15 Oct
2014
15 Oct
'14
6:38 a.m.
On 14/10/14 at 09:38pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 21:01 +0200, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
bla bla bla, but point is: you CANNOT distinguish lossy with higher bitrates
from lossless formats.
You always end up such threads in a bunch of bullshits which doesn't ever make
the whole sense of the subject.
Meet us in LAC and do this ABX test in a session and prove youself or you'd better of
go playing with vegetables and light bulbs.
--
« Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus »
On 14/10/14 at 04:57pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I never heard a good MP3, at best they sound like a CD, always well
audible less good than a DAT master of a good analog production, but I
never cared about the used software or kbps, when I got MP3s. But it
doesn't matter, there are two fronts. If people want to listen to MP3,
if they want to listen to loudness remasters, if they want to eat
artificial flavours, want to draw paintings under light with missing
colours, colour spikes or flickering light, people should do. It's just
scary that sometimes fruits and vegetables nowadays didn't grow in
earth, are creepy breedings that indeed sometimes taste less good, than
artificial flavours. I'm not against modern life, a lot of things became
better, but a lot of things became less good. Btw. even if MP3s should
be as good as the original analog or lossless DAT master, for what
should it be good to convert to MP3? For livestreams, television ok, but
there's no need for anything else. Oops, ok for those who consume music
wherever they are and who need 1000 of recordings where ever they are.
Btw. when the CD was introduced and people claimed that it is not
possible to gouge holes into a CD without causing loss or making it
completely unable to play the CD, there were also claims similar to the
one you're making ;). For me this thread is finished.
Regards,
Ralf On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 07:11 +0200, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
congnitive dissonance: ie you CANNOT tell the difference so you CLAIM it's
a biased test because of "listening fatigue"... but it takes less than 10
minutes
for a 30 trial run unless you want to demonstrate Bernoulli's theorem without
n-> ∞ On 06/10/14 at 01:47am, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
> > > do not.
> > > I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
> > > ever been
> > > in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
> > > and want to
> > > "change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an
mp3
> > > at some
> > > point.
> > >
> > >
> > > For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
> > >
> > >
> > > It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
> > > majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
> > > reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
> > > This isn't up for debate.
> >
> > For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
> >
> > Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
> > with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
> > I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
> > heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
> > tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
> > the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
> > you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
> > idiotic.
> >
> > Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
> > still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
> > know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
> >
> > What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
> > and a MP3?
>
> Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
> Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
> just doesn't cut it.
>
ie spot on your cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
)
BTW, what if you all claiming this ridicoulus thing about being able to
distinguish beetween 256-320kbps (mp3) or 500kbps (ogg) meet each other at next
LAU and have a public test? I would really enjoy this double blind test with no
"degenerated idiots" around.
You completely missed the point, I hope you will be able to understand
the neon light example. You need to make real life tests and care about
the sensitivities. What happens if you listen 16 hours with just a few
short rests to an analog tape and what happens if you do this listening
to MP3?