CatBus;331638 Wrote: > In that case, it's best for you to avoid ABX testing ;) > > My point is that the reason I don't take audiophiles seriously when > they say they can distinguish an MP3 from a FLAc in an A/B test is that > they have admitted in that very statement that they have not even > bothered to find out if they can hear a difference or not. You asked, > I answered. > > Please read my statement carefully to understand I'm not saying they > CAN'T hear the difference. I'm just saying they've failed to even > attempt to demonstrate it.
I'm really glad that this discussion is proceeding along without any flaming and I'll do my best to keep the nasty stuff down to a minimum since I may not be able to eliminate it entirely. :) Okay, so let's try this approach. First, I think we can all agree that mp3 files, even 320kps mp3 files, are different from flac files and different from the original wav file. And the difference is that the data contained in each file is different: 1) The wav file contains the original uncompressed data. 2) The flac file a compressed version of the original data. 3) The mp3 file contains a modified and compressed version of the original data. Now I'm told that when a properly conducted ABX is used to compare the sound of a high quality 320kps mp3 file with the sound of a flac file that it will be nearly impossible to reliably tell the difference between the two files. And for the sake of this agrument, I also accept that this statement is true. However, according to the previous statement, the files are indeed different and therefore two slightly different conclusions can be drawn when these two statements are taken together: 1) Yes, there are differences between the files but these differences can not be heard, at least during the course of a properly conducted ABX test. 2) Since the files are different and the ABX does not reliably reveal these differences, the ABX test is flawed or, at best, incapable of resolving the differences. You and many other people agree with the first conclusion but, on the other hand, I do not. I think that the second conclusion is the correct one since the two files are different but the ABX test cannot reveal these differences, so the ABX test is flawed. As further proof that the second conclusion is the correct one, why, since ABX testing reveals that 320kps mp3 files and flac files are functionally the same, i.e. there are no audible differences between the two types of files, don't professional recording engineers record directly to 320kps mp3 files and not to a format that uses even higher resolution and greater bit depth than standard red book audio (and 44.1kHz/16bit red book audio is already "higher resolution" than an mp3 file)? I don't know but maybe because these files SOUND better? On a slightly different but related note: Please try to explain to me the following phenomena since I'm having a trouble wrapping my head around it: In the case of expensive versus inexpensive audio cables audiophiles are told that since inexpensive audio cable has the same electrical properties, as far as the electrical properties required when the cable is used as part of an audio system, as expensive audio cable and that these properties are well known and can be easily be tested, then the inexpensive audio is equal to the expensive audio cable. And further more that the expensive cable is just a waste of money. Fair enough and even I, an audiophool, can understand this line of reasoning. But in the case of 320kps mp3 files versus flac files, where the files are known to be different and have different "electrical properties" and futher more that these differences can be easily tested for (by using various frequency tests, see: http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html), we are now being told that the files are still (functionally) identical. So in the case of cables we are told if two items have the same properties and test the same then they are equal but in the second case we are told that although two objects are different and that even though these differnces can even be verified by testing these two objects are still equal. So what's it gonna be? a) equivalent properties means equal. or b) nonequivalent properties means equal. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
