[jegreenwood]

Hyperbole is not a sin, it is a flourish of the impassioned. It is born of emotion, and emotions are good because they reveal passion and true conviction. Those who want to approach every topic with a detached, nuanced, dry and boring academic style do so because they are useless, Apollonian degenerates incapable of imparting any real influence on anything, their minds muddled with a thousand conflicted thoughts.

And they feel this when comparing AAC+ with mp3? See my original post. And frankly, those in technical circles should know better. It doesn’t have any meaning. Even something like “magnitudes better” is potentially more accurate e.g. in measuring processing speed.

 

[progmatist]

And they feel this when comparing AAC+ with mp3? See my original post. And frankly, those in technical circles should know better. It doesn’t have any meaning. Even something like “magnitudes better” is potentially more accurate e.g. in measuring processing speed.

To answer your question: MP3 is derived from Mpeg-1 video. Which is roughly VHS quality. AAC+ is derived from Mpeg-4, capable of compressing 1080p Hi-Def video to the same filesize as, or smaller than DVD/Mpeg-2 video. And it still looks much better than DVD video. In terms of technical advancement, AAC+ is in fact far more advanced than MP3. Would you prefer I spelled it out the way I just did, or would you rather read vernacular summarizing it's far more advanced? And BTW "light years ahead" does in fact refer to distance traveled, not time elapsed. The rate of technological advancement is exponential, making it effectively incalculable purely on a time scale.

As for processor speed, the difference between a Core 2 Duo, and 11 Generation i7 is in a completely different universe from the difference between the 8088 of the original IBM PC, and the 80386DX33 when Microsoft Windows became a thing. "Magnitude" would itself be woefully inadequate describing the difference between just those 2 scales. Never mind comparing the actual speeds.

 

[Becca]

I often threaten to bring the "very wrath of God Himself" down upon people...

this, despite the fact that right now, I would give you a hundred - no, make that a thousand - bucks cash -if you could tell me where I left the fecking keys to my car...

They are undoubtedly in the last place you look (you can send the cash via FedEx please)

 

[Merl]

We've only just got over the Superbowl. I don't think any of us could bear another, big hand-egg game of any proportion. Is Dan Marino still playing, btw?

 

[Ludwig Schon]

With the exception of basketball, which was invented by a Canadian, Yankee sports are as revolting as their Hersey chocolate bars… Urgh… 🤢🤮

 

[jegreenwood]

To answer your question: MP3 is derived from Mpeg-1 video. Which is roughly VHS quality. AAC+ is derived from Mpeg-4, capable of compressing 1080p Hi-Def video to the same filesize as, or smaller than DVD/Mpeg-2 video. And it still looks much better than DVD video. In terms of technical advancement, AAC+ is in fact far more advanced than MP3. Would you prefer I spelled it out the way I just did, or would you rather read vernacular summarizing it's far more advanced? And BTW "light years ahead" does in fact refer to distance traveled, not time elapsed. The rate of technological advancement is exponential, making it effectively incalculable purely on a time scale.

As for processor speed, the difference between a Core 2 Duo, and 11 Generation i7 is in a completely different universe from the difference between the 8088 of the original IBM PC, and the 80386DX33 when Microsoft Windows became a thing. "Magnitude" would itself be woefully inadequate describing the difference between just those 2 scales. Never mind comparing the actual speeds.

Far more advanced is more accurate, although in my user experience that is not the case. And of course we - actually you, although I omitted your name from my original post - were comparing audio in the thread that I referenced.

I know what light years means. Magnitudes can involve any type of measurement, for example compression ratios (if one were 100 times more efficient than the other). But what in the world does light years (about 6 trillion miles multiplied by the number of years) have to do with compression algorithms?

Couch is is correct that hyperbole has a place in communication - I noted an instance where I used it.
But for the most part, it is better used in communicating subjective feelings, responses, etc.

Edit - do you consider lossless formats light years better than lossy formats? And what about hi-res? Now we’re getting into some serious numbers!

Edit - I probably should have used orders of magnitude instead of simply magnitudes.

 

[progmatist]

Far more advanced is more accurate, although in my user experience that is not the case. And of course we - actually you, although I omitted your name from my original post - were comparing audio in the thread that I referenced.

I know what light years means. Magnitudes can involve any type of measurement, for example compression ratios (if one were 100 times more efficient than the other). But what in the world does light years (about 6 trillion miles multiplied by the number of years) have to do with compression algorithms?

Couch is is correct that hyperbole has a place in communication - I noted an instance where I used it.
But for the most part, it is better used in communicating subjective feelings, responses, etc.

Edit - do you consider lossless formats light years better than lossy formats? And what about hi-res? Now we’re getting into some serious numbers!

This very forum is loaded with classical colloquial. "Atonal" for example. If read literally, and echoing Schoenberg's objection to the term, atonal music is utterly devoid of any musical tones whatsoever. An atonal piano sonata would be literally described as an a cappella piano sonata. If we're going to purge this forum of all non-literal language, we have our work cut out for us.

Considering the 16/44.1 format was established in the late 70s, early 80s, a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, Hi-Res absolutely surpasses CD quality by leaps and bounds. Oops, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to use non-literal language.

