[bigshot]

My friend, you are in the WRONG forum to be treating audio as a philosophy, not a science. You can parade around and make anti-intellectual statements that might get serious consideration from people who don't know better, but around here, it really won't get you very far. It just serves to make you seem like a troll.

 

[FFBookman]

   
If you consider yourself a man of science you'd agree on the importance of blind testing. And the burden of proof is on you: there are millions more who can't hear the difference between 192k mp3s and the original wav.

BS.  You really think there's millions of people that can't hear lossy?   My grandma can hear it. Everyone can hear it.  Maybe their music choice or their playback systems or their hearing deficiencies  mask it, but you are really on a forum called "head-fi" saying that there's no actual difference between an mp3 and a 16/44 ?  wow.
 
Proof you only care about horrible, lossy, degraded things. Welcome to 1996. Sure it sounds the same, sure.
 
What kind of horrible playback gear do you have to think that an MP3 is the same thing?  Geez. It's like a time machine up here. No scratch that, no one ever thought they sounded as good.
 
You know why they throw out data don't you? 
 
No free lunch.  128k bitrate doesn't sound like 256k. That sounds worse than 320k. That sounds worse than 600-1400k bitrate (CD). That sounds worse than 24bit files which can push nitrates as high as 4000k. They sound amazing, like the band is playing in your room. With real amps and instruments. 
 
I am not sure if there's anything beyond 24/192 with PCM, I know no one is recording at that resolution, and I don't think you need all that to reproduce analog tape masters accurately.  But I know without a doubt there's plenty of information beyond 16/44 that they have to downsample (remove) and cover up with fuzz (dither).

 

[RRod]

 
BS.  You really think there's millions of people that can't hear lossy?   My grandma can hear it. Everyone can hear it.  Maybe their music choice or their playback systems or their hearing deficiencies  mask it, but you are really on a forum called "head-fi" saying that there's no actual difference between an mp3 and a 16/44 ?  wow.
 
Proof you only care about horrible, lossy, degraded things. Welcome to 1996. Sure it sounds the same, sure.
 
What kind of horrible playback gear do you have to think that an MP3 is the same thing?  Geez. It's like a time machine up here. No scratch that, no one ever thought they sounded as good.
 
You know why they throw out data don't you? 

 
Yes, there are millions of people who can't hear it. That's why it exists! I can make out 192 but not much higher, and as I said I tried these things out on an HD800+V200+Bifrost (how much more $$ you want for a good system?) Right now I use 256k AAC, and on classical music that you try to use an example of needing 24bit but that actually doesn't. I'm also a statistician, so I know all about throwing out data. The millions of people who can't distinguish various mp3 bitrates vs. wav are not outliers. Keep fooling yourself all you want.

 

[bigshot]

  You really think there's millions of people that can't hear lossy?   My grandma can hear it. Everyone can hear it.

 
Would you like to back that statement up? I have a lossless file with nine randomly ordered samples of three lossy codecs... Fraunhofer, LAME and AAC at 192, 256 and 320... plus one lossless sample mixed in. Ten music samples altogether. Would you like to do a listening test to determine whether you can identify which is which? You can take as much time as you like, and listen on your own equipment. The only rule is that you have to rank them based on listening, not by opening the file in a sound editing program.
 
Easy, right? Even your grandmother could do it, right?
 
Let me know if you prefer FLAC or ALAC format.

 

[StanD]

  :
My grandma can hear it
:
No free lunch.

How old is your grandma that she can still hear above 10 kHz?
So what have you been eating for lunch that we haven't?

 

[FFBookman]

  My friend, you are in the WRONG forum to be treating audio as a philosophy, not a science. You can parade around and make anti-intellectual statements that might get serious consideration from people who don't know better, but around here, it really won't get you very far. It just serves to make you seem like a troll.

I hear ya, I know i came onto this thread throwing down.
 
I'm trying to help you folks in "sound science" by getting you to think bigger. Your love of ABX tests, test tones, and waveform drawerings are hurting the rest of us. You are being exploited in the name of convenience over quality.
 
In the first 30 years of the digital revolution, maybe convenience was more important.
 
Who wanted 3 24bit songs on a CD, playing on a player where prices started at $1k?   Who wanted to fill their iPod with 30 24bit songs that barely sounded any better since Apple spends $5 on audio in iDevices?  Not me.
 
