[Head Injury]

  Yes, to many human ears. Lossy has never been audibly transparent for me. Saying that it is in all cases is idiotic. It is not the same as 16/44.1 lossless vs. overkill lossless which no one can consistently tell the difference between. You seem to make a lot of completely false generalizations based on incomplete information. e.g. frequency response is the only factor which determines sound signature. I suggest you stop doing so.

You've done ABX tests, right?
 
Not saying you're lying, as I know the differences are audible in certain situations if one knows what to listen for, and I know bigshot tends to speak from his own experience a bit too much. But I'm curious what your results were, how you tested and with which tracks.

 

[bigshot]

  Yes, to many human ears. Lossy has never been audibly transparent for me.

 
AAC 320 is definitely transparent. Even AAC 256 is transparent. For 95% of music AAC192 is fine.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

Recently, over at avsforum, three high resolution files were posted, along with counterparts downsampled to Redbook quality:
 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1598417-avs-aix-high-resolution-audio-test-take-2-a.html
 
This was of course a non-controlled, non-proctored test, but a fair number of people reported being able to audibly distinguish between the files:
 
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3499
 
I do not endorse this survey, nor the results, but simply post it for comment by the rest of the forum.
 
Edit: the links to the original files seem to still be active, so try them out yourselves!

 

[money4me247]

  Recently, over at avsforum, three high resolution files were posted, along with counterparts downsampled to Redbook quality:
 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1598417-avs-aix-high-resolution-audio-test-take-2-a.html
 
This was of course a non-controlled, non-proctored test, but a fair number of people reported being able to audibly distinguish between the files:
 
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3499
 
I do not endorse this survey, nor the results, but simply post it for comment by the rest of the forum.
 
Edit: the links to the original files seem to still be active, so try them out yourselves!

Lol... this experiment is so full of flaws, it basically does not tell you anything at all!!! funny the author states that controlled tests usually show no difference, but his informal, not-controlled test shows a difference... it seems to imply more the effect of bias than any other meaningful data.
 
First, there is no information stating whether the listeners did blind tests. This makes it possible for confirmation bias to influence the experiment. Second, non-volume matching introduces a severe confounding variable. 0.2dB volume difference can be the factor that allows people to make the correct ID over sampling rate.
 
...pretty graphs does not make a real scientific study... lollerwagons.
 
note: I would love to see more experiments down on this topic, but more poorly-designed, flawed experiments do not tell us anything & is kind of a joke for anyone who has any real background in statistics & research.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

As I pointed out, the  "test" was most certainly NOT proctored. 
 
But, also, read the link more carefully.  This was the second iteration of the test, supposedly to remove the volume differences noted in the first test. 
 
Finally, why not download the files and try them out yourself? 

 

[money4me247]

  As I pointed out, the  "test" was most certainly NOT proctored. 
 
But, also, read the link more carefully.  This was the second iteration of the test, supposedly to remove the volume differences noted in the first test. 
 
Finally, why not download the files and try them out yourself? 

lol I fail at mp3 vs FLAC testing, so I doubt I can hear the differences in sampling rates personally heh *embarrassed faceee*
 
but ya, maybe. it sure does sound like fun! heh
 
edit: I did read the link carefully "In the end, neither Mark Waldrep (aka Dr. AIX), who provided the files, nor I believe that the procedure by which the levels are matched makes much difference for this experiment." Did not see anything about a second test.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

"edit: I did read the link carefully "In the end, neither Mark Waldrep (aka Dr. AIX), who provided the files, nor I believe that the procedure by which the levels are matched makes much difference for this experiment." Did not see anything about a second test."
 
The rest of the link you partially quoted above was actually a discussion of how things were changed from the first test to correct the volume imbalance that was in the first test. 
 
Frankly, this is not worth arguing about.  I'm in the camp who disbelieves in pixie dust, even if it is Hi-Rez.  I think the probative value of this test is pretty much zero.  However, I proffer it as a data point of what is being claimed by others on the internet. 
 
This test has at least one saving grace: there actually is a demonstrable difference between the files.  That's far more than most such claims of audible difference can boast. 
 
Edit: Added a verb so as to make sense in English.  Elsewhere, tightened up prose so as better to express my thoughts. 

