pippin wrote: > One non-scientific test is here (in German) but I've seen methodically > better ones: > http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html > I don't think this reference is relevant. The test was conducted in January 2000. Codecs have improved since then. A LOT.
As for the rest of your post: I don't buy it at all. I really would like to see one of the more knowledgeable posters chime in (Julf, probedb etc.) My laymen's take on this is as follows. Lossy audio compression will introduce noise and distortion. The codec employs a psychoacoustic model that tries to introduce only artifacts you cannot hear. To that end, it makes use of spectral masking. If you introduce an artifact, say, at 900-920 Hz, but in that same frequency band, you have signal with a level 25 dB higher, you probably cannot hear the artifact. So what is the story you can tell which explains why somebody with impaired hearing would be more capable of hearing the articaft down there? -- As an aside, this whole discussion seems a bit funny. Should we conclude from your analysis that hearing impairment is why people should spend $$$ on lossless audio streaming? (I know you didn't say precisely that, I'm exaggerating.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dafiend's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=60637 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102351 _______________________________________________ plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/plugins
