[1] Spending five paragraphs outlining one-in-a-million trivia in detail doesn't help very many people at all.
[2] And burying the single sentence that says "But of course to most people none of this matters."
[2a] deep down amid reams if irrelevancies is doing a disservice to the majority of the public who just wants a direct and simple answer to their question.
[3] I usually start with the simple answer first and if the questioning goes further, that's the time to go in depth.
[3a] But it's your style to do it the other way around and that's fine.
[3b] I'm here to follow up and weed out the simple answer that they can easily put into practice to solve their problem.
1. And you have evidence to support the assertion that's it's "one-in-a-million" trivia do you, or did you just make that figure up to defend your position?
2. You didn't say "to most people none of this matters", you said it "flat out doesn't matter" and you don't have reliable evidence for that assertion. It's gross hypocrisy to require reliable evidence to support an assertion made by some audiophile but you can assert whatever you want without reliable evidence!!
2a. The majority of the public do not come to head-fi in the first place and far fewer still come to this sub-forum. Some/Many of those who do come to this sub-forum maybe are looking for a "simple answer" but this is not the "Simple Answer" sub-forum, it's the Sound Science sub-forum.
3. But you haven't started with the simple answer first, you've started with a made-up assertion that has no reliable supporting evidence and does not align with the actual science/facts.
3a. No, it's my style to try and present a layman's version of the actual science/facts but sometimes that layman's version has to be more detailed because the facts/science are not simple and sometimes don't lend themselves to a simplification (or I can't think of a valid simplification).
3b. And there is the difference between us! You'll "weed out" a simple answer even if it involves simply making-up assertions that are NOT supported by reliable evidence. That's NOT science and, it's exactly what you criticize others for! Using your own example: "
They wonder if they can hear a difference between high data rate lossy and lossless, and even though they don't think they can hear a difference, they worry about whether they are losing "potential sound quality"." - We CAN "weed out a simple answer" here and state it "flat out doesn't matter" because we have a mechanism that suggests and explains transparency; a great deal of development and evolution of perceptually transparent codecs AND a significant body of reliable evidence that under reasonable listening conditions they are in fact transparent. Same with a noise floor at -96dB, which is below the noise floor of the recordings themselves, below the noise floor of even very good systems/listening environments, is outside the range of reasonable listening conditions, is typically NOT at -96dB anyway (recommended/standard practice puts it at -120dB) and there is a significant body of reliable evidence that supports the inaudibility of even a -96dB noise floor. And continuing ...
[1] The marketing of home audio is directly targeted at this kind of OCD.
[2] So someone stumbles into Sound Science after marinating in "what ifs" and "maybes" in the commercial audio forums. What are they looking for? They are looking for science to be applied to clearly address the seeds of nagging doubt implanted in them by high end audio salesmen. They aren't looking for a dissertation on all of the exceptions to the rule.
[3] I may be attuned to people's psychology more than other people. The reason is because I read between the lines to see what the emotions and desires are underlying the question.
[4] If someone tells them that one kind of bluetooth involves two encodings instead of just one,
[4a] they start worrying that they might be degrading their signal and focus on that even though the degradation probably falls well below the threshold of audibility.
1. It doesn't matter whether someone has OCD or not, they're not going to hear the digital noise floor of 16bit or differentiate a max bit rate modern perceptually lossy codec under reasonable listening conditions, even with OCD. Much of the marketing of home audio is therefore NOT "
directly targeted at this kind of OCD" (and if it were I wouldn't have a problem with it), the reason I have a problem with it here in this sub-forum is because it directly contradicts the science/facts/reliable evidence!
2. And here is the nub of the problem. Sure, I agree they are probably NOT looking for a detailed/complex response that doesn't provide an absolute answer but I'll tell you what else they are NOT looking for: A simple absolute answer that's based on someone's opinions/made-up assertions that are NOT supported by science/a body of reliable evidence!!! Again, fortunately a lot of the time we can give a simple absolute answer that is based on science/reliable evidence, the fidelity of vinyl vs digital, the noise floor of 16bit, etc.,
BUT IF, as is the case here, the ONLY choice is between simple absolute answer that is NOT supported by science/reliable evidence OR a detailed response that doesn't provide an absolute answer then as this is the Sound Science sub-forum there is ONLY one choice. You said it yourself, "
they are looking for science to be applied", not for personal impressions/opinions devoid of science. So please present the science/reliable evidence that you are applying (I'm certainly open to it), otherwise you're being a hypocrite and are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of!!!
3. This isn't the "bigshot will diagnose your OCD" forum or "The answers you need according to bigshot's assessment of your emotional state" forum, this is the Sound Science forum and the WHOLE POINT of science in the first place is to separate the actual facts from people's emotions and desires! No one is saying you can't provide your own opinions/impressions if you think it maybe beneficial, just that you don't present them as absolute facts (such as "flat out doesn't matter") unless supported by science/reliable evidence. And you, of all people, should know this, or does it only apply to everyone else?!!!
4. Two or more encodings using what codecs? You seem to be ignorant of the process actually occurring and therefore extrapolating false equivalences, that's not science, it's essentially the opposite of science!
4a. I agree that the degradation probably falls below the threshold of audibility BUT, that's just my personal opinion/impression, it is NOT based on reliable evidence (the application of science) and I cannot claim it "flat out doesn't matter" unless I want to be a hypocrite! In fact, my understanding provides a rational explanation for why it may sometimes fall WITHIN the threshold of audibility, which is why I'd be interested in science/reliable evidence either way.
G