Stereo vs. Joint Stereo

[a'ndY]

sure anyone can hear the difference from 48 to a128 or to 192

however there is no audible difference between 128AAC and 192 or between 192 and 256, and i am talking about the majority of us at normal listening , not freaks that spend outrageous amounts of money on equipment, which are maybe 1 or 2% of the total listeners, and in such case its totally useless to provide something that only a select few will hear

yeah that's true, but

1.) i don't like statements like "nobody can ..." - you said yourself that you're speaking about a majority, but there are people who do hear a difference, so you shouldn't say "nobody can hear the difference" but rather "the majority can't hear the difference". and i'd say that "majority" is in this case like 99.9%
(yeah i know, i'm very pedantic here, sorry )

2.) why not use something that has only advantages and no disadvantages? even if only one person can profit from the advantage, that's still something :smile: plus i think it's more professional to get the maximum sound quality out of a given bitrate.

i beg to differ. human hearing does have limits, nobody on this planet has "super hearing", which means there is aspects of audio that indeed no human being can hear. dogs maybe, but that's a whole new discussion

what about a human being with dog's ears? gotcha!

regarding limits, of course there are limits, but i highly doubt that the limit of human hearing is to distuingish between a 256 kbps and a 192 kbps file^^

 

[dfx]

regarding limits, of course there are limits, but i highly doubt that the limit of human hearing is to distuingish between a 256 kbps and a 192 kbps file^^

maybe it is, how do you know?

 

[t4e]

what about a human being with dog's ears? gotcha!

congrats! you finally had your dog ears transplant?

here, have a treat

 

[Tarek]

maybe it is, how do you know?

Dude..he has dog ears..

 

[a'ndY]

maybe it is, how do you know?

hydrogenaudio recommends -V 2 to achieve quality where most people can't tell a difference between mp3 and lossless audio. -V 2 uses 256 kbps quite often, so there's gotta be a difference to 192, else it would use only 192 and 320 kbps i'm awaiting your counter argument

congrats! you finally had your dog ears transplant?

here, have a treat

thank you - next on the list is an elephant's.. ah, nevermind
(just for the record, i was talking about an elephant's memory of course!! )

 

[Lazarus]

It's threads like these that remind me that I'm nowhere near the geek I could be when it comes to sound engineering

 

[dfx]

hydrogenaudio recommends -V 2 to achieve quality where most people can't tell a difference between mp3 and lossless audio. -V 2 uses 256 kbps quite often, so there's gotta be a difference to 192, else it would use only 192 and 320 kbps i'm awaiting your counter argument )

no problem, i'm gonna use your own argument: just because they say that "most people" can not tell the difference, doesn't mean that there actually is anyone who can hear a difference. simply because "most" can also mean "all". (or if you wanna be nitpicking: their statement doesn't really say anything about 192 vs 256, only about 192/256 vs lossless...)

and the same applies to the encoder: just because the encoder picks 256 for a certain frame instead of 192, doesn't necessarily mean that there actually is an audible difference.

bottom line: unless anyone has actually conducted a proper study, where at least a few people could tell the difference, we're both just guessing. (of course a large scale study where nobody could tell the difference would help too...)

 

[a'ndY]

no problem, i'm gonna use your own argument: just because they say that "most people" can not tell the difference, doesn't mean that there actually is anyone who can hear a difference. simply because "most" can also mean "all".

I tend to disagree

and the same applies to the encoder: just because the encoder picks 256 for a certain frame instead of 192, doesn't necessarily mean that there actually is an audible difference.

A difference to most people or to all people on earth?

bottom line: unless anyone has actually conducted a proper study, where at least a few people could tell the difference, we're both just guessing. (of course a large scale study where nobody could tell the difference would help too...)

There are only very few people who are interested in that topic, many of them on hydrogenaudio.org, and they do lots of blind tests. So there might not be official studies with hundrets of people, but I don't think that's not necessary, it wouldn't change anything^^ Many audiophiles put their abx results on hydrogenaudio, that's not a proper study, but kind of


I think our "problem" is that you want to believe that there is nobody who can hear the difference, and that i want to believe that there are people who can - we'll never be able to end this argument, simply because no one can prove the other one wrong (although it's easier for me to prove you wrong than the other way around )

 

[t4e]

I think our "problem" is that you want to believe that there is nobody who can hear the difference, and that i want to believe that there are people who can - we'll never be able to end this argument, simply because no one can prove the other one wrong (although it's easier for me to prove you wrong than the other way around )

its very easy to explain why some "hear" any difference...autosuggestion...you think you can hear a difference because you are told you re supposed to...in turn your brain tries very hard and fools itself into thinking that you can hear it
(you might wanna read this
"This Is Your Brain on Music" | Salon Books

afaic is just something started by the need to push certain expensive equipment and to justify the price tag they have attached to it

HigherFi-Ultimate - The Worlds Best and Most Expensive Audio Speakers

 

[Tarek]

(you might wanna read this
"This Is Your Brain on Music" | Salon Books

I was waiting for you to mention it

 

[dfx]

I think our "problem" is that you want to believe that there is nobody who can hear the difference, and that i want to believe that there are people who can - we'll never be able to end this argument, simply because no one can prove the other one wrong (although it's easier for me to prove you wrong than the other way around )

of course it can be proven. if any person who claims they can hear the difference is able to reliably and repeatedly pass a series of blind tests, your point is proven. if no such person can be found after a reasonable large number of testees, my point can be considered to be proven.

ps: and it's not that i want to believe that nobody can hear the difference, it's just that so far nobody i ever met and who claimed to be able to tell the difference, was actually able to pass a blind test like that...

 

[a'ndY]

its very easy to explain why some "hear" any difference...autosuggestion...you think you can hear a difference because you are told you re supposed to...in turn your brain tries very hard and fools itself into thinking that you can hear it

i never said i can hear it, in fact i can't

the tests carried out by people at hydrogenaudio are abx tests, so there is absolutely no chance for autosuggestion.
i'll go through their forums when i'm bored and see if i can find some interesting results :smile:

of course it can be proven. if any person who claims they can hear the difference is able to reliably and repeatedly pass a series of blind tests, your point is proven. if no such person can be found after a reasonable large number of testees, my point can be considered to be proven.

ps: and it's not that i want to believe that nobody can hear the difference, it's just that so far nobody i ever met and who claimed to be able to tell the difference, was actually able to pass a blind test like that...

of course it can be proven, but i have better things to do than ask thousands of people to abx two or more files for me

how many people have you tried? were these people who actually knew what they're talking about?

 

[dfx]

how many people have you tried? were these people who actually knew what they're talking about?

you missed my point: my point is that there's lots of people who claim that <insert popular audiophile term> sounds (much much) better than <something else>, but fail to pass a blind test to prove that they can actually hear any difference. that includes things such as 320 vs vbr, 320 vs 256, 256 vs 192, cbr vs vbr, joint stereo vs stereo, mp3 vs aac, vinyl vs cd, etc etc. granted, most of those people in fact didn't know what they were talking about, but the fact that someone actually knows the theory still doesn't mean that there really is an audible difference.