What scientific results? Clearly the number of bits will differ, but that's not what we're talking about

huh?

lossy= during the encoding process some sound elements are lost that cannot be recovered when decoding so that the initial (pre encoded) version cannot be gotten back. Sonicaly (due to different data) the audio is not the same

lossless= the encoder will create a much smaller file that during decoding we will get the exact (bit for bit) of the digital master

uncompressed =any format that does not compress the digital master.

Like Nataraj pointed out (but missed the forest for the trees) that

a) picking up the sound in a mic (even analog) will affect sound (distance, mic quality....) ---in your HT it won't sound the same if you are in a corner or beside the speaker.
b) once you go digital you tend to have losses (are we talking 16/24, 16/48, 24/48, 24/96.....)

but what ever that digital master is (with ll its flaws) it is what the studio is working with and whjat it considers perfection.

that can be sent as uncompressed PCM, or it can be compressed losslessly (less bits) but once decoded it is the same thing.

lossless is like taking a rubber raft putting letting the air out and putting it in a bag, all you nbeed to do is reblow the air and you can have fun on the beach
lossy is like taking the raft, letting the air out then tking a knife and chopping off a part so that it fits in the bag. Once on the beach it is not as much fun because there is a part missing.


Scientific data, and the means of acquiring it, must be capable of withstanding scrutiny, ie: peer review.

you really don't get it. scientifically a bias presample can be used to prove anything. It is called lossy for a reason there is no way in many scenarios to get back the same thing. If I had a scene of a fireworks competition where some of the sound is a 100 piece orchestra and the rest is the exploding fireworks (and maybe add some other random noises like someone talking) lossy won't do it justice and in an blind A/B test most will hear a difference. On the other hand if I picked a scene where two lovers are looking in eachothers eyes longingly and there is no sounds what so ever then a lossy codec in tyhat instance will most likely not change anything.

anyone can add enough sounds where lossy can't handle it. Some of these can happen in some movies some times.

Certainly. That's why a great many trials are necessary. Were you aware that in auditory testing protocols, a clear majority of subjects persist in believing that they hear differences, even when the comparator switches back and forth between a single source?

yes, have you tried the high end forum? :) the difference is that in one case we know there is a difference and you are asking do we know if this difference is perseptible. A dog whistle makes a sound but it is too high pitch for humans, the sound is there but not perseptible to us.

In the other instance there is no instrument that can measure the difference and all scientific evidence point to thre not being one, but people assuming they can hear it because of faith

for obvious reasons. It certainly would simplify this discussion, if we could point to some data either way, but I'm not aware of any protocols attempting to examine the alleged benefits of PCM over the newer codecs....which seems rather curious with so many definitive claims being made.

who is talking PCM. Lossless is DTS-HD-MA and DTHD, PCM (even though it can be considered lossless since there is no loss) is usually called uncompressed. Lossy is DTS, DD, DD+, DTS-HD-HRA

you really don't get it. scientifically a bias presample can be used to prove anything.

Um, yeah. I was the one who posted this, just before you accused me of really not getting it:

Scientific testing recently appeared to confirm the central premise of homeopathy, ie: the memory of water. :rolleyes:

By comparison, it's an elementary matter to convince yourself you're hearing a difference that doesn't really exist.

If I had a scene of a fireworks competition where some of the sound is a 100 piece orchestra and the rest is the exploding fireworks (and maybe add some other random noises like someone talking)

If you were actually a live witness to this cacophony, the concussion of one of the large mortars would ( momentarily ) completely overwhelm and mask the sound of people conversing ten feet away from you, along with the orchestra. If you can't hear those people speaking or several notes of the music being played, what conceivable difference does it make if the data is dropped in a recording of the event?

lossy won't do it justice and in an blind A/B test most will hear a difference.

Please provide a link to the data you're apparently referencing. Which codec? How was the protocol designed? What was the level of statistical significance? Unless you can do this, you're simply making yet another unsupported assertion.

Perceptual codecs have grown in sophistication and efficiency; formal testing has tended to reinforce the contention that the best of them are functionally transparent to the source with regard to perceptibility and despite the shrinking cost of storage, this trend will only continue; marketing claims notwithstanding.

Well, this thread started about Disney videos. Now, I swear I'm in the audio section.

Any other news/thoughts about DISNEY?

If you were actually a live witness to this cacophony, the concussion of one of the large mortars would ( momentarily ) completely overwhelm and mask the sound of people conversing ten feet away from you, along with the orchestra. If you can't hear those people speaking or several notes of the music being played, what conceivable difference does it make if the data is dropped in a recording of the event?

I have been at such events many, many , many times and you are dead wrong (like always). There has been an international fireworks competion in Montreal for over 20 years with several shows most summer long http://www.internationaldesfeuxloto-quebec.com/en/programmation/Default.asp have been too many times to remember. And you can talk watch and listen from my teens to today. I usually try to go at least once a year, but have missed some years but on the other hand earlier on (when it was newer) there were many years when I went several times.

you are dead wrong (like always)

:rolleyes: So much for reasoned discussion.