Lossless audio: what makes it "better"?

[tomdkat]

In this thread, some discussion started about what makes lossless audio "better" than lossy audio. Some people prefer "lossless" audio on HD movie releases and some are perfectly happy with the lossy audio formats (like Dolby Digital Plus).

The purpose of this thread is to examine what specifically is it about lossless audio that would make it "better" than lossy audio. Is it still the audio mix that's most important (as was in the ever popular Dolby Digital vs dts debate)? Is lossless audio "better" simply by virtue of being lossless? The presumption here is ANY audio track can sound awesome simply by being encoded in a lossless fashion.

What is it that makes lossless audio "better" than lossy audio? Keep in mind, lossless doesn't necessarily mean not compressed since lossless audio certainly can be compressed, like I think Dolby TrueHD audio is.

Your thoughts?

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

We need to define "better" first, don't we?

Main Entry: 1bet·ter
Pronunciation: 'be-t&r
Function: adjective, comparative of GOOD
Etymology: Middle English bettre, from Old English betera; akin to Old English bOt remedy, Sanskrit bhadra fortunate
1 : greater than half (for the better part of an hour)
2 : improved in health or mental attitude (feeling better)
3 : more attractive, favorable, or commendable (in better circumstances)
4 : more advantageous or effective (a better solution)
5 : improved in accuracy or performance (building a better engine)

This should be good since historically when 'better' and 'Tom' meet, it's a blast!

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

We need to define "better" first, don't we?

Peace...

[ganthc]

I think we need another thread to define "better." Tom, can you set that up?

[Iguana Man]

I guess I'll bite... ...

My understanding is that lossless keeps ALL the original data whereas lossy discards some. So if that is true, then to me, lossless is better because it has the ability to be more advantageous and/or effective.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I guess I'll bite... ...

My understanding is that lossless keeps ALL the original data whereas lossy discards some. So if that is true, then to me, lossless is better because it has the ability to be more advantageous and/or effective.

I would go with that.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I think we need another thread to define "better." Tom, can you set that up?

Sure can

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

BITCH!

Peace...

[Pirate]

Lossless audio is "better" because it’s more accurate (or should be) to the original theatrical audio. Lossless tracks have more subtle nuances, better imaging, and a fuller, richer sound. I have never heard a lossless track that I thought was inferior to a lossy one. DD+ is still very good, though.

[Wirehed]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Lossless audio is "better" because it’s more accurate (or should be) to the original theatrical audio. Lossless tracks have more subtle nuances, better imaging, and a fuller, richer sound. I have never heard a lossless track that I thought was inferior to a lossy one. DD+ is still very good, though.

Ditto.

[Taxi]

We've had a little bit of this discussion already.

My contention is that given enough space (or, in other words, if space is not a constraint) lossless will sound better than lossy, all other things being equal (ie using the same source).

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Taxi

We've had a little bit of this discussion already.

Great! Thanks for the link!

Peace...

[Ruined]

Lossless audio is technically perceived as "better" since it contains all of the original audible audio information (perceptually lossless) or all of the original audio information period (mathematically lossless) while lossy audio throws some of that info away.

But can people really tell the difference? Double blind listening tests have shown that critical listeners cannot reliably tell the difference between a LAME-encoded "lossy" 256kbps MP3 and "lossless" 1.4mbps CD audio when they don't know which is which. Similarly, double blind tests have also shown that critical listeners cannot tell the difference between a "lossy" 192kbps WMA file and a "lossless" 1.4mbps CD. I would wager most people can't tell the difference between an 128kbps WMA and CD-audio either!

Now, when these listening tests occur and people are only analyzing what they hear and still can't tell the difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless for music purposes, what are the odds that you will be able to reliably tell the difference when you are actively watching a movie at the same time? You have twice as much going on yet somehow lossless audio is going to make more of a difference than it does for music-only purposes?

I am not denying that there may be a difference between say 640kbps DD+ and 1.5mbps TrueHD as there may be. But it is also possible that 1.5mbps lossy DD+ may be high enough bitrate that the information lost is so small that it is virtually inaudible just like 192kbps WMA or 256kbps MP3.

So while I think lossless audio is a good thing, I do think there is at least some placebo effect going on and I also think that some blind listening tests should be done to find out what the "tipping point" is for DD+ where you can't tell the difference between the lossy and lossless encode as we have found with MP3 and WMA.

[snipsnapsappy]

One debate from Universal currently is that 48kHz, 24-bit soundtracks compressed to 1.5 Mbps Dolby Digital + sound better than 48kHz, 16-bit soundtracks that are uncompressed or lossless.

Considering how good even Universal's Dolby TrueHD soundtracks sound, many of us find this claim suspect.

However, Disney is offering many of its BD's with 48/24 PCM uncompressed soundtracks, which to me says the best of both worlds.

Interesting, I rented Ghost Rider on BD last night and played with the PCM vs. Dolby TrueHD soundtracks. I did find that they sounded different, but I cannot say which one sounded better. It will be interesting to find out which one, along with DTS-HDMA truly translates the sound designer's original intent.