You may not have named me, but it's no mystery to whom you were referring.

 

[Monsalvat]

This very forum is loaded with classical anachronisms. "Atonal" for example. If read literally, and echoing Schoenberg's objection to the term, atonal music is utterly devoid of any musical tones whatsoever. An atonal piano sonata would be literally described as an a cappella piano sonata. If we're going to purge this forum of all non-literal language, we have our work cut out for us.

Considering the 16/44.1 format was established in the late 70s, early 80s, a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, Hi-Res absolutely surpasses CD quality by leaps and bounds. Oops, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to use non-literal language.

You may not have named me, but it's no mystery to whom you were referring.

Something like 24/96 audio literally contains more information than a 16/44.1 CD-quality file, but my understanding is that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from anything higher by human ears. I've never done one of those blind ABX tests or anything but if 44.1 kHz audio can accurately encode sound up to 22 kHz per the Nyquist sampling theorem, that's already just above most people's threshold of hearing anyway, so why even bother with 24/96 unless you're an archivist? So I don't disagree that 16/44.1 contains less information than 24/96 but I'm not sure that it matters if it doesn't affect the listening experience.

 

[progmatist]

Something like 24/96 audio literally contains more information than a 16/44.1 CD-quality file, but my understanding is that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from anything higher by human ears. I've never done one of those blind ABX tests or anything but if 44.1 kHz audio can accurately encode sound up to 22 kHz per the Nyquist sampling theorem, that's already just above most people's threshold of hearing anyway, so why even bother with 24/96 unless you're an archivist? So I don't disagree that 16/44.1 contains less information than 24/96 but I'm not sure that it matters if it doesn't affect the listening experience.

Those double blind studies are "proving" a negative. And it's true most people can't hear any sound improvement. In the same way, and for the same reason most can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people would never qualify as a naval Sonar Technician. Because they can't hear the subtle differences between the various tones. Before investing a single dollar training new Sonar Techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing. To ensure they can in fact hear the subtleties. One of my own A School classmates was originally slated to be a Sonar Tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained as an Avionics Tech. One of my uncles BTW was a Sonar Tech in the Navy. I have a family history of being able to hear subtleties most people can't.

 

[jegreenwood]

This very forum is loaded with classical colloquial. "Atonal" for example. If read literally, and echoing Schoenberg's objection to the term, atonal music is utterly devoid of any musical tones whatsoever. An atonal piano sonata would be literally described as an a cappella piano sonata. If we're going to purge this forum of all non-literal language, we have our work cut out for us.

Considering the 16/44.1 format was established in the late 70s, early 80s, a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, Hi-Res absolutely surpasses CD quality by leaps and bounds. Oops, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to use non-literal language.

You may not have named me, but it's no mystery to whom you were referring.

I didn't mention you, because your post was simply a trigger for me to respond to a general problem. And I can't see what how "atonal," a term of art meaning the absence of tonality (i.e. key), has the slightest relation to hyperbole. In any event, I am not complaining about all metaphors, just the ones that strike me as ridiculous.

 

[Philidor]

Something like 24/96 audio literally contains more information than a 16/44.1 CD-quality file, but my understanding is that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from anything higher by human ears. I've never done one of those blind ABX tests or anything but if 44.1 kHz audio can accurately encode sound up to 22 kHz per the Nyquist sampling theorem, that's already just above most people's threshold of hearing anyway, so why even bother with 24/96 unless you're an archivist?

The point is that with HiRes recordings, you often get another mix of the original tracks. With CD quality you mostly get a mix which sounds good on budget equipment. With HiRes recording you often get a mix which unfolds its qualities on high quality equipment.

I tested it - no double test and not blind, difficult enough to get same volume - and I found more "music" in those HiRes mixes, the sound left the speakers in a better way, detached of the source.

 

[progmatist]

The point is that with HiRes recordings, you often get another mix of the original tracks. With CD quality you mostly get a mix which sounds good on budget equipment. With HiRes recording you often get a mix which unfolds its qualities on high quality equipment.

I tested it - no double test and not blind, difficult enough to get same volume - and I found more "music" in those HiRes mixes, the sound left the speakers in a better way, detached of the source.

Hi-Res sound quality is NOT about frequency. The fact Hi-Res is "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. The vastly improved sound quality of faster moving tape also has nothing to do with its ultrasonic capability.

The waveforms of every instrument and effect are non-contiguous when mixed together. It's impossible for a complete, uninterrupted lead guitar waveform to coexist with a complete, uninterrupted bass (guitar) waveform. No 2 objects can occupy the same space. Every instrument and effect waveform is divided into segments, and those segments are inter-woven with all others sharing similar frequency ranges. Every point where all segments meet are most susceptible to digital truncation. When truncation occurs, the edges of all segments get a little fuzzy, and the lines dividing them get a little blurred. The end result is a little less audible separation between instruments and effects, and every instrument and effect becomes a little less well defined. Albeit not to the point where most people can hear it.

 

[geralmar]

When someone says "literally" when he or she means "figuratively" it's usually prelude to a hyperbole.