Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

I've gotten' to the point that it isn't a debate (each to their own)  but and here's the very large point that I noted.

 The point is that almost anyone can hear difference between particularly - lossy and lossless versions of the same peice of music. I must confess that I didn't get the order of the lossless tracks absolute but I did get the fact that they were all lossy and pointed out some audible traits - which can be found quite accurately.

My, anti-music, wife, could pick up the traits too. Is it true the Enuits have 50 words for snow? perhaps some of us are just at the snow stage and have not onticed the difference in flakes as yet.

I must agree about compression - more than anything - this is killing the quality of the music. For example a single take copy of an analogue recording can sound quite good on 16/44 and can sound quite realistic. However when you get down to detail it certainly is not placebo that high res is still very much better.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Grayhawk <jwgrayhawk@juno.com> wrote:

On Monday, June 18, 2012 3:50:20 AM UTC-4, zoop wrote:

>> 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.

So- what do the published results say?   

>> 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?

Absolutely nothing- just pointing out one example of some of the things I'd learned from reading your posts in the past, since you seem to have a lot of knowledge of the current research, which is why I was surprised you hadn't quoted some research in this thread.  I have heard many people complain about lossy codecs, but I have always maintained that the mix is much more critical.  I'm unsure whether I could hear a difference.  All I know is that I have many DTS and DD sources that sound awesome- to me, on my mid-level system.  I never understood why some get so hung up on the numbers, but then they possibly have better (esp. younger) ears and/or a top-notch system that reveals flaws I cannot hear.

--
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

--
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