But now, go buy yourself a proper DAP an start loading it up with files. Put on your MP3's, why not?  Rip some CD's again, wow, you won't believe how much better they sound. Then buy a couple things at 24bit and after digesting it for a few weeks come back here and tell me how you can't hear any difference at all.  Then I'll say "sorry" for you and move on, I suppose.
 
 
Are any of you working on new types of listening tests?  I'm interested in that.
Are any of you doing research into stereo differences in various DAC's?
Are any of you attempting to develop measurements of soundstage and instrument timbre?  
 
These are very difficult problems, this 3D listening. Much harder than waveform math. Anyone up to the challenge?

 

[RRod]

  These are very difficult problems, this 3D listening. Much harder than waveform math. Anyone up to the challenge?

 
I get more 3D from binaural recordings and HRTF DSP than your extra bits. So you can keep those.

 

[FFBookman]

   
Would you like to back that statement up? I have a lossless file with nine randomly ordered samples of three lossy codecs... Fraunhofer, LAME and AAC at 192, 256 and 320... plus one lossless sample mixed in. Ten music samples altogether. Would you like to do a listening test to determine whether you can identify which is which? You can take as much time as you like, and listen on your own equipment. The only rule is that you have to rank them based on listening, not by opening the file in a sound editing program.
 
Easy, right? Even your grandmother could do it, right?
 
Let me know if you prefer FLAC or ALAC format.

 
OH a challenge!  Me like.  FLAC is fine, I don't care. I bet it shows that no one can tell anything!  Great test. 
 
Do you care that your results are useless because your ears can't do direct comparison tests with music quality?
 
I have a challenge for you.  Get a new DAP, preferably a PonoPlayer, and just listen to it. Don't test, don't math, don't prod, poke, just listen. You will get the Pono Smile and forget all about math for a precious few seconds. Then you can go back to proving that just didn't happen.
 
 
Back to your test so you don't accuse me of totally ignoring it - I suppose if I'm allowed to review them at my leisure, on my own systems, and IF I knew the material well, I could see some value in the results. Point me to the files and I'll do my best to give you feedback on them.
 
But I don't care about lossy codecs.
I really don't. I don't care which one sounds better. I have no reason for lossy anymore. This was far more important to me in 2000 than 2015. I can put 128gb on my fingernail, I don't need lossy.
 
If you could re-do this test with 24bit and downsampled 16bit, and really put the work into the provenance of the files, I am a willing participant.
 
We need newly released 24bit files, then we need to downsample them using various dithering algorithms and converters. The low end can be reflected in apple products, using built in converters and free software. The high end can be done by a mastering engineer with real converters. If we need a middle, an interface like a focusrite will have converters better than an apple product.
 
The end result would be 3-4 16bit versions of an original 24bit file. That's what the record labels do. Strip them of labels, include with the original 24bit, and let the tester pick which one they like the best after living with them for a few days. It would show you if people could pick out 24bit on their system, and which kind of dithering algorithm is the favorite.

 

[FFBookman]

   
I get more 3D from binaural recordings and HRTF DSP than your extra bits. So you can keep those.

Yeah I don't disagree there. More than 1 way to skin a cat. I hate that saying.
 
That's why I'm interested in MQA. Even though they are using mp3-like lossy compression at the encoding level, they claim they have tweaked what frauhauffer did to increase transient and spatial accuracy. That could be good for stereo sound.
 
They are also using the signed DAC to decode on a tighter clock than PCM DAC's can. This also *could* show some serious improvement in the presentation.  
 
Bad thing is this new encoding is incompatible with current DAC's, all 10 billion of them in the world. So its possibly a dead product, but I have some theories on how forces are trying to replace PCM with MQA.

 

[bigshot]

  Do you care that your results are useless because your ears can't do direct comparison tests with music quality?

 
Are you saying that you can't discern the sound quality difference between lossy and lossless? I'm offering you a way to prove that you can hear a difference. If you say that you can't, then we agree. I don't think you can hear a difference either.
 
I've taken the time to put together an useful comparison. If you are interested and appreciate the effort being made to help you understand what you hear, then great. I'm happy to share the test with you. If you aren't interested in finding out the truth and won't agree to the very simple terms of the test, then no one needs to waste their time.
 
There's no point arguing. No one learns anything by arguing. They learn by observing and analyzing their observations. I am politely offering you an opportunity to do that.
 
I have this lossy test all prepared and ready to go. If you show that you can easily discern the differences in codecs and bitrates, I'm sure someone would be happy to assemble a similar 16 vs 24 bit test for you.

