On 05/09/2017 02:10 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 02:13:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
On 05/08/2017 03:28 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
Uncompressed? Seriously? I assume that really means FLAC or something
rather than truly uncompressed, but even still...sounds more like a
bullet-list pandering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hselling point to the same
suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"classy folk" who buy Monster-brand cables for
digital signals than a legit quality enhancement. Take a
top-of-the-line $$$$ audio system, set down a room full of
audiophiles, and compare lossless vs 320kbps Vorbis...in a true
double-blind, no WAY they'd be able to consistently spot the
difference even if they try. Let alone while being detracted by all
the fun of causing mass mayhem and carnage. Unless maybe you just
happen to stumble upon some kind of audio savant.
Don't need to go that high. c't did a double blind study some years ago
with the help of her sister magazine for audio equipment. So they made a
very good setup. What they discovered is that mp3 with 160 kbit/s CBR
was already undistinguishable from CD for 99% of people for almost all
kind of music. mp3 is much better than its reputation, due to really bad
Interesting. Any links? Not familiar with what "c't" is.
Although, even 1% is still a *LOT* of people. I'd be more curious to see
what encoding it would take to get more like 99.99% or so.
encoders at the beginning (Xing was awful and was the widest used at the
beginning, Fraunhofer was excellent but not free, lame took years before
it was any good) people thought that the crap they heard was inherent to
the mp3 format but very often it was bad grabbing, over eager lo-pass
filtering and crappy psycho-acoustic models (Xing). So you make a good
point that uncompressed audio for a game is completely nuts.
Fair point. Also, I've heard that the big quality improvements that
aac/vorbis/etc have over mp3 are mainly just at lower bitrates.
