1. That's great, it means there's no need whatsoever for dither because quantisation noise is apparently masked. All these decades of dither and dither development wasted ... do you think we should tell someone?
2. So now, in effect, you're contradicting yourself because µ-law/A-law are analogue processes!
2a. By your definition, wax cylinders are perceptual coding, vinyl with RIAA are perceptual coding, cassettes with bias are perceptual coding, CDs with emphasis are perceptual encoding, despite your claim in point #1, dither is perceptual coding and therefore pretty much all digital audio uses perceptual coding and every mix of every piece of commercial audio has EQ, mic placement, compression or a number of other factors/processes applied to improve perception. In other words, by your definition, everything uses perceptual coding. So, please answer these two questions: A. What is the point of the term "perceptual coding" if it means the same as "everything" and B. What new/different term should we use for actual perceptual coding?
You're following the exact same path you always follow. You make some incorrect claim/assertion of fact which is refuted and then instead of holding your hand up and admitting it or just dropping it, you defend it to the death for post after post, make more and more ridiculous assertions to support your position, even to the point of contradicting yourself, and dig a deeper and deeper hole for yourself until eventually you back yourself into a logical cul de sac. At which point you usually post something along the lines that you feel like a useless human being. My last question of this post is therefore: Why follow that same path, why put yourself through all this time after time?
G
