this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
697 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3376 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kirklennon@kbin.social -2 points 8 months ago (40 children)

No it's not. The iTunes Music Store is available in the majority of countries in the world. Plus there are other services that cover some of the other countries. Vanishingly few people can choose only a CD.

[–] Link@rentadrunk.org 0 points 8 months ago (18 children)

The music on iTunes is compressed and doesn’t sound as good as a CD does.

Not to mention they can revoke your access to your music on iTunes. No one can take away your CD unless they break into your house!

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 15 points 8 months ago (13 children)

Even a human with very good hearing and knowledge of how a song is supposed to sound cannot tell the difference between CD quality audio and 256k AAC like iTunes uses.

Don't believe all the nonsense audiophiles keep spewing out. Human ears suck. If we hadn't had our giant brains to compensate, we'd be practically deaf.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

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

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 5 points 8 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).

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

this track

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 2 points 8 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.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Sunn O))) should move the mics away from the amps so the sound is cleaner

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)