Lossy or Lossless which is better?

You are wrong. An lossless encoded video is allready much smaller than an video wich is not encoded at all (raw data). (An not encoded video is about 5 times bigger than one lossless encoded, while an lossy encoded video is about 20 times smaller than an lossless encoded video. (~, since it's pretty much dependant on what type of video it is)) That makes them useful for, just like lossless audio codecs, editing purposes (preventing artifacts from multiple en- and decodings).

I pretty much agree with Flaser btw. (Also the part with the lossless video encoding) But the point that there is no lossless video is just simply wrong.



1. I wasn't refering to pure music players but mini-computers and stuff. For music players it sure would be an big disadvantage to not beeing able to play MP3s.
2. There is an big reason why some devices may don't play MP3's out of the box: You need to pay license fees if you have MP3 encoding in your application/device/whatever.
3. In the linux world MP3 isn't the standard. :P
4. It isn't really easier to use nor easier to tag than OGG's.

Lossless...The music become so Lively and clearer..

MKV is a container like AVI, MP4, and OGM. Basically you throw an audio, video, and a subtitle stream into a container and you have a video. Depending on the container used will dictate how many streams the container supports and what formats is supported within the container. MKV is just the best one at the moment which is why it is widely used. Video codecs are stuff like H.264, DivX, and Xvid. I'm not experienced at all with lossless video so I have no input on that.

It really depends tbh, on the equipment you're using and on you as a person personally. Some people can hear the difference between lossy and lossless while others can't, even with the highest top-end gear on the spectrum.

I myself can hear a distinct difference between lossless and lossy as I've been listening to nearly nothing but lossless format for nearly two years now with high end equipment. On my computer that is, where theres room. On my portable player, I'm willing to sacrifice that dip in sound quality for 1/3 size.

So basically. DL all your music in lossless formats like FLAC for your computer, and if need be, convert them to Vorbis/OGG for your media player. You'll get the best of both worlds this way, no matter what equipment you're using.

Full Charts between the difference of common lossy and lossless formats.

No you don't. Here's why:

You made a blanket statement, so it's not specific enough to be either confirm- or falsifiable. You showed diagrams of various encodes, however you failed to mention which ones sound different from the source.

My statement - lossy compression with high enough bitrate is transparent - is backed up by peer reviewed research. Your claim is subjective.

Here's the deal:

-If you can't distinguish a lossy encode from the lossless source it's said to be transparent.
-If you don't you a fine enough encoding *almost anyone* will hear the difference!

At *least* CBR 224 kbps mp3 encodes are said to be transparent. CBR 256 kbps or VBR encodes are almost guaranteed to be transparent. (There can be encoding issues with specific music that just tricks the algorithms into messing up). CBR 320 kbps is bound to be transparent as it uses the same sampling depth as CD.

So, no. You can't hear the difference between a transparent lossy encoding and the lossless source either. Your CBR 128 kbps encodes prove nothing, as it was never claimed that all lossy encodes are indistinguishable from the lossless source.

Another thing you can do for computers (or at least Windows operating systems) is to use ASIO. More information on that here. Basically it allows an application to bypass all the windows layers and report directly to hardware in a low-latency, bit-transparent fashion. I'm using Windows 7 with an OpenAL'd Winamp with an X-Fi XtremeGamer sound card and I can't tell the difference though. Just use ASIO4all and have a supported sound card and it should work for you. Its meant for people who solely use their computer for listening and working with music as only one application will be able to use the sound card at a time. Maybe someone who has more experience with mixing music will be able to tell the difference but I can't.

Protip: buy CDs, play them for lossless, rip them in whatever quality/space ratio you can afford. If you have the space, why not rip everything in lossless? If you don't, 192 isn't going to make a load of difference, and you can change whenever.

The quality I rip music in depends on the kind of music, to be honest. Generic rock doesn't need much, but high vocals, classical instruments, electronica etc do often benefit from something like 320kbs, even on my seven year-old speakers.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

It's impossible for you to be able to say that i can or cannot hear the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless as you are not me. You're never going to be able to justify a person other than yourself so stop trying. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. It doesn't effect me at all what your opinion of me is on it.

Back to the topic. Lossless is always going to be better than lossy. In general terms of specking, not bringing outside factors in such as size, equipment etc.

They didn't even have a external DAC going either. Also, a creative x-fi sound card, for testing music!? Lawl.

Had you done any testing yourself?
Was it double blind?

If not, you didn't do anything against your bias and the placebo effect.

http://erikjheels.com/?p=1236
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exists. The burden of the proof is on the side of the one pretending that a difference can be heard.

Most people *don't* have high end audio equipment. To them, this test is already good referrance to show that on equipment similar to their own, mp3 is transparent.
Other than your subjective claim, you showed no proof that there *is* a difference. A double blind test is not that hard to setup nowadays, if you want to convince us, conduct a test yourself.

i prefer lossy since the size is slight smaller than loseless...
even only with lossy type... my HDD is already on pinch.. how if i use loseless?

maybe it's because my habit since knowing computer and gadget is only use lossy type of media compression, i prefer it than loseless...