CDs Not Lossy?

Honest question that has been in my head quite a bit lately.

If they're often nowadays coming from higher resolution masters, why do we continue referring to CDs as lossless and not lossy?

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

(PS - This is not an invitation to indulge in a battle over formats. Please, no vinyl vs. CD vs. high resolution fights here...)

 

Honest question that has been in my head quite a bit lately.

Are you Lester Bangs?

 

Ha!

Nope, he is dead, and though I'm a little sick at the moment, I'm still here...

(He, alas, was also a far better writer than I...)

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

Because you’re using the term incorrectly.

Lossless and lossy are terms of compression and a CD uses neither.

 

The article on lossless says lossless formats allow

Is that true for CDs made from a high resolution master? I am under the impression it is not.

Or are you saying that a process other than compression creates the less-than-perfect reconstruction so it doesn't count?

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

I find it hilarious that people on here freak out about lossy formats but have no problem with CDs that have worse sound than hi-res files.

 

Now you have me wondering....
I know that when I digitize albums (the vinyl variety) I rip them in real time 32 floating bit/96kHz and as I process and clean the resulting sound, I downsample the audio to 24-bit/96khz for digital playback, or all the way down to 16-bit/44.1Hz for ripping to CDr for audio playback on a CD player.

 

Kind of a general statement, isn't it? They don't always sound worse. If fact, some sound definitely better.

 

You're missing the point that GreenDrazi brought up -- redbook CD's have no compression at all within the format. So the terms "lossless" and "lossy" simply do not apply to CD's.

Whether or not the CD is mastered a certain way has nothing to do with data compression (or lack thereof) or a certain format. It's two completely separate things.

 

So all digital formats are lossy, if original master is analog?

 

Correct answer. (And "compression" is meant as data compression, of course).

 

Well of course, but I'm stating theoretically.

 

Redbooks. One thing imo is that they may not be as popular, but they are not lousy.

 

All digital formats are lossy in that they are not a 1:1 representation of natural sound. But neither is any analog format, including an analog master tape.

 

Even analog copies are 'lossy' because the copy doesn't contain the same signal as the source (additional hiss, small portions of distortion etc.).
BTW, I think the correct term is 'transparent', when a copy is not distinguishable from the original.

 

However, if we rip a CD track to our computer hard drive using FLAC or Apple Lossless, we use data compression to create a "lossless" file, right?

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

Right. Not a single bit of data representing the music is being removed in this process, but the data is stored in a somehow “shorthand” way.

 

Why change or blur definitions?

Lossy and lossless only refers to the compression used, not to the resolution.

 

I think the question is more theoretical. I mean, technically, when a 24/96 file is downsampled to 16/44.1, it has "lost" part of the original data in a similar way that a 16/44.1 wav / aiff file would get further downsampled to make a "lossy" eMPty3 - I mean mp3 file. I know that's not how we're defining "lossy" and "lossless" right now, but in the eyes of the future that definition might change when the lowly CD isn't considered a baseline anymore...

 

Thank you. We need to nip this in the bud.

 

A 16/44 MP3 is not "downsampled" from CD. It uses the same sampling rate and bit depth. Lossy compression is applied. It's a different, much more complex algorithm, with different effects on the sound.

If we just stick to the old, correct definitions, there is no confusion as to the nature of the files.

 

That is a misunderstanding of what the terms "lossy" and "lossless" mean. The terms refer to the effects of compression schemes (does the compression algorithm remove signal data it considers "less significant", or does it reduce file size some other way?), and CDs DO NOT USE COMPRESSION.

The fact that some CDs are "down-sampled" from from higher resolution digital files does not mean that any compression (data compression, that is -- not to be confused with dynamic range compression) has been applied. And it is only when data compression is applied that terms like "lossy" and "lossless" become relevant.

It stuns me that these very obvious distinctions should be so unclear to people on an "audiophile" forum. This is green marker stuff, people.

 

Yes but that is different than the original question you posed and has been correctly answered by a couple of people.

 

...and that was my follow-up question.

I try to use language precisely, and recently I've been wondering if my practice of calling CDs lossless was representing what I truly meant or was just a habit I picked up on the Internet.

I formerly worked in an IT department, and since as best I can tell, that is where these data-oriented terms derive, the way I used these terms started to trouble me a bit. If I have a file compressed losslessly, when I uncompressed the data, I don't just get a "transparent" copy that is hard to distinguish from the original, I get a bit-perfect replica. Realizing that, I wondered why I am calling CDs lossless when many are made from higher resolution sources and are not perfect copies at all.

I'm certainly not slamming CDs; I enjoy them greatly and still buy too many (usually to rip to various players), I just wish to tidy up my usage.

As for somebody else's comment about "nipping this in the bud," I am mystified. Nobody's charging the palace here. These are honest questions and wonderings, something this board allows last I checked.

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

To me the "nipping it in the bud" comment refers to the dissemination of misinformation