4 ms·
This is not true. It is trivial for almost anyone to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from uncompressed audio, with built-in DACs and $5 headphones, with as little as 5
by 4ad 11y ago
This is not true. It is trivial for almost anyone to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from uncompressed audio, with built-in DACs and $5 headphones, with as little as 5 minutes of training.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago[citation needed]
- danieltillett 11y agoHow can it not be true as I am describing my experience. Are you really telling me that I actually can tell when I say I can't?
- Freaky 11y agoYou're also describing everyone else's experience: > Really at 320kps you are entering the realm of fantasy if you think you can hear any difference. It depends on the encoder, the track, your equipment, and how good you are at picking out artifacts. Some people do surprisingly well in double-blind tests, though I doubt anyone can do it all the time on every sample.
- danieltillett 11y agoThere is no scientific evidence that anyone can do it at all above 192 kbps.
- Freaky 11y agoThis is why ABX testing is so big in lossy audio circles. People can and do demonstrate their ability to distinguish between lossy and lossless encodings with certain samples in double-blind tests, at all sorts of bitrates. I've done it myself occasionally. That people have been doing this for many years is one of the big reasons modern encoders are so good - they've needed tonnes of careful tuning to get to this point.
- mafro 11y agoLike the parent comment, more bold statements about perceivable sound quality, with no evidence.