The reason I can hear the difference betweem mp3*** and 1644/1 or better is precisely because I do have good equipment that is why I can hear the difference.it is also very apparant to me and others including musicians on decent headphones .
OTOH on a jambox ,sounddock Bose surround system or HTIB or mp3 dock or best buy Samsung sound bar ,HTIB I probably wouldn'tbe able to hear much difference ether
As for the TV thing it wasn't a direct comparison but a reasonable analogy not hard to understand?
Yes sight and sound are different but if your shiny new HDTV gets low res signal you can't make out the details as well .
OTOH if you are listening to mp3** on decent revealing speakers as well it might not sound mostly undistorted or as good as 16/44.1
Digital TV's and as you probably know and all display panels dither some be it from grayscale (you are correct)or pixel scaling it doesent matter they still dither (try to guess what to display if you will not unlike lossy music processing ) so do PC monitors .Even the Plasma in the HT here dithers.
The TV formats I mentioned ....you could think of 480i/p as maybe 56/128kbps mp3 and 750p as maybe 256/320kbps and 1080p blue ray as 16/44.1 if that floats your boat works for me not to hard to understand the parallel to the mp3 vs 16/44.1 argument. As far as my credibility in your opinion ..... don't worry I won't be loosing any sleep over that LOL.
I was there as youngster in 1963 also, granted almost anything sounds better than a pocket radio but maybe not mp3 on cell phone speaker ever heard one ?LOL.
OTOH if we state we cannot hear what other what others clearly say they can. I for one would be concerned if that were the case.
I'm probably not the only one posting here that would agree with that .
I work with this stuff almost every day I don't prefer to waste waste my time doing dbt's to find out or not what I already know. otherwise why would I have have an opinion based on valid experience? ofc you or anybody are welcome to disagree and maybe contribute some valuable personal insight that we can all relate to?
I don't need an article or peer approved scientific white paper or wikipedia to tell me that what I and many others can and cannot hear regardless of placebo science .ofc maybe some can not hear the difference then they are happy with mp3 and thats fine for them but does not convince me.
You asked Why have scientists, anyway? I will answer that with a question Do you mean placebo scientists? like the ones that work for big pharma?
plenty of scientists have been discredited there. Is their placebo science and sometimes rigged testing any more or less valid than placebo science in audio or not ?
If science were absolute things might be different it seldom is in audio especially depending on who is funding the science in any field for that matter science right or wrong is bought and sold every day. Ever heard a doctor say medicine is not an exact science how many times have they revised Moore's law? They also once that amphetamines were a miracle drug.
Remember also once they thought the earth was flat and that bloodletting was sound medical treatment . Do we know how exactly the pyramids were built ? OTOH Murphy's law seems to be constant,so does gravity.
so nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism now and then.
If you play mp3** and 16/44.1 same recording same mix all other things being equal on lets say a pair of JBL Everest speakers with ofc the appropriate equipment I don't think anyone with a good frame of reference with regard to quality audio would have any trouble telling the difference mp3**vs 16/44.1 ofc I doubt many would play mp3 on JBL everest but on crappy speakers you might not be able to tell.I can say there are many audio forums with knowledgeable professionals in the music and audio industry that agree that mp3** VS 16/44 that ofc 16/441 is th clear winner.Just like any argument folks will take one side or the other and resist the facts
nothing I'm loosing sleep over to be sure .I know if I spin up a .flac file instead if Mp3*** (same master) and put my phones on right now that the .flac will sound better .Not hard to do I have .flac/mp3/ 328kbs and .wav library's . we archive in all 3 formats for business and personal use.
we have plenty of professional software I have foobar 2000,Jriver,iTunes, etc on my personal daily driver
OUR studio equipment and phones have no trouble resolving the difference either even my PC in the bedroom with DAC + headphone amp and studio phones has no trouble
resolving Mp3 vs 16/44/1 We have plenty of both on raid storage HDD's not to mention Pandora has mp3 we use that for our smartphones it came with the phone service for only $5.00 a month .
DBT's are by nature subjective and therefore not usually an accurate measurement as opposed to electronic sound analysis the old saying holds true
"if it measures good and sounds bad you are measuring the wrong thing " mp3 inherently usually measures bad.
All that being said it's still what it sounds like in the end
that is important and that can and indeed does vary by individual.Some are happy with mp3
that's fine nothing wrong with that that does not mean it sounds as good to everyone or is as resolving,
revealing or as accurate as lossless format .
You can not replace information that is not there regardless of what some experienced coders say ( you can substitute what you think it was or should be but not replace it ) Recorded music reproduced in a room or studio is not the same as live music at a live venue regardless of format/media .That is why I would never pretend to say recorded music is indistinguishable from live music better ....maybe sometimes if it is edited/mixed well. at least subjectively all recordings analog or digital are approximations some being more accurate to the original than others .
more accurate overall? probably not .
I've listened to plenty of mp3 256kps ,320kbs and lower 320kbps has plenty of limitations and compromise it is only marginally better than 256kbps and can be be at times hard to tell the difference from 256kbs although 256kbps is much better than 128kbps IMO AAC is only very slightly better sounding if at all.
mp3 has low dynamic range VS 16/44.1 if you measure it. ofc granted a lot of popular music especially Hip Hop/Rap E-dubstep etc. intended
for digital distribution is often over compressed and mixed for loudness without high concern for sound quality as a priority
that also commonly happened with some vinyl also. if anyone would care to measure that for theselves there is a free software tool at soundforge to measure mp3 http://sourceforge.net/projects/mp3dra/
When we upload mp*** and 16/44.1 files for distribution ofc we have listened to them many times before that and have no truble at all hearing the difference in the studio.unless the final mix is severely over compressed before rendering/encoding in that case a comparison from mp3 320kbps and 16/44.1 might be closer.
so that would be one reason along with low fidelity system ,maybe also not optimal hearing ,listening environment etc. would explain why some say they can not tell the difference.and that may be legitimately true given the circumstance.
mp3*** is popular in the market more due to file size/low bandwidth transmission requirements and number of devices in the market place not because it sounds real good just like cassette tape in the 70's 80's did not usually sound that good . In fact that is another good analagy right there either cassette vs RTR /vinyl and mp3**vs 16/44.1 same thing .
As far as mpeg ** TV sound goes I never thought it was that great anyway
but that may have something to do with the content creators and content delivery .
Even from laptop, CD is still better whether you can perceive it yourself or not. Some people may perceive the difference and some may not. Personally, getting accustomed to very high end speakers system makes my perception quite different .
while quoting others and books,links ,and papers etc to re enforce their position instead of providing valuable personal experience for others
to evaluate as they may.
Ofc we could all argue and attack each other all day I don't think that is the intended spirit of AVS and having a lot of posts does not entitle
someone. Nothing wrong with spirited debate and argument but I find the the attacking as sign of one that may not be all that confident in their position
despite what they say .
So the tendency is to get defensive and revert to a back up style of attacking (psych. 101 ) while excessively quoting others and books,links ,and papers etc to defend their position instead of providing valuable personal experience and insight right or wrong for others to evaluate and discuss without personal attack . that's the whole point of free discussion. (phsyc101 ) I think it is an unfortunate personality trait some have and is best kept private or they may seem foolish .
That being said I think we (including myself) should Keep things civil and perhaps engage in some spirited free discussion.
While AVS attempts to be a science forum and the TV section is very good there are also things we can learn from one and other .Edited by tubetwister - 9/12/13 at 4:08pm