I can't prove my own experience to you. I am just offering the blueprint for others to compare for themselves. Familiar music is the key. I have already tried the comparison sites.
Have you ever tried listening to familiar songs in 24 or 16 bit after only hearing them in mp3?
Yes I have. Many times. It was 320 kbit/s MP3 and there was zero difference in all cases.I can't prove my own experience to you. I am just offering the blueprint for others to compare for themselves. Familiar music is the key. I have already tried the comparison sites.
I agree that it is important to compare the same master.
You should indeed be sure to compare without any kind of in-app EQ, normalization or loudness applied. Then make sure to SPL match.
And from that we can extrapolate some things that may or may not be relevant to HiFi;
I'll say it again. I can definitely discern between different file resolutions in my system. If someone can't or doesn't care to in theirs, I don't know what else to tell them other than just MP3 away.And from that we can extrapolate some things that may or may not be relevant to HiFi;
you can hear sound between 60 - 100 Hz,
you were more aware of your surroundings than your buddy or
your buddy is deaf and triggered the snake with his nervous sign language asking "have you ever seen any snakes in this area?"
If you say so. You must have much better than average hearing then. Or be a trained listener.
Nope. Just decent hearing, 50 years in the audio hobby, no distractions, and a very good audio system.
Easy day! I get to throw in some how to hear training
cdvsmp3.wordpress.com
archimago.blogspot.com
No one's telling you how to listen. But would you not think that a claim often stands stronger with some kind of proof?Easy day! I get to throw in some how to hear training
Why do you insist upon yourself so? I can only doubt your certitude...
Their is no way I would go back to mp3 . I knew it day one when I upgraded.You do you brother... apparently we are clueless....
Rock on
I think you're trying to push the wrong buttons here. If you want someone to prove what they can and can't hear, I guess they'll have to provide their individual hearing test results, or you won't believe them. If you're totally dependent on so-called scientific proof to guide you through your audio hobby journey, you're bound to get stuck in neutral and never really enjoy your individual preferences. I know someone with a PhD in Physics and minor in EE who has a system most would drool over. He tells everyone that science had no place in how he assembled it. It just gets in the way of personal enjoyment. I'm sure that there are some valid reasons why you can't tell the difference between file resolutions in your system. It's up to you to either figure out why on your own or just be content with the status quo. Refusing to believe others' experiences won't get you there.Statistics say you must have better than average hearing. The vast majority of people haven't. And honestly, if you sit still and listen for flaws it is not as enjoyable an experience anymore. I settled with lossy as I can't hear any difference whatsoever even with headphones. I'm still not convinced you have done proper comparisons but I'll just have to take your word for it if you don't want to publish any of the test results.
Blind Test Results
The file size of an iTunes song is only a fraction of its CD counterpart because it has been compressed discarding data in the process. Is the audio quality degraded? More than a year ago I devised…
High Bitrate MP3 Internet Blind Test: Part 2 - RESULTS
A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.