On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Jostein Chr. Andersen <jostein@xxxxxxx> wrote:
sorry, this isn't true.
double blind testing of 320 MP3 generally suggests that less than 10% of the population can hear the difference. at 256 it goes up a bit, but it is still the case that a majority of the population can't hear any difference.
so, it is not the case that this claim is not subject to debate. i'm sure you'll want to argue that the artifacts and losses are real, for example.
On 04/02/2013 09:31 AM, Peder Hedlund wrote:
...Are you basically saying that it's no need for lossless formats? ;-)
Over at HydrogenAudio they have a rule that you aren't allowed to talk
about hearing differences between audio files unless you can prove it in
an ABX test.
You really should try doing one and check if you *really* can hear the
difference between the original wav and an mp3 produced by, say, "lame
-V4" ( which would be ~160kbps) or if it's just your mind fooling you
into thinking you can. Never underestimate the power of belief :)
All respect for HydrogenAudio, but I can't think about other's rules when I just have to make a MP3 file without esses or tones that's missing, then I just have to do the mix better and somehow compensate a little bit. MP3 artifacts and some quality loss are well known issues and should not create to much debate.
sorry, this isn't true.
double blind testing of 320 MP3 generally suggests that less than 10% of the population can hear the difference. at 256 it goes up a bit, but it is still the case that a majority of the population can't hear any difference.
so, it is not the case that this claim is not subject to debate. i'm sure you'll want to argue that the artifacts and losses are real, for example.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
