2016/11/13 14:23:34
Soundwise
drewfx1
If one can detect it then they can detect it. If not then they can't. In audio contexts "transparent" means the listener can't detect it - IOW, it refers to the listener's perspective, not the technical properties of the audio.

Hmmm. Sounds like "if black is black then it's black. If it's not then it's not." Well, English is not my native language and I have a hard time interpreting "transparent" as "indistinguishable". I mean, the window glass is usually as transparent as it can be, but you still can tell you are looking through the glass if you pay attention to light reflections and retractions. In other words, "transparent" in this context does not mean "impossible to detect", but rather "almost impossible to...", or "very hard to...". Peace!
 
2016/11/13 16:51:41
drewfx1
In audio discussions, especially in regard to lossy compression, it means "impossible to detect any difference":
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(data_compression)
 

In data compression and psychoacoustics, transparency is the result of lossy data compression accurate enough that the compressed result is perceptually indistinguishable from the uncompressed input. 

2016/11/13 17:12:49
Soundwise
Drew, exactly! The key words here - lossy, accurate enough, perceptually indistinguishable. Yet not impossible. That's what I'm talking about.
2016/11/13 18:18:05
drewfx1
Um, no. Perceptually indistinguishable means indistinguishable. If it's distinguishable then it's not transparent by definition. You are confusing a hypothetical with reality, i.e. making the exact mistake I mentioned earlier:
 

For some reason when it comes to audio lots of otherwise intelligent folks passionately convince themselves of stuff like, "even if I can't hear a difference, if I could hear a difference this would be better, therefore it's better".

2016/11/13 23:31:43
Sycraft
drewfx1
Um, no. Perceptually indistinguishable means indistinguishable. If it's distinguishable then it's not transparent by definition. You are confusing a hypothetical with reality, i.e. making the exact mistake I mentioned earlier:

 
And to add to that, when we are talking lossy compression, perceptual difference is the ONLY difference we care about. We know that there is a measurable difference, that's why it is lossy (it would be lossless if there was no measurable difference) it doesn't matter what that is or how much, we are interested if humans can hear a difference and if so, how much.
 
For audio, transparency isn't that hard to achieve these days. A lot of the modern formats can achieve it at a fairly low bitrate.
2016/11/14 00:18:17
jmasno5
bitflipper
BTW, you can get a free, fast command line AAC encoder here. It'll do up to 381 kb/s, CBR or VBR.
 

Soundcloud, however, does support AAC, so if that's your primary window to the world for sharing your music then AAC is a viable alternative to MP3.
 


Doesn't SoundCloud crush everything to mp3 128 regardless of the format you upload?
2016/11/14 08:23:57
Soundwise
drewfx1
Um, no. Perceptually indistinguishable means indistinguishable. If it's distinguishable then it's not transparent by definition. You are confusing a hypothetical with reality, i.e. making the exact mistake I mentioned earlier:
 

For some reason when it comes to audio lots of otherwise intelligent folks passionately convince themselves of stuff like, "even if I can't hear a difference, if I could hear a difference this would be better, therefore it's better".



1. Higher fidelity doesn't always mean better. That's why we mask level fluctuations with compression and "raw edges" with reverb. Sometimes better means small file size, at other times better is used for wider compatibility, etc.


2. Perceptional ability is not a fixed constant. "Perceptually indistinguishable means indistinguishable" only under certain conditions, the most obvious being
a) the age of the listener:
 

 
b) room treatment:

 
c) listener's gear:
 

 
Here is a measurement test:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/16-44-vs-24-192-experiment-163/
 
My point is:  if there is a measurable difference, small enough, that you can't claim to hear it or distinguish it in a blind test, you may still be able to feel in the long run, or in different circumstances. For example, we cannot see, feel, smell, hear or sense in any other way ultraviolet or X-rays. But when a person is exposed to such rays for a long while he/she will definitely start feeling it.
 
It may or may not matter. It is usually safe to ignore all these perceptual subtleties. Yet here is a real life example, showcasing the use of frequencies beyond human perception:
http://wzlx.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/paul-mccartney-on-the-beatles-dog-whistle-on-a-day-in-the-life-watch-your-dog/
 
2016/11/14 11:13:04
bitflipper
Discussions of transparency, audibility and what's "good enough" always fall apart because the gray area between clearly-audible and clearly-inaudible is vast. Within that area are elements that can only be heard under certain circumstances, only with high-quality speakers, only by those with better-than-average hearing, only when listening intently, or only heard by trained ears. 
 
Because we can't always be sure that no one else can hear what we can't hear, our strategy is to maintain the highest accuracy possible, to carefully attend to details that "probably" no one will notice, to aim for a higher quality than we think we need. It's why we mix with 32-bit data, even though what happens down in those lowest bits is almost never audible. It's why we intently listen to and correct the tiniest details that probably don't matter to the big picture.
 
Because we reflexively aim for the highest possible quality without asking ourselves how important it really is, many of those efforts are unnecessary. But I liken it to consistently using your turn signals when driving...if you do it by sheer habit, even when yours is the only car on the road, that reflex may someday save your life.
 
OTOH, a common trap for audio people is to get stuck in trivia while remaining oblivious to bigger mistakes. it's like a drunk driver making sure his oil is clean. Or obsessing over what dither algorithm to use while obliterating dynamics through over-compression.
2016/11/14 12:49:28
drewfx1
SoundwiseMy point is:  if there is a measurable difference, small enough, that you can't claim to hear it or distinguish it in a blind test, you may still be able to feel in the long run, or in different circumstances.



You claim "you may" but either you have to demonstrate that you (or someone) can or there's no reason to take your claim seriously. Claiming that you can imagine that something "may" be possible does not make it relevant in the real world. The burden is on you to demonstrate that you can "feel in the long run" a difference. Otherwise, it's just a supposition with no real world evidence to support it.
 
Oh and by the way, I can make lots of suppositions with no evidence to support them and then demand that others disprove them.
2016/11/15 13:11:01
John
I have a great deal of trouble with anything that talks about feeling. One can "feel it" is a very useless way of thinking about most anything. "I feel" is used so often when what is really meant by that is "I think". When we are talking about music I can agree we can feel bass if loud enough. Other then that what one feels is emotional poppycock! It should never be interjected into a rational discussion.  
 
 
12
© 2025 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account