m0ofassa
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Posts
- 736
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
sounds bout right. can you pm me the name of the album where they lick ur ear
good test would be to play one song that swaps between low bit rate and high at various stages, and tell them to say when the bitrate changes (and if they can, guess). If you dont include lossless in the song, im sure they'd say lossless but that might be considered influencing the result
Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif so you are suggesting to read an article to understand how to disprove an abx? is that article going to show me how to understand the flaws of a certain type of reasoning? would that not take credit away from the non-abx crowd as it asks for outside sources? i have read many of the documents: the arguments make little to no sense, but that is fine. like i have said: i have seen people hear the differences between the exact same lossless file. one was much worse than the other and lacked highs and transcience. it was the one labelled mp3. i think the thing we are looking for is this -- someone to be ballsie enough to do proper abx. if you can hear differences and prove it, then yeah, that is cool. if not, then dude, like i said: with my super equipment i can feel the singer lick my ear, yeah it is that much different wav to flac which only gives me a sense of a moist mouth. that is the truth, the damndest truth. |
sounds bout right. can you pm me the name of the album where they lick ur ear
good test would be to play one song that swaps between low bit rate and high at various stages, and tell them to say when the bitrate changes (and if they can, guess). If you dont include lossless in the song, im sure they'd say lossless but that might be considered influencing the result