If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.
I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.
I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a ?vanilla? iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically ?Mastered for iTunes.?
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a ?vanilla? iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically ?Mastered for iTunes.?
I think the OP was referring to Apple Lossless as being better than CD if submitted with better resolution / Mastered for iTunes.
The article you cite makes the wrong comparison, or rather points out that consumers are likely to make the wrong comparison.
Of course the Mastered for iTunes version is going to sound less like the CD than the encoding ripped from the CD. That's most likely, not a bad thing. The Mastered for iTunes encoding has the ability to sound more like the original master than the encoding from a CD rip (not necessarily the CD itself).
With Apple Lossless, the Mastered for iTunes version would have the potential to sound better than the encoded CD rip as well as the CD itself.
PS: It's worth noting that in October 2011, Apple made Apple Lossless open source and free, which may be an indication of what it's intending.
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a “vanilla” iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically “Mastered for iTunes.”
There is one oversight in the YouTube video, which is that it assumes that the 96k/24bit masters used for the "Mastered for iTunes" version of that Chili Peppers song is for some reason supposed to be identical to the CD masters. If the 96k/24bit masters are able to realize more of the potential of the original recordings, then it stands to reason that it would be slightly different (even subtly so) from the CD masters because it presumably has more "information". As such, it comes as no surprise that the MFI version was slightly different from the CD track or "vanilla" AAC version. They came from different masters after all. As the video mentions, any number of factors could account for this difference including variations in EQ, compression, levels and of course, the fact that it came from a different master.
In the comments following the article, a commentor named Jack puts it well by saying, "Well, this is just silly and OF COURSE it sounds different than the CD. That's the whole point of mastering it again. The fault lies in the assumption that this is supposed to sound like the CD."
All that said, I'm not necessarily defending MFI either. Like many others here, I'm waiting for the day when Apple will offer the complete contents of the iTunes Music Store in higher resolution. Establishing the requirement for masters to be 96k/24bit is just the first step. On a side note, I'm going to try the test demonstrated in the video except with a 96k/24bit AIFF file and a 44.1k/16bit AIFF file to start from. I'll create an iTunes Plus file using the Apple droplet and a "plain vanilla" file using iTunes and then compare everything in Logic. Should prove interesting.
That would be nice but you need to have a quality source to make that codec worthwhile. Those in-the-know assume that when you suggest a lossless codec you are implying a quality source but I think there are many who don't realize how the source data is the underlying factor.
PS: I always thought iTunes LP would have worked to restore full album sales if Apple would have offered ALAC files with the albums. That would have been something I would have seriously considered investing in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pika2000
It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.
Apple added ALAC support to the iPod Shuffle and that went unnoticed, too, in every review I read. I'm thinking people really don't care about audio quality a much as they like to complain about it.
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a ?vanilla? iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically ?Mastered for iTunes.?
I'm not talking about the Mastered for iTunes crap. That's just a con IMHO.
The article states that we might be getting HD music sometime soon - which means ALAC or some other new high quality 24 bit lossless format. Hopefully if this is correct I can stop buying and ripping CDs at last.
PS: I always thought iTunes LP would have worked to restore full album sales if Apple would have offered ALAC files with the albums. That would have been something I would have seriously considered investing in.
Apple added ALAC support to the iPod Shuffle and that went unnoticed, too, in every review I read. I'm thinking people really don't care about audio quality a much as they like to complain about it.
The iPod Shuffle??????????
Are you having a laugh. How many ALAC songs could you fit on that thing - 100?
People who copy ALAC to their iPod have an iPod Classic.
It's not just about that though. I have an expensive top of the range set of speakers linked to my Mac to listen to my iTunes library at home. You think I want to listen to some compressed crap? Noooooooooooooooooo. I'm not a 16 year old kid listening on crappy iPod speaker dock in their bedroom.
All we want is to buy ALAC via iTunes instead of having to go to the record store, buy the CDs, get home, rip the CDs into iTunes, etc. What's so wrong with that? You don't and all the other doubters don't have to join in. Keep buying the AAC versions if you want. I don't care. But don't limit the choice of other people.
Do you buy or rent HD movies or TV shows? Why? What's wrong with SD quality? It's the same argument.
Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
Yes, it is frustrating. Except instead of going to the CD store, I order them via Amazon, wait for them to arrive, rip onto iTunes and then file away somewhere to collect dust.
Are you having a laugh. How many ALAC songs could you fit on that thing - 100?
People who copy ALAC to their iPod have an iPod Classic.
It's not just about that though. I have an expensive top of the range set of speakers linked to my Mac to listen to my iTunes library at home. You think I want to listen to some compressed crap? Noooooooooooooooooo. I'm not a 16 year old kid listening on crappy iPod speaker dock in their bedroom.
All we want is to buy ALAC via iTunes instead of having to go to the record store, buy the CDs, get home, rip the CDs into iTunes, etc. What's so wrong with that? You don't and all the other doubters don't have to join in. Keep buying the AAC versions if you want. I don't care. But don't limit the choice of other people.
Do you buy or rent HD movies or TV shows? Why? What's wrong with SD quality? It's the same argument.
Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
1) ALAC is typically around 1Mbps or 125KBps so a 3.5 minute song would be about 25MB per song, give or take a few MB. The iPod Shuffle is 2GB BASE10, but lets say 1.8GB BASE10 for data. That's 4.2 hours of music or 72 songs at 3.5 minutes per song. I personally don't exercise nearly that long ? or often enough ? that ALAC as an option for those that don't want to use low quality audio or converted and downgraded audio in their Shuffle is a nice addition. iLounge has shown that the Shuffle's quality is on par with other iPods so the only lacking element is the headphones, but I have a couple nice pair of Shure that I use. That said, I do use my iPhone because Nike+GPS is awesome.
2) I don't mind people being blunt. if I did I would be a hypocrite.
All the iPhone/iTouch/iPods have fairly good built-in DAC chips especially for the size of the devise. The Shuffle's DAC isn't comparable to the larger, better iPhone/iTouch/iPod's built-in DAC chips.
Use an audiophile outboard DAC:
Apple worked with Wadia to create the iTransport 170. It is a "pre DAC out" dock that allows the signal to skip the built-in Apple DAC. The digital signal is fed into a stand alone audiophile DAC to translate the digital files into analog audio files. In my listening I have found that an iTouch/iPod/iPhone on a Wadia dock in conjunction with an audiophile tube or solid-state DAC will compare and even surpasses many $5,000 audiophile CD players.
Playing high quality music out of a computer:
To play music from my Mac I use "The Brick" USB DAC by Wavelength Audio. No I'm not a shill for audio peddlers but I have been enjoying the new options evolving for high end audio via the computer industry. Keep up the good work Apple. Digital audio file quality is one of the last stumbling block to getting Master Tape quality sound at an affordable price.
Mastered for iTunes makes no sense to me - if its purpose is to help alleviate the noticeability of AAC as a lossy format, isn't it a bit of overkill? It seems to me like the are changing the master to compensate for problems in the way people listen to the music, which should be problem of the consumer, not the person who masters the album. Or, even in the future, if Apple will make a lossless format available via the iTunes Store, what's wrong with a higher quality 96/24 or 192/24 of the original master?
It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.
"HE-AAC! And The Masters of the Universe!!"
Slightly OT, but I always felt that iTunes-LP should have been more "Portable". I mean, it may not make sense on an iPhone or iPod, but on an iPad I should be able to comfortably read the liner notes and the booklet that constitutes the "LP" part.
The Music.app on the iPad is the one thing that has been neglected for so long. Adding support for iTunes LP would be a welcome change. Apple should also allow for users to add their own meta-data, similar to adding cover art. That is for people who do not have access to iTMS.
Back to the topic, I currently import my CDs into iTunes at 320 kbps VBR MP3s. I must say that I find it satisfactory enough for portable music. My earphones themselves are no great shakes - just a Klipsch. Given my setup, I am not too sure I can hear any significant difference using ALAC.
Anyone who thinks they can't hear any difference between a 256 kbps AAC file and and "HD" file, do this: go to HD Tracks, which has a bunch of downloadable music in 96kHz/24bit. Pick a song to sample that's also on iTunes, so you can A/B them. Most importantly, get a pair of decent headphones (they don't have to be crazy audiophile, just decent, say Sennheiser HD280s for a hundred bucks). The average ear bud isn't really going to let you hear much.
Listen. Notice how much more emotionally involving the HD tracks are. Notice how you can hear the instruments as instruments, in their own space, instead as just part of a kind of allover sound. The AAC tracks sound OK without anything to compare them to, but the HD tracks sound like being in the vicinity of musicians. It makes you want to stop and listen to the music, not just use it as a soundtrack to other activities.
I've heard it claimed that "audiophiles" have been stumped by blind A/B testing between a good quality AAC track and a 24bit track, I think that's a lie. I don't claim to be anything like an audiophile, do not own any expensive equipment. But the difference is palpable, and I'd bet real money I could pick it out in a blind listening test.
If Apple offers HD tracks on iTunes, I'd be all over that. It would be so nice to reacquaint myself with some old friend I really haven't had a chance to hear in quite a while.
If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.
I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.
I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".
For over a year now, I have been searching for someone who can prove they can hear the difference between 223 kbps AAC and the uncompressed source. No one has yet managed to. I am sure your listening pleasure is enhanced by the belief that you can hear a difference. So that is good. But objectively, you are probably just like myself and most other people and cant really hear a difference.
Anyone who thinks they can't hear any difference between a 256 kbps AAC file and and "HD" file, do this: go to HD Tracks, which has a bunch of downloadable music in 96kHz/24bit. Pick a song to sample that's also on iTunes, so you can A/B them. Most importantly, get a pair of decent headphones (they don't have to be crazy audiophile, just decent, say Sennheiser HD280s for a hundred bucks). The average ear bud isn't really going to let you hear much.
Listen. Notice how much more emotionally involving the HD tracks are. Notice how you can hear the instruments as instruments, in their own space, instead as just part of a kind of allover sound. The AAC tracks sound OK without anything to compare them to, but the HD tracks sound like being in the vicinity of musicians. It makes you want to stop and listen to the music, not just use it as a soundtrack to other activities.
I've heard it claimed that "audiophiles" have been stumped by blind A/B testing between a good quality AAC track and a 24bit track, I think that's a lie. I don't claim to be anything like an audiophile, do not own any expensive equipment. But the difference is palpable, and I'd bet real money I could pick it out in a blind listening test.
If Apple offers HD tracks on iTunes, I'd be all over that. It would be so nice to reacquaint myself with some old friend I really haven't had a chance to hear in quite a while.
See my post above. Audiophiles have been stumped. It is not a lie. Public listening tests involving many listeners using foobar and its blind ABX module have proven that except for a microscopic number of tracks which tripped up the codecs.
I created a file which interleaves 223 kbps AAC and source. No one, particularly HiFi buffs who say the difference is like night and day, chalk and cheese, have been able to hear a difference.
One thing I like about Apple is that they use Progressive Download instead of Streaming. I don't want my music to sound different depending on how my network is performing at the moment, what a horrible thought.
See my post above. Audiophiles have been stumped. It is not a lie. Public listening tests involving many listeners using foobar and its blind ABX module have proven that except for a microscopic number of tracks which tripped up the codecs.
I created a file which interleaves 223 kbps AAC and source. No one, particularly HiFi buffs who say the difference is like night and day, chalk and cheese, have been able to hear a difference.
Out of curiosity, would you mind providing some additional details about your double-blind tests? I know you're using Foobar and the ABX component, but what about the hardware? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Comments
If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.
I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.
I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a ?vanilla? iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically ?Mastered for iTunes.?
http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a ?vanilla? iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically ?Mastered for iTunes.?
http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/
I think the OP was referring to Apple Lossless as being better than CD if submitted with better resolution / Mastered for iTunes.
The article you cite makes the wrong comparison, or rather points out that consumers are likely to make the wrong comparison.
Of course the Mastered for iTunes version is going to sound less like the CD than the encoding ripped from the CD. That's most likely, not a bad thing. The Mastered for iTunes encoding has the ability to sound more like the original master than the encoding from a CD rip (not necessarily the CD itself).
With Apple Lossless, the Mastered for iTunes version would have the potential to sound better than the encoded CD rip as well as the CD itself.
PS: It's worth noting that in October 2011, Apple made Apple Lossless open source and free, which may be an indication of what it's intending.
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a “vanilla” iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically “Mastered for iTunes.”
http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/
There is one oversight in the YouTube video, which is that it assumes that the 96k/24bit masters used for the "Mastered for iTunes" version of that Chili Peppers song is for some reason supposed to be identical to the CD masters. If the 96k/24bit masters are able to realize more of the potential of the original recordings, then it stands to reason that it would be slightly different (even subtly so) from the CD masters because it presumably has more "information". As such, it comes as no surprise that the MFI version was slightly different from the CD track or "vanilla" AAC version. They came from different masters after all. As the video mentions, any number of factors could account for this difference including variations in EQ, compression, levels and of course, the fact that it came from a different master.
In the comments following the article, a commentor named Jack puts it well by saying, "Well, this is just silly and OF COURSE it sounds different than the CD. That's the whole point of mastering it again. The fault lies in the assumption that this is supposed to sound like the CD."
All that said, I'm not necessarily defending MFI either. Like many others here, I'm waiting for the day when Apple will offer the complete contents of the iTunes Music Store in higher resolution. Establishing the requirement for masters to be 96k/24bit is just the first step. On a side note, I'm going to try the test demonstrated in the video except with a 96k/24bit AIFF file and a 44.1k/16bit AIFF file to start from. I'll create an iTunes Plus file using the Apple droplet and a "plain vanilla" file using iTunes and then compare everything in Logic. Should prove interesting.
*sigh* Still no ALAC.
That would be nice but you need to have a quality source to make that codec worthwhile. Those in-the-know assume that when you suggest a lossless codec you are implying a quality source but I think there are many who don't realize how the source data is the underlying factor.
PS: I always thought iTunes LP would have worked to restore full album sales if Apple would have offered ALAC files with the albums. That would have been something I would have seriously considered investing in.
It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.
Apple added ALAC support to the iPod Shuffle and that went unnoticed, too, in every review I read. I'm thinking people really don't care about audio quality a much as they like to complain about it.
It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a ?vanilla? iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically ?Mastered for iTunes.?
http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/
I'm not talking about the Mastered for iTunes crap. That's just a con IMHO.
The article states that we might be getting HD music sometime soon - which means ALAC or some other new high quality 24 bit lossless format. Hopefully if this is correct I can stop buying and ripping CDs at last.
PS: I always thought iTunes LP would have worked to restore full album sales if Apple would have offered ALAC files with the albums. That would have been something I would have seriously considered investing in.
Bingo! That would have sold me on it.
That would be something
What? Speak up. I didn't catch that.
Apple added ALAC support to the iPod Shuffle and that went unnoticed, too, in every review I read. I'm thinking people really don't care about audio quality a much as they like to complain about it.
The iPod Shuffle??????????
Are you having a laugh. How many ALAC songs could you fit on that thing - 100?
People who copy ALAC to their iPod have an iPod Classic.
It's not just about that though. I have an expensive top of the range set of speakers linked to my Mac to listen to my iTunes library at home. You think I want to listen to some compressed crap? Noooooooooooooooooo. I'm not a 16 year old kid listening on crappy iPod speaker dock in their bedroom.
All we want is to buy ALAC via iTunes instead of having to go to the record store, buy the CDs, get home, rip the CDs into iTunes, etc. What's so wrong with that? You don't and all the other doubters don't have to join in. Keep buying the AAC versions if you want. I don't care. But don't limit the choice of other people.
Do you buy or rent HD movies or TV shows? Why? What's wrong with SD quality? It's the same argument.
Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
Yes, it is frustrating. Except instead of going to the CD store, I order them via Amazon, wait for them to arrive, rip onto iTunes and then file away somewhere to collect dust.
The iPod Shuffle??????????
Are you having a laugh. How many ALAC songs could you fit on that thing - 100?
People who copy ALAC to their iPod have an iPod Classic.
It's not just about that though. I have an expensive top of the range set of speakers linked to my Mac to listen to my iTunes library at home. You think I want to listen to some compressed crap? Noooooooooooooooooo. I'm not a 16 year old kid listening on crappy iPod speaker dock in their bedroom.
All we want is to buy ALAC via iTunes instead of having to go to the record store, buy the CDs, get home, rip the CDs into iTunes, etc. What's so wrong with that? You don't and all the other doubters don't have to join in. Keep buying the AAC versions if you want. I don't care. But don't limit the choice of other people.
Do you buy or rent HD movies or TV shows? Why? What's wrong with SD quality? It's the same argument.
Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
1) ALAC is typically around 1Mbps or 125KBps so a 3.5 minute song would be about 25MB per song, give or take a few MB. The iPod Shuffle is 2GB BASE10, but lets say 1.8GB BASE10 for data. That's 4.2 hours of music or 72 songs at 3.5 minutes per song. I personally don't exercise nearly that long ? or often enough
2) I don't mind people being blunt. if I did I would be a hypocrite.
All the iPhone/iTouch/iPods have fairly good built-in DAC chips especially for the size of the devise. The Shuffle's DAC isn't comparable to the larger, better iPhone/iTouch/iPod's built-in DAC chips.
Use an audiophile outboard DAC:
Apple worked with Wadia to create the iTransport 170. It is a "pre DAC out" dock that allows the signal to skip the built-in Apple DAC. The digital signal is fed into a stand alone audiophile DAC to translate the digital files into analog audio files. In my listening I have found that an iTouch/iPod/iPhone on a Wadia dock in conjunction with an audiophile tube or solid-state DAC will compare and even surpasses many $5,000 audiophile CD players.
Playing high quality music out of a computer:
To play music from my Mac I use "The Brick" USB DAC by Wavelength Audio. No I'm not a shill for audio peddlers but I have been enjoying the new options evolving for high end audio via the computer industry. Keep up the good work Apple. Digital audio file quality is one of the last stumbling block to getting Master Tape quality sound at an affordable price.
It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.
"HE-AAC! And The Masters of the Universe!!"
Slightly OT, but I always felt that iTunes-LP should have been more "Portable". I mean, it may not make sense on an iPhone or iPod, but on an iPad I should be able to comfortably read the liner notes and the booklet that constitutes the "LP" part.
The Music.app on the iPad is the one thing that has been neglected for so long. Adding support for iTunes LP would be a welcome change. Apple should also allow for users to add their own meta-data, similar to adding cover art. That is for people who do not have access to iTMS.
Back to the topic, I currently import my CDs into iTunes at 320 kbps VBR MP3s. I must say that I find it satisfactory enough for portable music. My earphones themselves are no great shakes - just a Klipsch. Given my setup, I am not too sure I can hear any significant difference using ALAC.
Listen. Notice how much more emotionally involving the HD tracks are. Notice how you can hear the instruments as instruments, in their own space, instead as just part of a kind of allover sound. The AAC tracks sound OK without anything to compare them to, but the HD tracks sound like being in the vicinity of musicians. It makes you want to stop and listen to the music, not just use it as a soundtrack to other activities.
I've heard it claimed that "audiophiles" have been stumped by blind A/B testing between a good quality AAC track and a 24bit track, I think that's a lie. I don't claim to be anything like an audiophile, do not own any expensive equipment. But the difference is palpable, and I'd bet real money I could pick it out in a blind listening test.
If Apple offers HD tracks on iTunes, I'd be all over that. It would be so nice to reacquaint myself with some old friend I really haven't had a chance to hear in quite a while.
If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.
I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.
I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".
For over a year now, I have been searching for someone who can prove they can hear the difference between 223 kbps AAC and the uncompressed source. No one has yet managed to. I am sure your listening pleasure is enhanced by the belief that you can hear a difference. So that is good. But objectively, you are probably just like myself and most other people and cant really hear a difference.
Anyone who thinks they can't hear any difference between a 256 kbps AAC file and and "HD" file, do this: go to HD Tracks, which has a bunch of downloadable music in 96kHz/24bit. Pick a song to sample that's also on iTunes, so you can A/B them. Most importantly, get a pair of decent headphones (they don't have to be crazy audiophile, just decent, say Sennheiser HD280s for a hundred bucks). The average ear bud isn't really going to let you hear much.
Listen. Notice how much more emotionally involving the HD tracks are. Notice how you can hear the instruments as instruments, in their own space, instead as just part of a kind of allover sound. The AAC tracks sound OK without anything to compare them to, but the HD tracks sound like being in the vicinity of musicians. It makes you want to stop and listen to the music, not just use it as a soundtrack to other activities.
I've heard it claimed that "audiophiles" have been stumped by blind A/B testing between a good quality AAC track and a 24bit track, I think that's a lie. I don't claim to be anything like an audiophile, do not own any expensive equipment. But the difference is palpable, and I'd bet real money I could pick it out in a blind listening test.
If Apple offers HD tracks on iTunes, I'd be all over that. It would be so nice to reacquaint myself with some old friend I really haven't had a chance to hear in quite a while.
See my post above. Audiophiles have been stumped. It is not a lie. Public listening tests involving many listeners using foobar and its blind ABX module have proven that except for a microscopic number of tracks which tripped up the codecs.
Take a look at the tests and the results: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40
I created a file which interleaves 223 kbps AAC and source. No one, particularly HiFi buffs who say the difference is like night and day, chalk and cheese, have been able to hear a difference.
See my post above. Audiophiles have been stumped. It is not a lie. Public listening tests involving many listeners using foobar and its blind ABX module have proven that except for a microscopic number of tracks which tripped up the codecs.
Take a look at the tests and the results: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40
I created a file which interleaves 223 kbps AAC and source. No one, particularly HiFi buffs who say the difference is like night and day, chalk and cheese, have been able to hear a difference.
Out of curiosity, would you mind providing some additional details about your double-blind tests? I know you're using Foobar and the ABX component, but what about the hardware? I'm genuinely interested to know.