• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    98 months ago

    This. People assume that because it’s “compressed” it must sound flatter, less dynamic, or just vaguely worse than uncompressed audio, despite the fact that audio compression specifically uses psychoacoustic models to remove the bits of data that our human ears and brains cannot hear to begin with.

    Expectation bias is a helluva drug.

    • kingthrillgore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 months ago

      Even FLAC is compressed. Which is how I procure my music because I have the storage space.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        58 months ago

        Yup, although that doesn’t stop some weirdos out there claiming that CDs sound better than FLAC.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        58 months ago

        FLAC is compressed, but unlike lossy codecs like AAC and MP3, FLAC is fully lossless. Lossy codecs delete information the authors believe you won’t notice, lossless compression keeps all the data and just tries to fit it in a smaller space. The original recording can be perfectly reproduced (taking into account sample rate and depth).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      psychoacoustic models

      Sometimes they mess up. Actually only ever noticed it once and that was years ago CD vs. ogg vorbis at full quality level, this track. Youtube version is even worse, it seems (from memory): The guitars kicking in around 30 seconds should be harsh and noisy as fuck like nothing you’ve ever heard, they’re merely distorted on youtube.

      Then lossy codecs are a bad idea for archival reasons as you can’t recode them without incurring additive losses – each codec has a different psychoacoustic model, each deletes different stuff. Thus, FLAC definitely has a place.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Killer samples do happen, sure but vorbis at Q9? I’m highly dubious. That track in particular just sounds badly recorded to begin with. If you have that same version in FLAC i would be interested to see some ABX test results or test it myself.

        For archival purposes, though, I agree FLAC is the way to go.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Killer samples do happen, sure but vorbis at Q9? I’m highly dubious.

          Back in 2004, when the album released, the encoder was barely past version 1.0. Though after 20 years I could misremember “full quality” as “whatever people said wouldn’t degrade quality”.

          That track in particular just sounds badly recorded to begin with.

          Heresy. Next thing you’re going to tell me is that Sunn O))) should move the mics away from the amps so the sound is cleaner. Granted, though, Sunn O))) does that live, blackmail live is quite different because they can’t layer a gazillion tracks for the mix. But yes the deliberateness of just how much noise is in those guitars doesn’t get conveyed after getting mangled by ten year old youtube compression.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            Lol, I’m not saying that brickwalling the mix to achieve a certain effect isn’t a thing, but at the extreme levels of compression and clipping apparent on that track, it’s unlikely that a FLAC would sound even remotely different. Apparently the band agreed - in 2020 they issued a remaster which seems noticeably less crushed:

            Dynamic range comparison screenshot

            Incidentally, I saw Sunn O))) live once. I can still feel my bowels shake.