"...Is it really that difficult to admit having made an error? "
If your worldview is shaped by dogma, metaphysics and 'belief systems', its absolutely impossible.
The only thing you can do it keep digging . . .
Huh?
Isn't music metaphysical, and art too? Doesn't what you say also apply to those who have a worldview that is entirely governed by "philosophical materialism" - or is this just one side throwing mud at the other - and for what reason? Anybody can make a error and admit it, and then as you say "keep digging." You make it sound like you are the only one?
In sighted testing, I can tell FLAC from 320k lossy MP3 100/100. Jakob(x) said such results cannot be discarded, so there, mine is longer
Oh Mark, Mark, Mark. You're writing this as if it had irrefutable proof, which would be news for a number of us.
Oh Mark, Mark, Mark. You're writing this as if it had irrefutable proof, which would be news for a number of us.
Not all all. I gave a plain as day 'IMHO' disclaimer.
Lucky for me the dispensator has very good hearing, I guess.
Bill, I would not describe it that way. But, I think over time it will become clear to many people that AKM made an advance over ESS. They may have felt that they had to, since Sabre chips have done very well in terms of inclusion in many products.
I am sure you can clearly hear the difference to 16/44 in any non ABX sighted test.
Yes HSS produced ultrasonic speaker that relies on air non-linear properties at boundary surface.
Development of Parametric Loudspeaker
Dan.
Yes.
Shame to the three posters for their associated comments.
You are joking, right ?.
Dan.
I don't understand this is ancient news, I helped out the Audio Spotlight guy a little years ago.
Ok, under what conditions do you not differentiate "SOTA FLAC digital recording and it's 192k MP3 lossy conversion" ?.
Dan.
I think it was under listening conditions, but now that you asked I’m no longer so sure.
The trick to ABX listening, is knowing what to expect. This is why ABX is difficult (especially with those designed to show null result). But IF ABX is designed to prove audibility of things, we could prepare the test file to ensure success.
MP3 encoding standard is quite flexible. The idea is to efficiently and effectively use the limited bits to store music data that will result in most 'accurate' music reproduction possible. The replay of the MP3 then should utilize decoding software that is able to precisely understand how it has been encoded (i think programming mistake is possible, especially to cater for uncommon encoding scheme).
Assuming that there is no gross imperfection in decoding, and a known encoding, we could expect to have gross noise floor (DNR) and harmonics, especially around 16kHz. So we must prepare (if it is designed to prove audibility) a music that will highlight the compromises.
I think you would be able to hear differences if these 3 conditions are fulfilled: (1) There is loud music signal around 18kHz (2) You have tweeter that is flat to 30kHz (3) You can hear 20 kHz. But of course, in your case, part 3 is hardly fulfilled so may be we can focus on showing the audibility of noise around 15kHz. BTW, why did you design a high spec amplifiers if such a 'gross' noise is inaudible?
Wait, i was thinking about CD vs MP3. I think FLAC has some similarity with MP3, especially around 16kHz? But the idea is we have to expose where it differs.
Last edited:
BTW, why did you design a high spec amplifiers if such a 'gross' noise is inaudible?
Easy question, because I can and it’s my hobby.
As of hearing, I can’t hear a damn thing over 14KHz, disregarding the volume setting. My friends in the same age group are around 12-13KHz, while our former teenagers now in their early 30’s never gave a flying **** about sound quality.
This is funny my daughter made me real buttermilk biscuits for father's day. I love masterchef UK.
FLAC is lossless only an idiot would claim otherwise.
From Wikipedia:
Idiot was formerly a legal and psychiatric category of profound intellectual disability in which a person's mental age is two years or less, and he or she cannot guard against common dangers. Along with terms like moron, imbecile, and cretin, the term is now archaic and offensive,[1] and was replaced by the term "profound mental retardation" (which has itself since been replaced by other terms).[2]
From Google:
id·i·ot
noun
INFORMAL
a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, a*s, halfwit, nincompoop, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod; More
ARCHAIC
a person of low intelligence.
Please don't break forum rules just because you see other's bad examples.
Last edited:
May be it's AAC I was thinking
Yes, he left out the question mark i used in the statement to make me look bad
A claim of a lossy vs non-lossy codec being the same would require some cognitive defect my apologies if idiocracy was too extreme.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.