No lossless sound for Xbox 360 Elite system

[roushimsx]

But when you compress sound, you will always lose some quality. I wonder if its possible to have the exact same quality as the original source if you covert it to some other format, eventho its the same bitrate. I heard that you lose some quality when you convert.

Unless you use lossless compression! I encode everything to FLAC when I rip CDs because it takes less space than WAV or BIN/CUE and it's easy to transcode to any other format without an additional stage of loss that you'd get if you ripped to OGG/MP3/MPC/AAC/WMA (because it seems like every damn player has a different native format ).

That said, Level 10 OGG or a high bitrate AAC is more than adequate for 99.99999% of the people out there (hell, on pretty much anything under a grand or so, you can get away with Level 6 or 7 OGG and never know the difference unless someone tells you) and that extremely rare person that really can tell the difference between between an extremely high bitrate (and properly encoded!) OGG/MP3/MPC/AAC most likely wouldn't be caught dead owning a low end, common man's platform like the Xbox360. Maybe a classic PS1 for audio CDs, but it could only be the most pristine PS1 that's resting on vibration dampeners and modified to support their modular home theater controller. Audiophiles are funny like that.

People that argue about how much lossy compression sucks are typically the people that have negative memories of 96kbps BladeMP3-encoded tracks that they snagged off of Napster back in the 90s. AAC is an amazing compression scheme (as are the other modern lossy compression schemes, for that matter). Mourning the lack of lossless in the Xbox360 is like mourning the lack of hardcore, overly detailed Derek Smart-style space sims on the PS2: Wrong audience, man.

[jajaja]

Unless you use lossless compression!

Well.. if its lossless compression there is no compression hehe (i know you can achive the same bitrate in movies with compression tho, dunno how it is with sound). But i know what you mean, converting to another format. Afaik audio CD got a bitrate on about 1411kbps. I dont know if even MP3 supports that high bitrate. Checked my version of RazorLAME (mp3 encoder) and i can only set it to 320kbps. I dont know about OGG and AAC etc. If its possible to have 1411kbps bitrate on those formats, wont they take just as much space as the .wav file, or almost as much?

[rbudrick]

[owned]That said, Level 10 OGG or a high bitrate AAC is more than adequate for 99.99999% of the people out there (hell, on pretty much anything under a grand or so, you can get away with Level 6 or 7 OGG and never know the difference unless someone tells you) and that extremely rare person that really can tell the difference between between an extremely high bitrate (and properly encoded!) OGG/MP3/MPC/AAC most likely wouldn't be caught dead owning a low end, common man's platform like the Xbox360[/owned]

Well.. if its lossless compression there is no compression

No, that's not true. There ways to compress data while suffering no loss...it usually will atake up more space, than lossy methods, though. Take a zip file, for instance.

-Rob

[jajaja]

No, that's not true. There ways to compress data while suffering no loss...it usually will atake up more space, than lossy methods, though. Take a zip file, for instance.

-Rob

Winzip (and simular packing programs) is a different type of compression. If you have a file thats originally 1MB and you manage to compress it down to 0.5MB you cannot access the file without having 1MB free RAM or HDD space. It decompress the file(s) first before it access it. This kinda compression is for storage only.

When you compress an audio file to i.e MP3, lets say 4MB, that will be the size it uses to play also. It doesnt decompress the file into 50MB (if that was the source file) before playing it. To be honest i have no idea if its possible to maintain 1:1 quality when converting to another format. I guess it depends on the bitrate. If someone know more about this, then speak

[njiska]

Winzip (and simular packing programs) is a different type of compression. If you have a file thats originally 1MB and you manage to compress it down to 0.5MB you cannot access the file without having 1MB free RAM or HDD space. It decompress the file(s) first before it access it. This kinda compression is for storage only.

