Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Audio and Video Talk
Audio Visual Technology
The case for compressed audio
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support AVForums:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hennie" data-source="post: 34949" data-attributes="member: 20"><p>It is normally done under conditions that take into account generally accepted norms of audibility in acoustics and psychoacoustics, in other words, the scientific approach. In this context, the equipment (usually headphones as far as I know) should have been good enough, and the listeners are usually a randomly selected population which may include audiophiles.</p><p></p><p>There will always be differences in opinion on whether the original recording and the equipment was good enough, or whether a test audience consisting of a cross section of the population is adequate.</p><p></p><p>My personal view is that experienced, critical listeners, call them audiophiles if you will, do indeed develop hearing acuity which may well give a different outcome in tests, compared to randomly selected people. I don't understand the necessity of a random test audience if the tests are double blind, but it is based on some research that found no difference in hearing acuity between seasoned audiophiles and the general population. I'm in disagreement with this.</p><p></p><p>That said, I also believe that most, if not all codecs, become undetectable at high enough bitrates.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hennie, post: 34949, member: 20"] It is normally done under conditions that take into account generally accepted norms of audibility in acoustics and psychoacoustics, in other words, the scientific approach. In this context, the equipment (usually headphones as far as I know) should have been good enough, and the listeners are usually a randomly selected population which may include audiophiles. There will always be differences in opinion on whether the original recording and the equipment was good enough, or whether a test audience consisting of a cross section of the population is adequate. My personal view is that experienced, critical listeners, call them audiophiles if you will, do indeed develop hearing acuity which may well give a different outcome in tests, compared to randomly selected people. I don't understand the necessity of a random test audience if the tests are double blind, but it is based on some research that found no difference in hearing acuity between seasoned audiophiles and the general population. I'm in disagreement with this. That said, I also believe that most, if not all codecs, become undetectable at high enough bitrates. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Audio and Video Talk
Audio Visual Technology
The case for compressed audio
Top