[tomdkat]

So, are you guys then basically saying lossless is "better" (perceived or believed as such) by virtue of being lossless? If this is the case, then how does compression fit in to this picture? Ganthc prefers LPCM on Blu-Ray to Dolby TrueHD on HD DVD. Both are lossless, I believe. I don't know if LPCM is compressed or as much as Dolby TrueHD might be.

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

One debate from Universal currently is that 48kHz, 24-bit soundtracks compressed to 1.5 Mbps Dolby Digital + sound better than 48kHz, 16-bit soundtracks that are uncompressed or lossless.

Considering how good even Universal's Dolby TrueHD soundtracks sound, many of us find this claim suspect.

The claim might be suspect but is it unfounded? I would imagine Universal's position would be based on something more than hearsay. Perhaps they did some experiments with Dolby Labs?

Peace...

[brian]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

The presumption here is ANY audio track can sound awesome simply by being encoded in a lossless fashion.

Assuming the mixes are the same, I'd prefer the lossless. But part of that is just because my 360 add-on would force me into going into midnight mode (or dynamically compressed) the sound on anything but the lossless tracks. Now that the fix has been released for that, it's more a habit than anything else. I honestly haven't listened to a DD+ track since the fix.

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Keep in mind, lossless doesn't necessarily mean not compressed since lossless audio certainly can be compressed, like I think Dolby TrueHD audio is.

Lossless audio is the equivalent to a zip file on your computer - yes, it's compressed, but information shouldn't be lost in translation. Unless you want to argue all digital signals are inherently compressed... but I don't want to go down that road now.

Edit - i probably should have read the other replies before taking the time to reply

[tomdkat]

Lossless audio is the equivalent to a zip file on your computer - yes, it's compressed, but information shouldn't be lost in translation.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. I would agree lossless audio CAN be compressed, as in your ZIP file analogy, but I don't think it follows that lossless audio will always be compressed.

As for the assumption about the mixes being the same, that's the other part of my question. How is the audio master processed when producing LPCM and Dolby TrueHD audio tracks (other than the obvious encoding in Dolby TrueHD) and how do the differeces in processing affect what we end up hearing, since both LPCM and Dolby TrueHD will both be lossless?

Using your ZIP file analogy for a moment, if the compression algorithm is good and correct the same file that is compressed using any given compression technique will result in the same file being reconstructed when the compressed file is uncompressed. ZIP isn't as efficient as BZip2 (BZip2 files are smaller) yet both result in the same results when the compressed data is uncompressed. Applying this to lossless audio, I would imagine LPCM would sound the same as Dolby TrueHD since both are "lossless", meaning the same audio data is being preserved and not being generated (as would be in the case of a lossy compression technique).

Peace...

[snipsnapsappy]

LPCM is not lossless. It is uncompressed.

Also, Universal is possibly making the claim to stifle internet users who are complaining about their lack of TrueHD tracks on many of their discs. TrueHD costs money to put on a disc, UNiversal does not want to spend the money or they just do not have the room to put that large of a sound file on a 30GB disc, either way, they are likely trying to save their ass from more complaints.

The DD+ Soundtracks on Universal HD's are often exceptional, but the few that do have TrueHD as well on them, are often considered even better. Therefore, every disc out there without a TrueHD soundtrack feels like it is not the best we can get.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

The DD+ Soundtracks on Universal HD's are often exceptional, but the few that do have TrueHD as well on them, are often considered even better.

I think all of Uni's HD DVD audio tracks are encoded at 24-bit/48kHz @ 1.5MBp/s.

[brian]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. I would agree lossless audio CAN be compressed, as in your ZIP file analogy, but I don't think it follows that lossless audio will always be compressed.

Sorry, I was thinking along the lossless compression schemes ala FLAC, APE, TrueHD, etc.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

LPCM is not lossless. It is uncompressed.

Wow, ok, I sit corrected. Then which Blu-Ray titles offer lossless audio? The HD DVD releases with Dolby TrueHD are HD titles with lossless audio. If LPCM isn't lossless, which Blu-Ray titles have lossless audio and what audio format is that audio in?

EDIT: Ok, I don't sit corrected anymore. snipsnap, I think you're incorrect in your statement.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

LPCM is the method of encoding generally used in conjunction with the WAV container format, the de facto standard for uncompressed audio on PCs. The term PCM and LPCM often refer explicitly to the format used in WAV files, though LPCM data may also be commonly stored in other formats such as AIFF. LPCM is further used for the lossless encoding of audio data in the compact disc Red Book standard. LPCM has been defined as a part of the DVD standard. AES3 is a particular format using LPCM.

Peace...

[snipsnapsappy]

All FOX titles have DTS-HDMA lossless audio and we now have Ghost Rider, Stomp the Yard, and Letters From Iwo Jima with Dolby TrueHD.

However, currently, all players on the market, including the PS3, convert the 48/24 or 48/16 TrueHD soundtracks into PCM and then send them to the receiver via 6 channel analog or HDMI.

