4 ms·
I've never seen a robust study, but I'd love to! I've seen a lot of anecdata and quasi-scientific experimentation, but most of those seem to be fatally flawed o
by peatmoss 10y ago
I've never seen a robust study, but I'd love to! I've seen a lot of anecdata and quasi-scientific experimentation, but most of those seem to be fatally flawed or have a pretty obvious bias at the offset. Hence, my couched language :-)
- klodolph 10y agoHere: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Lis... Read the methodology and the statistical analyses, they are reasonably thorough and rigorous (amateur, but definitely not "quasi-scientific"). Here's another: http://soundexpert.org/encoders-192-kbps http://soundexpert.org/encoders-192-kbps And another: http://soundexpert.org/encoders-256-kbps http://soundexpert.org/encoders-256-kbps You can see that the differences at 192 Kbit/s AAC are generally beyond the capabilities of human perception, and at 256 Kbit/s, AAC has a very healthy margin. So the argument that AAC is perceptually inferior to CD quality has little basis according to the evidence.