When you compress an audio file to i.e MP3, lets say 4MB, that will be the size it uses to play also. It doesnt decompress the file into 50MB (if that was the source file) before playing it. To be honest i have no idea if its possible to maintain 1:1 quality when converting to another format. I guess it depends on the bitrate. If someone know more about this, then speak

That's not true at all. The difference is that an MP3 decodes on the fly. The data is decompressed into a buffer rather then on to the HDD such as with a zip. I suggest you read up on FLAC. it's a lossless audio codec. Or MLP Meridian Lossless Packing. It's all about the math used. Lossless codecs compress based on math. Lossey compress by math and by cuting audio outside of a certain spectrum.

[skaar]

I'm very happy with my component output and optical 5 channel audio. Life's good for me.

Screw HDMI.

[jajaja]

That's not true at all. The difference is that an MP3 decodes on the fly. The data is decompressed into a buffer rather then on to the HDD such as with a zip. I suggest you read up on FLAC. it's a lossless audio codec. Or MLP Meridian Lossless Packing. It's all about the math used. Lossless codecs compress based on math. Lossey compress by math and by cuting audio outside of a certain spectrum.

My point was alittle unclear. What i ment was that MP3 doesnt decompress the music like Winzip, if source was 50MB you dont need 50MB free HDD or RAM to play it. When i play a VBR (variable bitrate) MP3 in Winamp it only uses 500KB of RAM. The file still stays 4MB. Ye, all computer stuff is basicly based on math. But tnx for the info on FLAC. Thats what i asked for, if it was possible to maintain a 1:1 ration of quality and compress it. Seems like FLAC does it

[roushimsx]

Thats what i asked for, if it was possible to maintain a 1:1 ration of quality and compress it. Seems like FLAC does it

And there's a hell of a lot more for you to play around with and find which one suits you best

[jajaja]

Tnx for the info Not something i need to do myself now tho, but its always nice to sit on some info about it just in case i need it or need to help others How much is this used in games? Anyone know that? Resistance for PS3 is suppose to have uncompressed audio.

Btw, that was suppose to be 1:1 ratio, not ration hehe. Dunno why i put a "n" at the end there.

[njiska]

Tnx for the info Not something i need to do myself now tho, but its always nice to sit on some info about it just in case i need it or need to help others How much is this used in games? Anyone know that? Resistance for PS3 is suppose to have uncompressed audio.

Btw, that was suppose to be 1:1 ratio, not ration hehe. Dunno why i put a "n" at the end there.

I don't know about Resistence having uncompressed audio, but i do know lossless is over rated. I've taken 96/24 lossless and made 44.1/24 DTS from it. They sound identical to my ears. Even 48/16 DD sounds pretty much the same.

The only differences i noticed while playing around reencoding audio is that you have to be careful about your codec's settings. DTS for example adds bass gain to the file and DD under powers the rear channels and raises the center +3 db.

Graned these are not codec's you'll be using for ripping CDs, but it's just something to watch for. Personally FLAC worked the best out of all my tests and i was able to keep it 96/24.

[Captain Wrong]

FLAC is lossless, FYI.

[jajaja]

Dont know if Resistance uses losless sound, but i mean i've heard it somewhere, hence the ~17GB size of the game.

[njiska]

FLAC is lossless, FYI.

I suggest you read up on FLAC. it's a lossless audio codec.

Already stated and known and loved. I like using it for ripping my DVD-As because it's 5.1 96/24 and lossless. But that being said the lossey DTS and DD codec's work just as well. Though i prefer to maintain the resolution of 24-bit if i can.

[Nature Boy]

Seems sad to me that we can get excited about spending tonnes of dough on something so that we no longer *lose,* when some of us weren't even aware we were losing it in the first place.

I haven't bought a big HD TV yet because they haven't perfected that technology yet either. Guess I'll wait for lossless sound to be perfected now too.

[njiska]

Seems sad to me that we can get excited about spending tonnes of dough on something so that we no longer *lose,* when some of us weren't even aware we were losing it in the first place.

I haven't bought a big HD TV yet because they haven't perfected that technology yet either. Guess I'll wait for lossless sound to be perfected now too.

