I know this is a polite forum, but come on. That word does seem appropriate for someone who cannot be bothered to even realize that the L in FLAC stands for lossless.
Well, before you post you could search it and find out in about 30 seconds it has more in common with ZIP than MP3 other than the payload is audio data. Your post after is correct, AAC (MP4) is lossy. Even MQA is lossy. Bluetooth SBC - lossy, AptX - lossy, AptX HD - lossy but may be lossless in some modes.
This has been beaten to death on many forums including Hydrogenaudio. I listen to lossless files on my PC because I have no storage constraints. I also like owning a lossless copy of everything. I highly doubt most of the posters in this thread could distinguish 256 kbps target VBR AAC encoded real music from the originals. Not music or test signals with abnormal high frequency content.
Last edited:
That's a common complaint amongst brainless artists, who take everything in digital domain of photography for granted, I should add. Give them a bunch of sliders and they will play with them all day long. Lightroom, CaptureOne, Photoshop (15 bits fixed point!), saturation, contrast, sharpness, clarity.. wow!.. color grading - yahoo! b&w - cool! bang, bang, bang.. dodge, burn, liquify, resize, resample, rotate, resample, resample, resample.. here comes your corpse. 😉
Some posts removed - a friendly reminder that political posts are not allowed in this Forum, not even in the Lounge.If you read well (between the lines mostly), you will understand that it is not about my correct or wrong understanding of lossy formats. Syn08 was talking about FLAC vs MP3 but my 'brain' processed it as 'CD vs MP3'. Then after I posted I again confused AAC with FLAC as if my visual accuracy (we see instead of hear a written words) is not as good as my listening accuracy.
But that's not a big deal. I didn't respond negatively to what Scott said. I thought he didn't mean no harm. And even if he did, who cares 🙂
You are absolutely correct on that. I have told you the truth about ABX. May be only 1% population can do that in ABX. But there are higher percentage (say 5%) who can perceive the difference (in long run) but will not pass an ABX.
This is how the 20+22kHz signal reproduced from 2 speakers looks like (left chan 20kHz, right chan 22kHz) at listeners position. Measured by a microphone. There are no LF intermodulations on acoustical side. And I hear exactly nothing. Also please note quite negligible distortion components at 40, 42 and 44kHz, that are more than 60dB below fundamental frequencies.
Attachments
Last edited:
Last edited:
😀 Scott is funny isn't he Bob? That's why I asked you about what you don't like with your system. We need to be able to describe this using better words than 'tingle', 'ASMR' etc. By knowing this we will know where we stand, and this is also the basic before trying to find out what technical parameters are responsible with each perceptions.
As you had your share in telling results from sighted listening and had no problems accepting the same from others (without demanding hard evidence, provided the reported results suit your belief), I simply don't understand why it should be different when the results are contrary to your beliefs.
You can't have it both ways, can you?
Do you recall the demonstration performed by Craig Stark (Stereo Review)
where he played a 22 KHz tone through one loudspeaker and 24 KHz
through another? He reported that listeners could clearly discern the
2 KHz difference tone.
Fortunately this can be easily replicated by anyone here with two
oscillators. I am tempted to do this with my TAD ribbons at 44 and 46 KHz.
Long ago, at a Tokyo audio fair, a big Japanese manufacturer (I don't recall which) did an interesting demo: they used 2 ultrasonic beams, modulated them with audio information, and aimed them at a spot, thus creating a virtual sound source there.
In a special assignment in the modern art field, non-music related, I was asked to do something similar, but I was reluctant to give the audience a free ultrasonic cleansing. Luckily, I found a different way that worked well: I used parabolic reflectors beaming the sound to the glass ceiling. The reflected sound on floor created an invisible sound line that was about 1 meter wide and 100 meters long. Inside the line, a sound could be heard; one step outside, and the sound was gone.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
In theory recording at the so-called Nyquist frequency is possible, in practice it is not, as you need some safety margin for filtering purposes. So let's say usable upper frequency limit could be around 40 Khz.
What happens in the production depends; people targeting the "Hi-rez" niché and are committed to quality will preserve the high-frequency content.
Obviously if one provides a CD at the end, most of it will be filtered out during downsampling.
I would rather say people believing in the "Hi-rez" niché. I think you know how rare is a real sound content above 21kHz in those so called Hi-rez downloads. The exceptions exist, but until you make a thorough file analysis, you never know. And the exceptions are rather in classical music than in pop music, which is almost always fake Hi-rez. I think the debate here is not between objectivits and subjectivists, but between believers and critical thinking.
Please feel free to participate in the test
Can you hear sound above 21kHz? - listening test
The test file has a real sound content above 21kHz.
Anyway, we always must be sure we do not hear driver intermodulation instead of ultrasound effect.
OK, but to me the amount of (audible) improvement left to gain would seem to be small so the advance is very incremental vs say tape to digital transition?
I know.
Your stance on the "grey" is questionable; if you don't object to the "we did not measure the electronics we used" in the M&M experiment then you can't imo declare the "intermodulation issue" to a "make or break issue" just for logical reasons.
Be honest, have you read Oohashi et al.'s publication, that i've linked, from 2000?
It was your claim that it was "crap" and it was your claim that this follows from A & K's experiments.
It does not follow from A & K's experiment - compare the experimental conditions especially wrt the "ultrasonic" levels used - _and_ the control runs done by Oohashi et al. provided contrary evidence.
So, if you claim, that it still _could_ _be_ that intermodulation effects are the reason, I'd not object (to the contrary I've said it myself that it could be)
But, if the mere possibility of an impact is sufficient for dismissal (which is imo a questionable approach to scientific efforts - there is always something possible), why don't you apply the same gamut to M & M where a plethora of "possible impacts" were obvious?
As said before, there usually exist open questions in any experiment of this kind, and so it is in case of Oohashi et al.
I don't know if you've noticed that over the years several additional experiments were done?
Please consider the context; i've responded to a post by mountainman bob and tried to answer his question. It was my impression that he was asking if the high-frequency content somehow gets lost during the production, but maybe I was mistaken.
Therefore my answer, if it is only believed that some high-frequency content is present or it is for real, wasn't imo not relevant at this point. The production process will be so that any high-frequency content will be preserved. (a honesty production approach assumed)
As it is what you _believe_ in which group does it place yourself? 🙂
Not to mention your false claim about what A & K have shown and the erroneous description of the loudspeaker used by Oohashi et al. .....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.