Do you make sense nowhere?Oh and I told you what I would need to do to give you your test. I'm not doing that. you guys are robots. I'm not arguing as an audiophile. For fucks sake I know half this shit is recorded with a sm57 thru a mogami cable. Why the hell would I spend 1200 on a rca cable?
0roo0roo said:No, how about you prove your extraordinary claim, if you could it would be worth millions to the audiophile industry to finally have proof that their products are more than snake oil.
So the audio industry relies on perceptual difference between lossy codecs and lpcm? And they need to prove it, otherwise they're selling snake oil?Same thing still applies, if you have proof of your extraordinary claims they would be worth millions to the industry that relies on claims about sound quality.
Says a lot that this industry has not been able to come up with anything scientifically solid that would support their claims isn't it. They've had all the time in the world, and all the incentive, but they can't deliver.
Of course there is. If, on average, you remove 1 bit from a part that is silent or near-silent/simple per second to get a 1,411,199bps instead of 1,411,200bps lpcm, you wouldn't be able to make a machine to tell a difference on any audio equipment. And technically that would be a lossy codec, you did lose some informationDo you agree that at some point, some bitrate, a lossy compression algorithm become indistinguishable from its lossless cousin by the human ear, correct? (You should realize that there is a bitrate with all lossy algorithms at which point the output will be a bit perfect match with the lossy algorithms)
This doesn't make any sense, it's a direct contradiction in terms. Lossy or lossless is defined relative to the original uncompressed audio. Whether that original is a faithful recording is a completely different issue.Well I would say even lossless is still lossy and there is a quest to get closer and closer to perfection all the time. What that perfection is is in the eye of the beholder.
This doesn't make any sense, it's a direct contradiction in terms. Lossy or lossless is defined relative to the original uncompressed audio. Whether that original is a faithful recording is a completely different issue.
Of course there is. If, on average, you remove 1 bit from a part that is silent or near-silent/simple per second to get a 1,411,199bps instead of 1,411,200bps lpcm, you wouldn't be able to make a machine to tell a difference on any audio equipment. And technically that would be a lossy codec, you did lose some information
Ok, provide me funding for the research and I'll conduct the study. Your "theory" is based on Lossy vs. Lossy and you're saying that lossy=lossless.. I feel for you and you're a prime example of why education in the U.S. is failing. I have far more to say on this, but honestly I'm hanging out with my wife and this is SO not worth my time.
Do you make sense nowhere?
This is a good read on MP3.MP3 became the dominant compression format for music because it was used to distribute music over the Internet. This was done without the permision of MP3 patent holders, let alone the copyright owners of the music itself. No licencing fees were paid because it was all done illegally.
In, I think it was '97, some Australian student bought professional grade from our point of view encoding software for MP3 from a small company in Germany. He paid with a stolen credit card number from Taiwan. He looked at the software, found that we had used some Microsoft internal application programming interface ... racked everything up into an archive and wired some Swedish side, [and] put that to a U.S. university FTP site together with a read-me file saying, 'This is freeware thanks to Fraunhofer.
"He gave away our business model. We were completely not amused. We tried to hunt him down. We told everybody, 'This is stolen software so don't distribute it,' but still the business model to have expensive encoders and cheap decoders [was] done. From that time on, we reduced the cost for encoders.
I'm not ducking anything. I dont have time to do a double blind and are you gonna fly out to LA to administer the test? I mean really. We cant have a discussion about compressed vs not compressed without some forum warrior flying across the country?
If its no longer snake oil when I can scientifically prove my claims then I present the null test and you say no not good enough because of subjectivness.
I'm already saying its all subjective anyhow.
Can I sit in my car on the highway and listen to the difference between compressed and lossless? Probably not. Could I sit in that room above and do it? probably 90% of the time.
Very brave of you to offer a challenge you don't have to commit to. You know very well you are blowing hot air, if folks who could pass the double blind test existed I'm sure the audiophile companies would gladly pay for your testing to help prove their case and legitimize their product claims. The fact they aren't knocking at your door says it all really.
It isn't subjective, either you can, or you can't.
Are any of your "audiophiles" actually musicians?
I am an amateur operatic tenor and I do not care about "lossless" audio. 256kb Mp3 sounds fine.
Arent audiophile companies is the business of selling equipment? Why would they care about double blind tests of lossy vs lossless encoding? You really dont know what you are talking about here.
You have created a evil capitalist enemy in your mind and have tied me in with them because I say there are differences between lossy and lossless audiofiles. I'm pretty sure any audiophile company (please link me some of these companies you deem unworthy) would say their product would enhance even a mp3.
Hearing is subjective and also based on surrounding background noise and level of treatment in the space you are listening in. The Sidney opera house has its shape to help move the sound in certain ways. The seats inside the building have the same absorption properties as a human so if the house isnt full the sound stays the same.
If what I say isnt true and all sound sounds the same all the time then why do we have spaces like these?
Why do we record sound in certain spaces like abbey road? Why do we mix sound in specially treated rooms? Why is music mastered in million dollar rooms like the one above? Its all done because environment plays a major roll in what you are hearing.
So you sitting in a room in your house with your soundblaster card and your earbuds declare mp3 and pcm sound the same! How can you be taken seriously?
Either you can legitimize your claims or you cannot. If folks like you can pass blind tests, then this is simple science to prove, yet they don't bother because they know it doesn't work. The companies in question have every incentive to legitimize their claims and thus their products, but being that it isn't possible, they won't bother. All your dancing around the subject doesn't get around the fact that you have zero evidence for your position.
The companies in question have every incentive to legitimize their claims and thus their products,
exactly.
If you had "companies in question" you should just know them. List them or gtfo.
I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you and your side, the one making extraordinary claims without evidence is the side that is required to bring it.
Are you fucking retarded? You mentioned companies tell me the company names. Fucking troll.
Do you self organize/tag all the music? It takes just a bit to get FLAC/ALAC/etc encoding/tagging setup, which would save you a lot of time.