 

[money4me247]

  "edit: I did read the link carefully "In the end, neither Mark Waldrep (aka Dr. AIX), who provided the files, nor I believe that the procedure by which the levels are matched makes much difference for this experiment." Did not see anything about a second test."
 
The rest of the link you partially quoted above was actually a discussion of how things were changed from the first test to correct the volume imbalance that was in the first test. 
 
Frankly, this not worth arguing about.  I'm in the camp who disbelieves in pixie dust, even if it is Hi-Rez.  I think the probative value of this test is pretty much zero.  However, I proffer it as a data point of what is being claimed by others on the internet. 
 
This test has at least one saving grace: there actually is a measurable difference between the files to support the claims of audible differences.  That's far more than most such claims of audible difference can boast. 

ah you are correct. he applied a 0.2dB cut to the higher res track, so it appears that there is only a 0.1dB volume difference. I did not realize that as I inferred that "rejected the idea of normalizing" as that no volume changes were applied. thxs for the correction.

 

[bigshot]

I'm going to state something that should be pretty much self-evident. People who consider their ears to be golden will cheat to prove they are. It's possible to open up a file and deduce what format the source is. No one should doubt that people lie and say they aren't doing this when they actually are.
 
By the way... .1dB is not audible by even the furthest stretch of the imagination. What made you think it was?
 
It isn't hard to do a fair test, but you have to want to know the truth.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

What brand of Pixie Dust do you use?  Inquiring Minds want to know!
 
Are there any Pixie Dusts that are not magical? 
 
Edit: Just in case it's not clear, this post was meant as a

!!!

 

[money4me247]

  I'm going to state something that should be pretty much self-evident. People who consider their ears to be golden will cheat to prove they are. It's possible to open up a file and deduce what format the source is. No one should doubt that people lie and say they aren't doing this when they actually are.
 
By the way... .1dB is not audible by even the furthest stretch of the imagination. What made you think it was?
 
It isn't hard to do a fair test, but you have to want to know the truth.

the original test stated a 0.2 dB volume difference should be audible for certain people. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=0.2
 
yes, we are all aware that the 0.1dB difference is considered volume matched. yes, what you say about people lying is reasonable.
 
@bigshot, I dunno if you are aware, but I just want to bring to your attention that you always appear to have a derogatory/belligerent tone with your comments. what's up with that? lol!

 

[bigshot]

  the original test stated a 0.2 dB volume difference should be audible for certain people.

 
Not even close. Get a sound editing program and check it for yourself. The only reason I appear belligerent is because the things being said are absurd. The threshold for audibility of volume matching is .5 for tones and 1dB for average music. For more dynamic music it is even higher than that.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

   
Not even close. Get a sound editing program and check it for yourself. The only reason I appear belligerent is because the things being said are absurd. The threshold for audibility of volume matching is .5 for tones and 1dB for average music. For more dynamic music it is even higher than that.

No, the only reason you appear belligerent is because you have not learned how to reply to absurdity with kindness.  Especially with your inner voice.  Be kinder to yourself, it's easy! and you'll be kinder to others as well. 

 

[Strangelove424]

You guys should see the names I've seen bigshot been called. Amazing how angry people get if you try to confront their misconceptions. He's taken alot of flak (no pun intended) for trying to address fact.

 

[money4me247]

No, the only reason you appear belligerent is because you have not learned how to reply to absurdity with kindness.  Especially with your inner voice.  Be kinder to yourself, it's easy! and you'll be kinder to others as well. 

+1

  You guys should see the names I've seen bigshot been called. Amazing how angry people get if you try to confront their misconceptions. He's taken alot of flak (no pun intended) for trying to address fact.

no $hit he gets called names. he often appears to give off a very aggressive & belligerent attitude that can easily upset people... regardless of the actual content of his posts. I think a difference in tone would really make a big difference.
 
just because someone doesn't know something or has a misconception isn't a reason to throw that kind of attitude at them. there is absolutely nothing absurd about not knowing something if you haven't been exposed to it before. if the goal is to simply clear up misconceptions, there are much friendlier ways and more instructive ways to go about it that would make these forums a much nicer place to visit.