The DTS-HDMA soundtracks can only be played back on current players as a downconverted 1.5mbps DTS (even with the new HDMI 1.3 receivers), which is now known as DTS-HD.

[firestorm]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

LPCM is not lossless. It is uncompressed.

LPCM is lossless just as much as WAV is lossless. They're a form of lossless encoding that also do not incorporate any compression.

My thoughts essentially fall in line with Ruined's comments. The one thing I would add or emphasis is, lossless is (virtually) unquestionable... no doubt as to what you are hearing. That's why I've switched to FLAC for our music collection. MP3's were fine on the computer, with mediocre speakers, or in the car, but, since I was effectively replacing the CD Player, I wanted no compromises. Some of the differences I may or may not have heard may be due to my greater care in ripping to FLAC, but, I have confidence that my music sounds just as good as if I were playing the silver discs.

Of course, I'm not sure I hear any difference with most, and those where I confidently hear a difference are most definitely bad rips and/or low bitrate. While watching a movie, I highly doubt I'd notice the difference with a soundtrack. Then again, I hear differences in dynamic range between DD and DTS on DVD (something I swear I hear on some MP3s vs FLAC), and I'm unsure/unaware of how much of that is from the encoding or the mastering. Example; the difference between LOTR and LOTR:EE DVDs is dramatic, but it's clearly mastering in those cases, since the DD tracks also have more dynamic range and low end than the theatrical DVD release. There are examples on a single release, but I've defaulted to DTS for so long I can't think of any ATM. With lossless, it's basically all about the mastering, and there can be little doubt in the encoding.

[1138]

I tend to agree with ruined about being able to tell the difference. And to add to that, it seems silly to me to worry about such minute differences in audio quality when so much more about the whole process affects it to such a greater degree. Environment quality, analog-to-digital conversions, equipment quality, etc. And since it's going to be extremely hard to achieve near perfect standards for those, why worry about those things that have a much smaller impact?

[snipsnapsappy]

I just finally read Ruined's Post... meh.

If I put up a SACD or DVD-Audio disc against an MP3, not only would the difference be night and day, but even a person without a critical ear will hear sounds that are simply not in even the CD mix of certain albums.

This goes way beyond a simple listening test between encoders. Lossless, or uncompressed are far beyond what we have experienced through DVD just as SACD and DVD-A are far beyond MP3 and even CD.

[Derb]

Lossless audio is just as important to both HD formats as anamorphic widescreen is to DVD... in a nutshell.

Usually lossless tracks can be distiguished from their lossy counterparts if you hear subtle sounds that can't be heard in comparison.

Some LPCM tracks sound like the difference is only volume based, it is louder so it must be better right? I take samples of select scenes in films which offer both lossy & lossless tracks in this case & match each level's db output to see if in fact volume is the factor only. 99% (I am getting tired of doing so btw) the difference is there other than volume output. When I match the lossy db to the lossless track, I usually hear slight distortion mainly coming from the center channel. Surrounds are not mixed as well either when matched. What happens most of the time is the lossy track will distort the center & dilaog gets muted by the surrounds when they become very active. The mix is usually uneven when matched head to head.

Lossy vs. Lossy

I don't buy that dts is always the better option. I've heard 640kbps Dolby tracks which sound better (By that, I mean vocals, acoustics, bass, surrounds) than 1.5mbps tracks on a few releases. Very few though. I have found more to be a wash in comparison, or slightly better with the dts track. I suggest people who have titles that offer both, don't assume the dts is always the better option.. you may be surprised.

Lossless vs. Lossless

I have only heard a few tracks now (on the same disc) that offer both TrueHD & LPCM. 1 title was a wash, the other title wasn't. Stomp The Yard... A true apples to apples comparison. After testing the crap out of this disc for 30+ minutes trying to distinguish wether or not there is an audible difference at all, I found one. The Dolby TrueHD track has the Acoustic level tweaked more than the LPCM which makes trebile sound more dynamic & speech slightly more crisp without distortion. I doubt future releases will have a noticeable difference over 1 over the other. Doesn't mean I will stop continuing to check thou.

One title certainly has me scratching my head over.. The Chris Botti concert for BD. It includes a 640kbps lossy Dolby track & (thanks to the PS3) a 13.8mbps lossless track. Almost in every area of the concert, the Dolby track is not only louder, but dynamically blows away the lossless track without distortion. I checked the disc out numerous times during the concert flipping back & fourth between Lossy & Lossless & everytime I switched to the Dolby track subtle sounds from the band & audience sounded clearer & mixed louder through the surrounds. I went into the menu a few times while switching to be sure. So that is the first Lossy track I have heard that bests its Lossless counterpart.

Bottom line is, I feel Lossless sound should have been a mandatory audio choice like DD+ from the get-go. Only once have I heard a lossy track sound better. Should add that Lossless is better than Lossy because you never hear a ping-pong effect through your surrounds. If an effect in the film/mix requires the surrounds to become active, the audio outputs to each channel in a seamless fashion. "Constantine" has many great examples of this.