[bigshot]

One of the old saws I keep hearing about lossy vs lossless or cd sound vs HD audio is that a difference might be audible if you use very "resolving" equipment. Has there ever been a study that showed that elaborate stereo systems reveal lossy artifacting at high data rates or HD audio improvement to normal human ears? I don't think I've ever seen one.

 

[Davesrose]

I thought that back when SACD was analyzed, there were tests that showed people being able to discern a difference with noise floor (and not cranking the volume). But that was controlled and specialized: I think it's always been a good master is going to a good source with whatever equipment. Recently YouTube suggested an interesting video from a guy that demands hi-res audio because he thinks it makes a difference with any equipment. He analyzes spectrums from independent label songs: I ignore his rants and see his focus on 44.1kh tracks (and because they do so much compression, there's more headroom with higher res). To me, that means it's poorly mastered. I would say: don't make it so hot



I'm more experienced with production of video tracks, and what dynamic range and compression means with video codecs. I'm also a cinephile: so I equally find odds with YouTubers who show ignorance in 4K media they review. So many times I see them say "film is superior because it has X times resolution". This is ludicrous: film doesn't have resolution, and it was inconsistent compared to digital (when I began photographing with digital, I found it much better about low light recording and now it excels in everything). I've also seen some think a UHD disc could hold uncompressed video: it also has to be highly compressed in h.265 codec to hold up to 12bit DR 4K. Lossy Dolby Digital+ or lossless TrueHD at that point is superfluous. I'm guessing Apple is making a stink now as server space is getting better and lossless is a great marketing term (often times I find streaming Atmos on DD+ could have levels down and require me to boost subwoofer).