2 Apr
2013
2 Apr
'13
2:58 p.m.
On 04/02/2013 02:35 PM, Peder Hedlund wrote:
Quoting Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
Anecdote time :D I have a friend who's a mild audiophile. Spends quite a
bit of money on his amplifier, D/A and speakers and was firm that his
FLAC collection sounded better than 256kbit/s mp3. We discussed this
issue quite a bit (there was another friend there who's a musician and
he sided with him). After quite some time I convinced them to do a
double blind test. We took one of his most familiar albums and encoded
it from FLAC to mp3. I then threw a die 20 times and created a list of
which version to play in each trial. I handed this list to my other
friend who was responsible for playing the files. The first friend then
tried to identify which of the versions sounded "better". We went
through with the test and there was no statistically significant
discrimination.
My other friend could not believe it, so we repeated the experiment with
him. I threw the die 20 more times, etc.. Again, no statistically
significant discrimination.
My semi-audiophile friend then exalted: "Gawddammit, from now on I'll
encode my music as potato!". A good laugh was had..
Flo
--
Florian Paul Schmidt
http://fps.io
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 12:59 +0200, Peder Hedlund
wrote:
Feel free to post the results of a double blind test to prove you're
right. You should read Monty's (of Ogg/Vorbis and
Opus/CELT fame) 24/192 post
: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
When recording you should obviously go as high as feasible but 16/44.1
is more than adequate for listening.
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.