Lossless sound is pretty prefected. Dolby True HD is 96/24 or higher MLP wrapped in a Dolby Header. DTS Master Audio i beleive is PPCM with a DTS header and some Blu-Ray Disc just have straight LPCM which is basically raw audio.

Granted recievers that support the formats are a little rare right now, but all HD DVD players are mandated to support decoding Dolby True HD and out puting them over the 6 ch multi out. In short if you have a reciever with a multi-in (most do) you can have proper 6 channel Lossless audio. the only exception is the Xbox 360 which doesn't have 6 CH out.

Oh hey while we're bitching about the next gen of AV, did anyone catch that no current BD player including the PS3 meets the final ratified Blu-Ray spec? What's worse is they don't meet the Hardware requirements. it doesn't mean they're obsolete, but it does mean they won't support all the features of the final BD spec or all of the Blu-Ray java stuff. Thanks for rushing to market before the spec was finallized.

[heybtbm]

Oh hey while we're bitching about the next gen of AV, did anyone catch that no current BD player including the PS3 meets the final ratified Blu-Ray spec? What's worse is they don't meet the Hardware requirements. it doesn't mean they're obsolete, but it does mean they won't support all the features of the final BD spec or all of the Blu-Ray java stuff. Thanks for rushing to market before the spec was finallized.

Hardware requirements? That would really suck. I thought these issues could be fixed via future software patches.

[jajaja]

Oh hey while we're bitching about the next gen of AV, did anyone catch that no current BD player including the PS3 meets the final ratified Blu-Ray spec? What's worse is they don't meet the Hardware requirements. it doesn't mean they're obsolete, but it does mean they won't support all the features of the final BD spec or all of the Blu-Ray java stuff. Thanks for rushing to market before the spec was finallized.

Source to this? You mean the Java APIs?

[njiska]

Source to this? You mean the Java APIs?

I can't find the link as i'm at work right now. here's and AVS thread about it. i can't read it myself.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498172

The wiki is also updated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Ray...vember_2007.29

And some more

http://www.gamerawr.com/2007/03/27/c...te-by-october/

[Anthony1]

I've only heard lossless sound once at a high end audio/video shop. They had the Blu Ray version of Black Hawk Down, and they switched back and forth between the LPCM version and the regular Dolby Digital 5.1 version, and the difference wasn't exactly night and day, but man... with some really good speakers, the LPCM just sent chills down your spine. Again, the speakers and receiver that you have are a huge, huge factor. If you have cheapo Wal-Mart speakers, you won't notice much of any improvement with lossless sound, but if you have some pretty high quality speakers, then the difference is pretty damn enjoyable.

The guys at Factor 5 who are making Lair, are including lossless 7.1 sound (like Resistance), in their game, and they claim that the sound improvement is significant, but they also understand that very small number of people will actually be able to experience it the way it's meant to.

[njiska]

I've only heard lossless sound once at a high end audio/video shop. They had the Blu Ray version of Black Hawk Down, and they switched back and forth between the LPCM version and the regular Dolby Digital 5.1 version, and the difference wasn't exactly night and day, but man... with some really good speakers, the LPCM just sent chills down your spine. Again, the speakers and receiver that you have are a huge, huge factor. If you have cheapo Wal-Mart speakers, you won't notice much of any improvement with lossless sound, but if you have some pretty high quality speakers, then the difference is pretty damn enjoyable.

The guys at Factor 5 who are making Lair, are including lossless 7.1 sound (like Resistance), in their game, and they claim that the sound improvement is significant, but they also understand that very small number of people will actually be able to experience it the way it's meant to.

Keep in mind human psycology makes use hear things differently and keep in mind what i said earlier about Dolby as a codec. If you've ever done Dolby encoding you'll know that it's not quite as simple as just pumping the file into an encoder. It's quite complicated.

I'm still not convinced that most of the differences heard between the difference audio tracks is in the mixes, not the raw codec.