Originally Posted by Pistachio
Yeah, that's the thing, you THINK you hear a difference. I am telling you that you don't ACTUALLY hear one.
Well, that's a hell of an assertion.
|I have been involved with audiophoolery for a very long time now, I have read these forums since 2004,
And you've only posted sixty-two times
? I gotta admire that, actually...kinda zen, almost.
|This isn't even contentious. The figure isn't even close to 50%. It isn't too far from 99% of people can't tell. The 1% that have trained themselves to hear the difference can only do so on very very specific types of music. Close to 100% of people can tell the difference on "killer samples" but these are extremely rare, with only a small group of such samples being known.
I'm a bit curious...what sort of equipment are you assuming these people are using? I mean, I definitely couldn't tell the difference on an iPod with stock buds, but if you gave me an O2 with a Blue Hawaii and a world-class DAC, I'd probably at least have a shot. I'm guessing that these figures aren't based on those extremes, but it's pretty indisputable that different equipment can be more or less forgiving of such things.
I think we can all agree, however, that FLAC is indisputably more portable/transcodable than 320, not that
much bigger, and generally superior for collection/archival purposes. So, perhaps it doesn't have immediate auditory payoff, but with hard drives expanding I'd say that at least 16/48 FLAC has enough going for it that debating the auditory difference has become mostly academic.
Oh, and 192 to 320? Incredibly audible
...can't listen to my old eMusic MP3s anymore except on the go.