In this case the claim goes beyond just CD but that AAC lossy compression is transparent too.
The discussion is going on in AVS in the Scott/Mark thread evolving to this angle. I thought I share what I wrote there in our forum too and see how members here react:
==========
For those of you who have not read this article, the genesis of it is a prior one where they challenged people to tell the difference between 24 bit/44.1 Khz and 256 Kbits/sec AAC. They provided two sets of files each in those two instantiations: http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/...udio-poll-do-we-need-higher-definition-sound/
I expected this to be a tough comparison. After all, the follow up article's whole foundation is how people can't tell the difference between high res and lossy compressed music. That was not remotely the case! I listened to the first sample for about 5 to 10 seconds. The moment I switched to the second variation, the improvement in fidelity was substantial. Better spaciousness, cleaner high frequencies, etc. You know, the terms that our resident objectivists hate to hear. I jotted down the choice and then listened to the second set. This comparison was beyond trivial. It took just moments to tell the difference.
Of course it is abundantly easy to cheat by reading the new article where the results are revealed. You just need to take my word for it that I did not cheat. If anyone has any doubts about that, I bet you any amount of money that I can repeat this test and correctly identify the higher fidelity 24/44.1 Khz.
I like to pause here and encourage everyone to just click on the above link and take a listen. Then look up the answer in the link Zillch is providing. If you cannot tell the difference, then this whole subject is moot for you. You would be happy with anything from 256 kbps iTunes AAC downloads to CD. I would shop on basis of price then and not worry. I trust Zillch has run such a test and has landed in this bucket himself or else he should not have posted the article.
I am hoping however, that a number of you get it right as I did. And not just by guessing but hearing the precise differences that can be backed by how lossy audio compression works. If you did, then you have very good to excellent ability to hear non-linear, dynamic distortions.
Separating us into the two buckets of listeners is super important. The reason we have so many of these arguments is that non-critical listeners who can't tell the difference convince themselves that no one else can either. And hence, they argue 'till the last drop of blood is shed. To them that is the reality. To the extent some people invalidate this assumption by demonstrating differing and superior listening ability, I hope they learn from that and dial back the level of anger and angst they demonstrate in their posts.
===========
Now to the second bit. The author says something close to 50% of the people guessed right and as Zillch quoted, that means the results are no better than a coin toss. And further, that means there is no value to higher fidelity music for distribution. That conclusion of course is absurd but is a mistake often made. That is, mix someone like me who can tell the difference with others who cannot and declare that the results are no better than chance. That is totally inappropriate conclusion. What I did is independent of what others did. You can't take my results and dilute it with others.
Now, given the two samples that I passed, one can say on paper that those results are not sufficient to declare me to have guess right. Well, then test me more. Don't throw my results with countless others who we know cannot hear these differences.
To be fair, his summary results do indicate with high statistical confidence that if we sample a few hundred of their readers, as a group, they could not do better than chance. This again is what we already know. That the masses are perfectly happy with 256 kbps compressed music. This verifies that yet again which is fine. But in no way does it address the audience for high resolution audio and people taking the opposing position.
He tries to paper over this issue by assuming that his readers are recording artists (?) engineers, etc. I have no idea how he determined that or if it is true. But let's say it is. Yes, that means half the people in the business of producing music can't tell the difference between lossy music and lossless. This is sadly the truth. Anyone can set up shop and record music. They may have great ears as far as recording/mixing music. But not be sensitive to dynamic non-linear distortion. This is why Meyer and Moran bragging about including this population in their testing doesn't carry any weight. The layman assumes these people are born with the ability to hear such artifacts. But this is not part of their job and hence they are not much better situated than the typical crowd.
Of course since half the testers did vote correctly, there is a good chance that many of them could reliably tell the difference with more trials as I am confident I can. And hoping others can too in this forum.
I looked up the author's background. He seems very qualified when it comes to creating/recording music. But I see nothing in his background that would give him the training to understand the nature of lossy compression. That he says stuff like this as fact: To date, no trained listener has ever reliably picked out a properly encoded 320kbps AAC file from any higher-resolution file in a blind test. (But I’d still love to try, if someone wants to quiz me!) clearly indicates that he is playing fast and loose with this topic or else he would back this with a reference.
I will have more to say about his article
. But for now, I think this busts open Steven (Krab's) statement that even lossy compression is good enough. It isn't and I hope others run this test and see for themselves. Simply download the files. Double click on one file to play and after a few seconds, double click on the alternative. You don't need any AB program. You should be able to go back and forth and focus on the first few seconds to see if you can tell them apart. That we don't need looping, etc. means that these files do indeed sound different and easily so.
So can you please spend the few seconds it takes to do this test and report back? I especially like to hear from the vocal posters in the thread. Let's see what bucket they land in.