 

[FFBookman]

  How old is your grandma that she can still hear above 10 kHz?
So what have you been eating for lunch that we haven't?

 
Standard fail #1 -- music and sound quality is about way more than frequency.  Think outside of the waveform. Frequency is but one parameter of sound, why can't you people understand that?
 
My grandma is 99. I honestly have never tested mp3's on her.  I was exaggerating, you caught me. She likes polka cassettes.
 
But my 65 year old father in law and the rest of his friends he's played it for all hear 24bit improvement on the pono player. One guy heard it in 5 seconds, said "it's like the whole thing". His other friend, also in his 60's, said "it's like being in a recording studio". 
 
I am aware they are reacting partly to the signal chain ,that's why i'm interested in a 24bit vs 16bit downsample shootout. 

 

[RRod]

   
Standard fail #1 -- music and sound quality is about way more than frequency.  Think outside of the waveform. Frequency is but one parameter of sound, why can't you people understand that?
 
My grandma is 99. I honestly have never tested mp3's on her.  I was exaggerating, you caught me. She likes polka cassettes.
 
But my 65 year old father in law and the rest of his friends he's played it for all hear 24bit improvement on the pono player. One guy heard it in 5 seconds, said "it's like the whole thing". His other friend, also in his 60's, said "it's like being in a recording studio". 
 
I am aware they are reacting partly to the signal chain ,that's why i'm interested in a 24bit vs 16bit downsample shootout. 

 
I tried out 24 vs 16 on every one of the free Linn 24-days-of-Xmas downloads. No luck on anything. Pick one you want and I'll put up comparison versions tonight or tomorrow.

 

[FFBookman]

   
Are you saying that you can't discern the sound quality difference between lossy and lossless? I'm offering you a way to prove that you can hear a difference. If you say that you can't, then we agree. I don't think you can hear a difference either.
 
I've taken the time to put together an useful comparison. If you are interested and appreciate the effort being made to help you understand what you hear, then great. I'm happy to share the test with you. If you aren't interested in finding out the truth and won't agree to the very simple terms of the test, then no one needs to waste their time.
 
There's no point arguing. No one learns anything by arguing. They learn by observing and analyzing their observations. I am politely offering you an opportunity to do that.
 
I have this lossy test all prepared and ready to go. If you show that you can easily discern the differences in codecs and bitrates, I'm sure someone would be happy to assemble a similar 16 vs 24 bit test for you.

I can hear the loss, of course. Everyone can hear the artifacts.  Is this really 1997, did I walk into a time warp? Are you really believing that lossy is not actually lossy, that it makes no difference?  
 
I will try the test but since ABX tests don't really prove anything other than FUD I'm prepared for my results to fall into your argument. I'll risk that and respond honestly. I have been fooled before, I heard an MP3 coming off of youtube through my living room that I thought was CD for a few minutes, and I had trouble picking out 8bit through a browser on my laptop. 
 
Point me to the great BigShot Lossy Test and I'll play along. But I'm far more interested at pushing the bar forward, not fooling people into thinking they don't miss what used to be there.

 

[FFBookman]

If you want to do the real test of 24bit masters verse 16bit downsamples I can offer up some materials and connections. I have about 10 albums in open FLAC @ 24bit, can do the low-end Apple conversion and the mid-range focusrite conversion to 16bit, and know someone with the converters to do the high-end versions.  I don't know that he will work for free though, I'd have to ask if he's interested in helping in the name of science.
 
I'd love to throw in DSD but it introduces different mastering sessions as a variable. I'd rather stick with a single source file at 24bit and test multiple down samples of the same source.

 

[StanD]

   
Standard fail #1 -- music and sound quality is about way more than frequency.  Think outside of the waveform. Frequency is but one parameter of sound, why can't you people understand that?
 
My grandma is 99. I honestly have never tested mp3's on her.  I was exaggerating, you caught me. She likes polka cassettes.
 
But my 65 year old father in law and the rest of his friends he's played it for all hear 24bit improvement on the pono player. One guy heard it in 5 seconds, said "it's like the whole thing". His other friend, also in his 60's, said "it's like being in a recording studio". 
 
I am aware they are reacting partly to the signal chain ,that's why i'm interested in a 24bit vs 16bit downsample shootout. 

You missed the point about accuracy as it is not just about frequency. You also refuse to accept that meat popsicles have their limitations.
Anyone, like your father in-law, hearing things without a proper test and under your suggestions is not going to give any valid results. You should listen more carefully to Inspector Harry Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations."