Im talking lossy vs loseless ive done plenty of abx lossles to lossy n its pretty obviouse the differance between flac n mp3
as for 320 vs 256 vbr theres much less of a differance if any.
so flac vs mp3 is my point. n to my ears mp3s sound closed in. I doubt even need to abx i know what lossy sounds like an I always confirm my supessions will spectrual readings
but as always thank u brooko. ny point is why listen to lossy when u a hm901. stick with lossless to get the most bang for ur buck :3
n do we need to visit the spl discussion again. I have the app for my android n yes i use it.
but truck also makes a great point
How were these tests conducted, and where did you get those mp3s? Have you conducted a test using a lossless file and an mp3 encoded with a good codec taken from a CD that you own?
The funny thing about it is that you'll hear the differences if that is what you believe and you've never tested yourself properly (the incredible power of your brain). However - after testing and knowing you stop worrying about the differences in file formats (knowing you can't differentiate anyway). This then lets you just enjoy the music and the only question you need to answer then is if there is a better mastering of the album you want.
The other good thing for me (knowing my limitations) is if there is an album I can't get on easily CD, it's normally available on iTunes (aac256). Now there is no hesitation buying the music I want to hear.
There you go! Couldn't agree more.
I'm trusting you're referring to common sense, as opposed to sense of sound and pleasure.
You mean when I spoke about skepticism? If you do, then yes! What I mean is that I think it's incredible how people can sometimes strongly believe what they hear/see/feel even when they go against well estabilished "models" of reality and when the fragility of our senses is so well understood and documented.
An analogy would be like someone saying that they can hear a difference between, say, the black Marantz PM-11S3 and the gold one. This is an absurd example (or maybe not so much if we consider how things go sometimes...), but imagine that many people believe this. The observation is
"they perceive a difference", and there would be several hypotheses to explain this, considering that we can't make a double blind test that would prove if their perception is correct for whatever reason. One would be them deducting that
"there's a difference caused by an electromagnetic interference that happens because of the paint", which is highly unlikely since it goes against the established model of electronics, physics and so on and another would be
"they're mistaken – their perception doesn't translate into reality and it's merely wishful thinking", a hypothesis that can be backed by many psychological studies.
Now change the paint thing for burn-in, extreme cables, ultra-high resolution formats and so on. I think it's incredible how so many people can choose the former hypothesis simply because they cannot conceive how they could possibly be wrong if they hear/see/feel something.