The discussion is going on in AVS in the Scott/Mark thread evolving to this angle. I thought I share what I wrote there in our forum too and see how members here react:
==========
OK, let's get down to business.
For those of you who have not read this article, the genesis of it is a prior one where they challenged people to tell the difference between 24 bit/44.1 Khz and 256 Kbits/sec AAC. They provided two sets of files each in those two instantiations: http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/...udio-poll-do-we-need-higher-definition-sound/
I expected this to be a tough comparison. After all, the follow up article's whole foundation is how people can't tell the difference between high res and lossy compressed music. That was not remotely the case! I listened to the first sample for about 5 to 10 seconds. The moment I switched to the second variation, the improvement in fidelity was substantial. Better spaciousness, cleaner high frequencies, etc. You know, the terms that our resident objectivists hate to hear. I jotted down the choice and then listened to the second set. This comparison was beyond trivial. It took just moments to tell the difference.
Of course it is abundantly easy to cheat by reading the new article where the results are revealed. You just need to take my word for it that I did not cheat. If anyone has any doubts about that, I bet you any amount of money that I can repeat this test and correctly identify the higher fidelity 24/44.1 Khz.
I like to pause here and encourage everyone to just click on the above link and take a listen. Then look up the answer in the link Zillch is providing. If you cannot tell the difference, then this whole subject is moot for you. You would be happy with anything from 256 kbps iTunes AAC downloads to CD. I would shop on basis of price then and not worry. I trust Zillch has run such a test and has landed in this bucket himself or else he should not have posted the article.
I am hoping however, that a number of you get it right as I did. And not just by guessing but hearing the precise differences that can be backed by how lossy audio compression works. If you did, then you have very good to excellent ability to hear non-linear, dynamic distortions.
Separating us into the two buckets of listeners is super important. The reason we have so many of these arguments is that non-critical listeners who can't tell the difference convince themselves that no one else can either. And hence, they argue 'till the last drop of blood is shed. To them that is the reality. To the extent some people invalidate this assumption by demonstrating differing and superior listening ability, I hope they learn from that and dial back the level of anger and angst they demonstrate in their posts.
===========
Now to the second bit. The author says something close to 50% of the people guessed right and as Zillch quoted, that means the results are no better than a coin toss. And further, that means there is no value to higher fidelity music for distribution. That conclusion of course is absurd but is a mistake often made. That is, mix someone like me who can tell the difference with others who cannot and declare that the results are no better than chance. That is totally inappropriate conclusion. What I did is independent of what others did. You can't take my results and dilute it with others.
Now, given the two samples that I passed, one can say on paper that those results are not sufficient to declare me to have guess right. Well, then test me more. Don't throw my results with countless others who we know cannot hear these differences.
To be fair, his summary results do indicate with high statistical confidence that if we sample a few hundred of their readers, as a group, they could not do better than chance. This again is what we already know. That the masses are perfectly happy with 256 kbps compressed music. This verifies that yet again which is fine. But in no way does it address the audience for high resolution audio and people taking the opposing position.
He tries to paper over this issue by assuming that his readers are recording artists (?) engineers, etc. I have no idea how he determined that or if it is true. But let's say it is. Yes, that means half the people in the business of producing music can't tell the difference between lossy music and lossless. This is sadly the truth. Anyone can set up shop and record music. They may have great ears as far as recording/mixing music. But not be sensitive to dynamic non-linear distortion. This is why Meyer and Moran bragging about including this population in their testing doesn't carry any weight. The layman assumes these people are born with the ability to hear such artifacts. But this is not part of their job and hence they are not much better situated than the typical crowd.
Of course since half the testers did vote correctly, there is a good chance that many of them could reliably tell the difference with more trials as I am confident I can. And hoping others can too in this forum.
I looked up the author's background. He seems very qualified when it comes to creating/recording music. But I see nothing in his background that would give him the training to understand the nature of lossy compression. That he says stuff like this as fact: To date, no trained listener has ever reliably picked out a properly encoded 320kbps AAC file from any higher-resolution file in a blind test. (But I’d still love to try, if someone wants to quiz me!) clearly indicates that he is playing fast and loose with this topic or else he would back this with a reference.
I will have more to say about his article
. But for now, I think this busts open Steven (Krab's) statement that even lossy compression is good enough. It isn't and I hope others run this test and see for themselves. Simply download the files. Double click on one file to play and after a few seconds, double click on the alternative. You don't need any AB program. You should be able to go back and forth and focus on the first few seconds to see if you can tell them apart. That we don't need looping, etc. means that these files do indeed sound different and easily so.So can you please spend the few seconds it takes to do this test and report back? I especially like to hear from the vocal posters in the thread. Let's see what bucket they land in.
