Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes, you are definitely conflating dynamic range compression (dynamics) and data compression (codecs). These are very different, completely unrelated issues that unfortunately bear the same linguistic shorthand of "compression".

In the way they are commonly used, lossy compression codecs have zero impact on dynamics. Correctly used, lossy compression can have zero audible consequence no matter how good the equipment or how "golden" the ears.

That said, a recording studio shouldn't ever be dealing with lossy codecs, because there's simply no need to, and because there's a sliver of possibility that the inaudible lossy artefacts could compound into an audible artefact over multiple generations.

The only time a lossy codec should ever be used is by distribution networks and/or end users.



> Correctly used, lossy compression can have zero audible consequence no matter how good the equipment or how "golden" the ears.

That's why the compression should be done by me or by the original producer to have it done correctly case by case. Lossless is a good compromise it being easier to apply automatically for any kind of music.


Correctly used just means not using stupid settings like 96 kbps MP3. Apple's standard of 256 kbps AAC is correct in all cases.


For some definitions of "all" I agree. i.e. for Hifi quality Stereo Music to end users where file size and bandwidth are not so important, yes fine, but in situations where space or bandwidth are limited / expensive, AAC can achieve transparency at well below 256kbps with most music, to most people, in which case it would often be overkill --especially for Audio Books, lectures, plays or other mainly speech content... conversely for 5.1 or greater multi-channel audio it's often insufficient.


Sure, I was just talking about stereo music where audio quality is high priority.

For streaming audio, the ideal setting might be different depending on the commercial priorities of the service.

For audiobooks, convenient file sizes will probably be higher priority than maximal compression transparency.

For multichannel audio, you would need to progressively increase the bitrate on a per channel basis.


Yes of course, sorry -- I was kind of in 'reddit mode' and being particularly pedantic about "all cases".

Agree with all your other points, and glad to see others that grok it.


But this still doesn't solve the original issue: if I buy music, it should be me who packs the files if I need to lose some information and I should own the original copies lossless. And as I also said, bandwidth and storage space are super cheap nowadays, so I really don't see so many reasons to use lossy codecs.


If you "buy" music to "own" you are downloading a file, not streaming it live through a web browser which is the topic of this HN discussion.


I store my music to cloud and stream it from there. So yes, I stream flacs anyways :)


They don't have to be conflating those things. For example are you sure Youtube doesn't apply dynamic processing to uploaded files? I wouldn't be surprised if there is some sound processing performed to help make the average phone video sound better.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: