Originally Posted by elroth
You are just plain wrong. Not for all people, but for many. Not for all music, but for a lot of it. Not in all listening situations, but in many.
If you can't ever hear a difference, that's you. Don't try to speak for the rest of us.
I posted a link to a file containing a mixture of compressed and uncompressed music. No one on this thread who has made a claim they can clearly hear a difference between the two has been able to demonstrate that they can. In fact their silence is deafening. If you can hear a difference, it is easy enough to prove. Just listen and report back.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40
A lot of very knowledgeable people on the above site have been testing codecs at various rates of compression for years. They have been using double blind testing using software like Foobar. This has been going on for years so the body of evidence that has been accumulated is substantial. That evidence points to there being only incredibly rare instances of samples that when compressed, can be audibly differentiated from the original. Differences between choice of headphones/earphones/speakers used would be many orders of magnitude more relevant to perceived audio quality than whether the source was uncompressed or compressed at a a highish bit rate.
Things I don't think people can not hear a difference between:
Highish bit rate compression / source
16bit 44khz / 24bit 96khz
D/A converters (well implemented)
Amplifiers (of same power output and adequately engineered)
One hand clapping / silence