Re: [LAU] What is the best MP3 encoder?

On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 12:59 +0200, Peder Hedlund wrote: I didn't read this post, because I already disagree. There already is an audible difference between 44.1KHz and 48KHz. Unlikely that my previously golden ears are still golden, since I'm living for > 15 years in a loud place. If there are no technical issues, e.g. a sound card that does perform better at a sample rate > 48 KHz, then to record with more than 48 KHz is useless. Why should a sample rate > 48 KHz improve something? And again, no, 44.1 KHz even isn't adequate, you can hear loss of quality. The most important thing is the way people listen to audio signals. Make your ABX tests with non-musicians and play two different versions of the same song, that only include some differences, e.g. the Bass sound is different or even a loud snare always played at 2 and 4 is a different sound. Many people won't notice that the acoustic bass became an e. bass, that the snare did get more reverb etc., but this doesn't mean that there isn't an audible difference, it only does mean that _most_ people never learn how to listen to this kind of audio material. They use the same ability only for filtering background voices, when talking to somebody etc., so they have an educated listening too, but not trained to listen to music. And those "certain things" always could be part of the music and usually are part of the music, people usually are simply not trained to notice this, they wouldn't notice, if Jimi Hendrix plays a Flying V or a Stratocaster, the way Hendrix played guitar I suspect every guitarist will hear the difference between a Flying V and Stratocaster. So I'm not talking about esoteric, about an acoustic savant syndrome or something strange, I'm just talking about the way people listen to music. Regards, Ralf