[wtaylorbasil]

Quote:

I will send them to you.

Thank you xnor.
I cannot hear any difference (but then my hearing-oops-my age- is well beyond the discerning quality required). Equipment, files stored on PC, played back through Onkyo TX-NR609 via DLNA feeding transmission line speakers. I do not use headphones.
 
Very interesting responses from the members.
 
Perhaps nick_charles should continue the Phychology of hearing and perhaps including the phycho-acoustic phenomenon as a new Topic. It would be very interesting.
Regards
William 

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

I have come late into this discussion. Are the three audio files available for me to downlosd?
I would be most pleased if someone can make it available to me.
 
regards
William

 
I'm interested too...

 

[stv014]

I have all the files, and an additional D.flac, which was created by converting the original high resolution sound to CD quality format, and then back to 96/24. It is of worse quality than any of xnor's files, because quantization to 16 bits at 96 kHz adds less noise in the audio band than at 44.1 kHz, and the ultrasonic content is just not degraded, but completely removed.
 
a.flac
b.flac
c.flac
d.flac

 

[sonitus mirus]

Just curious, but has anyone ever provided an example in this forum of an artifact that might appear in a lower quality file?
 
A 30 second flac file compressed to 96 kbps mp3 with obvious artifacting at a specific point of time in the file should be all that is necessary.
 
songA.flac
song96.mp3
 
Listen for artifacting between 0:23-0:25 seconds...
 
Something like this might be beneficial as a premise to helping audiophiles understand what the actual limitations are with regards to lossy, compressed files.  When I read about sound quality being "fuller" or "more detailed" between a CD and an mp3 file, I'm not convinced the person making such claims truly understands how compression works at the most basic level.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

Just curious, but has anyone ever provided an example in this forum of an artifact that might appear in a lower quality file?
 
A 30 second flac file compressed to 96 kbps mp3 with obvious artifacting at a specific point of time in the file should be all that is necessary.
 
songA.flac
song96.mp3
 
Listen for artifacting between 0:23-0:25 seconds...
 
Something like this might be beneficial as a premise to helping audiophiles understand what the actual limitations are with regards to lossy, compressed files.  When I read about sound quality being "fuller" or "more detailed" between a CD and an mp3 file, I'm not convinced the person making such claims truly understands how compression works at the most basic level.

At that level of compression the sound does start to get muffled. I (and I'd imagine most people) can ABX a <100kbps mp3 against a lossless file in just a moments time. No specific artifacts needed, you can tell by overall sound.
 
Although I recall the easiest way of telling the difference was listening to the bass line, rather than rolled off treble... Does anyone know why that would be?

 

[Parall3l]

Quote:

At that level of compression the sound does start to get muffled. I (and I'd imagine most people) can ABX a <100kbps mp3 against a lossless file in just a moments time. No specific artifacts needed, you can tell by overall sound.
 
Although I recall the easiest way of telling the difference was listening to the bass line, rather than rolled off treble... Does anyone know why that would be?

 
No idea, but Youtube videos tend have no bass for some reason. 

 

[kramer5150]

Quote:

 
No idea, but Youtube videos tend have no bass for some reason. 

I think it depends on the recording.  I was watching a moody blues concert last night and it sounded GREAT with my koss A250... a VERY bright sounding can, that most find to be bass shy.

 

[bigshot]

It depends on when the file was uploaded. YouTube has improved its quality settings a couple of times, but the improvements aren't retroactive.