Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 17

post #241 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeuristic View Post

Do you even know what the word flame means?
Pointing out flaws in your logic is not flaming.

He was pointing out that you shifted the burden of proof to us, the skeptics (which in itself was a fallacious maneuver, since you're making the claims that you can discern a difference) and when your burden of proof was actually met, you ignored the issue, moved the goalposts, and attempted to exit the discussion.

Then, rather than admit to your failing logic, you descended into tu quoque. Cool.
Nah. He called me ignorant for not agreeing with him. You guys retorted that you could not hear any difference. That's about it. But getting flamed on the SS forum is nothing new. I didn't flame or troll, just declined to agree with you.
post #242 of 516
Quote:
 Heck, CDs can't even compete with ripped CDs. 

 blink.gif

post #243 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

No flame - haven't so far in this thread - nor do I intend to ...... despite the troll-bait you've been putting out wink.gif

Think you've had enough fun yet?

You and those "perfect ears" of yours have a good New Year too.

So you have the perfect ears instead and I'm "ignorant"for disagreeing? SS guys..someone who jumps in and debates is not a troll. A large majority of the audiophile community thinks 24 bit sounds dang good.
post #244 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

 blink.gif
I agree! wink.gif
post #245 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


So you have the perfect ears instead and I'm "ignorant"for disagreeing? SS guys..someone who jumps in and debates is not a troll. A large majority of the audiophile community thinks 24 bit sounds dang good.

 

There was a time when the majority of the population believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Should we always accept the opinion of the majority, or should we test those opinions to determine their validity?

 

 

Your fallacy this time is an appeal to popularity.

post #246 of 516

Also, if you stopped playing the victim for ten minutes, performed a blind test, and posted the log here, you could very easily prove yourself correct, and put an end to the "flaming". Why not?

post #247 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeuristic View Post

Also, if you stopped playing the victim for ten minutes, performed a blind test, and posted the log here, you could very easily prove yourself correct, and put an end to the "flaming". Why not?
C'mon Mr H. Already posted about how horrible the 256k version of Sunken Condos sounded vs the 24 bit version. Do I need to go back and check myself on that one? Or should I goon about how badly the HD tracks 24 bit Damn The Torpedoes trashes the Mobile Fidelity CD? And I already mentioned Gaucho. Btw, the analog vinyl sounds better than any of them. Ready to go on that one?
I suggest glancing at my link from earlier and maybe considering some subjective opinions. A/b blind testing exposes the obvious but is truly subjective because the listener is focused on only the obvious. Listening over time reveals the finer things in life. Just my opinion. If I hear a click or a pop on a record, it biases any possible blind test....but the vinyl still sounds better in the long run. Same with 24 bit vs 16 bit. And vs lossy mp3.... The obvious.
Edited by jvandyk - 12/27/12 at 9:02pm
post #248 of 516
And this business of dithering 24 bit to 16 bit is nonsense. It is failed from the start. The only true comparison is to listen to a completely untouched 16 bit versus a 24 bit from the same mastering. No dithering...no resampling. And you must, in the case of the limited foobar program, change the settings on each track as it will not play bitperfect in those two modes back to back in WASAPI. A/b blind testing of 24 bit vs 16 bit is impossible in foobar without altering the source or using resampling.
Edited by jvandyk - 12/27/12 at 9:24pm
post #249 of 516

Well, if you think distortion from quantization error is better than a little bit of noise, then... maybe you can listen to both to confirm and pick out which you like better?

 

Anyway, how about 24-bit vs. 16-bit dithered, and then 24-bit vs. 16-bit undithered (rounding or truncation?  your choice I guess) in a separate test?  

post #250 of 516

Nvm - followed my own advice and stepping out of this one.


Edited by Brooko - 12/28/12 at 3:00am
post #251 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Do I need to go back and check myself on that one? ... And I already mentioned Gaucho. Btw, the analog vinyl sounds better than any of them. Ready to go on that one?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

I suggest glancing at my link from earlier and maybe considering some subjective opinions. 
 

I don't have to 'consider' your subjective opinion. I already have. I'm well aware of it. I'm absolutely positive that you believe you can hear a difference between a 16-bit and 24-bit audio file. 

 

However, until you prove otherwise, I'm going to remain of the opinion that this perceived difference is not due to any audible difference in the tracks, but is a result of your expectation that the 24-bit file will sound better (and, extending that logic to vinyl, an expectation that vinyl will sound best). From what I know about human perception and the human mind, I find it more likely that you are under a misapprehension than that there is any difference in those two digital files. 

post #252 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


So you have the perfect ears instead and I'm "ignorant"for disagreeing? SS guys..someone who jumps in and debates is not a troll. A large majority of the audiophile community thinks 24 bit sounds dang good.

 

No one has claimed to have perfect ears or that your hearing was flawed. However by misunderstanding the science behind bitrates it is fair to say that you are holding on to a level of ignorance. Sorry, in this case it's about weighing evidence according to tools prescribed by the scientific method and your anecdotal evidence neither stands up to scrutiny nor poses a serious challenge to previously established theory. FWIW I don't think you're a troll and it's rather healthy to have your assumptions challenged, I wish this wasn't a factionalist SS ghetto thing but it's easier for people to make a caricature of opposing opinions than take them as is.

 

If you'd like to learn more about why it is thought that you are wrong I can provide you with some information but it doesn't seem like you care at all. It's only once one completely closes off one's mind that they veer off into trolling.

post #253 of 516

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

 

In short: 24 bit isn't actually able to make a difference with modern hifi equipment

post #254 of 516

That's a bingo NirvWo.

post #255 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

Well, if you think distortion from quantization error is better than a little bit of noise, then... maybe you can listen to both to confirm and pick out which you like better?

 

Anyway, how about 24-bit vs. 16-bit dithered, and then 24-bit vs. 16-bit undithered (rounding or truncation?  your choice I guess) in a separate test?  

Im just curious, as most of you suggest using foobar to do blind testing. Foobar cannot play 16 bit and 24 bit back to back in a bitperfect fashion period. Everybody keeps asking me to do this, but I would assume everybody is first manipulating the 16 bit tracks first with dither/ software before their tests. And this would also require upsamling to work in foobar.

 

Sounds like a crappy test.

 

In WASAPI mode, Foobar must be set to the proper bit depth for each format before playing. And I hope the folks here are not using DS for their tests..as the 24 bit would be truncated to 16 bit automatically in foobar.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality