as lossless video encoding!Oh, there is such a thing as lossless video encoding. It's just usally not used by end-users since they are usally pretty big compared to lossy compressions. (and thus nowhere downloadable or buyable)
Flaser wrote...
-If you are under any physical limit as to how big your files can be, use lossy. If you need to accommodate the widest range of devices, use mp3. (It's still more widely supported than flac).You are forgetting Ogg Vorbis. Vorbis is a bit smaller than MP3 at the same quality, also you'll probably find Linux devices which can't play MP3 but OGG. (But sure MP3 is more widely supported since there flew a lot of money to make the manufacturers to make MP3 devices and not OGG devices.)
[size=6]Flac is lossless and not lossy btw. @ "It's still more widely supported than flac" [/h]
0
NotYou wrote...
Flaser wrote...
There is no such thing as lossless video encoding!Oh, there is such a thing as lossless video encoding. It's just usally not used by end-users since they are usally pretty big compared to lossy compressions. (and thus nowhere downloadable or buyable)
Flaser wrote...
-If you are under any physical limit as to how big your files can be, use lossy. If you need to accommodate the widest range of devices, use mp3. (It's still more widely supported than flac).You are forgetting Ogg Vorbis. Vorbis is a bit smaller than MP3 at the same quality, also you'll probably find Linux devices which can't play MP3 but OGG. (But sure MP3 is more widely supported since there flew a lot of money to make the manufacturers to make MP3 devices and not OGG devices.)
[size=6]Flac is lossless and not lossy btw. @ "It's still more widely supported than flac" [/h]
Way to make an ass of yourself.
First of all, Flaser is right; there is no such thing as "Lossless video encoding" because what you think is "Lossless" is simply raw data and nothing else. There is no "Lossless" format which you can encode video into because that would just be fucking stupid. Why in gods name would you encode raw data into a format that would be the exact same size as the raw data that wouldn't be used anyways because having a 25gb + file on your system for a 0.005% increase in quality just isn't feasible. Your eyes can't tell the difference between a raw 1920x1080 video and a 1920x1080 h246 encode contained inside of a .mkv archive. And that encoded "Lossless" file would only serve the exact same fucking purpose as the raw data, to be encoded and compressed into a smaller format.
The reason we encode music off of the original media sources is for encoding purposes in the first place. You keep FLAC files on your computer so you can later encode them into other formats in order to support multiple media applications and portable music players. We also keep FLAC because some people are extreme quality fags and feel that they need to have a supported format in which they can listen to the incredibly small differences in sound.
And no, you won't find a Linux device or application that will only play OGG encoded files because that would also be fucking stupid. "Sure, lets just dump support for the standard format because we don't want anyone to use our program." Real smart move bro, real fucking smart indeed. Just because OGG can compress files >10% smaller than the LAME codec can doesn't mean everyone is going to switch over to it. MP3 is considered standard, is easy to use and has an incredibly simple tagging system.
Flaser was simply noting that the Lossless FLAC format isn't as widely supported as the Lossy MP3 LAME format.