3 ms·
This bogus and unfounded claim calls the rest of his expert assertions into question. Let's not overgeneralize. One bogus claim (about sound quality) does not
by stinos 11y ago
This bogus and unfounded claim calls the rest of his expert assertions into question.
Let's not overgeneralize. One bogus claim (about sound quality) does not render the rest of the assertions (mainly about metadata and how accurate information is missing on streaming services) faulty.
On topic: as others mentioned, don't you think some types of music lends itself better to being recognized as 160kbps vs lossless than other, and classical with it's typical larger dynamic range than a standard pop song would be one of those types? I'm not saying the author's claim is valid, nor invalid, just that it's not completely impossible he was hearing it was not lossless. Though I doubt it.
- sneak 11y ago> Let's not overgeneralize. One bogus claim (about sound quality) does not render the rest of the assertions (mainly about metadata and how accurate information is missing on streaming services) faulty. No, but one bogus claim asserted strongly from a clear position of ignorance calls the likelihood of his accuracy into question. It's not an overgeneralization, just a simple matter of credibility. I am less likely to believe he is properly objective in evaluating other criteria as he has completely failed to be objective or rigorous in evaluating this one.