>> I checked out the results and it looks like actually 2 of 9 got all 4
>> right.
Right, I forgot to check the 'replies' column again.
>> Despite being too small a sample size and lack of rigorous
>> controls, this is a surprising result. Of course, the sample also
>> included
>> what I assume are ears much more highly trained than the average
>> listener,
>> but it still gives some support for the fact that some audiophiles may
>> be
>> able to distinguish between high and low bit rate and sampling. It
>> would
>> be interesting to see what controlled experiments have shown about this.
>> I'm surprised you don't know some of these results-
Surprised I don't know what results? I'm very aware of what has been
published.
I have never claimed it's impossible to distinguish lossy from lossless --
the specifics here had to do with how easy it is to do it. There are
people who dismiss outright a lossy DTS (even 96.24) surround version
without a lossless surround, on the basis that they simply will not enjoy
it.
>> this seems like the
>> kind of thing you'd have researched. I remember first hearing about the
>> euphonic distortion on albums being one reason some prefer vinyl reading
>> one of your amy posts long ago.
Yes, but what has that to do with lossy vs lossless?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment