On 29/04/2017 07:12, ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet Andrew wrote:
As per subject.

While browsing the HMV Worthing store I came across some classical
music (German) on Super AUdio CD.

There are still a couple of players that support this format
but am I right in thinking that everyone has moved on to
'Higher resolution' downloads (or back to vinyl :-) ) ?.

Or has the penny dropped and people gone back to standard
CD format with just a better pair of speakers ?.

I've seen this article btw :-

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Wow! Whoever wrote that doesn't know how to use the English language
to communicate clearly. I found myself reading sentences several
times to grasp what he (?) was trying to say.

Does anyone know of a similar explanatory site (mainly about the ear
and how it works - in detail)? Struggling with the phrasing at that
one gave me a headache.

Belay that, I found this site and it's much better;
http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/how-ear-works

Though it doesn't cover inter-'hair' distances etc. that were being used in
the first artcile to support the author's stand.


I found them both OK on physiology and physics - for my lay purposes at
any rate.

What they don't cover is what I would call psycho or socio acoustics.

In this sense I think it'd be useful to understand a little more about
why I might always prefer an uncompressed music file to something lossy
of the exact same recording - even if, quantitatively at least, I can't
express any difference between the two. And technically, no difference

Then there's vinyl and other 'deep' analogue mediums - why some people
find it more natural, accurate and so on.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , RJH wrote:

In this sense I think it'd be useful to understand a little more about
why I might always prefer an uncompressed music file to something lossy
of the exact same recording - even if, quantitatively at least, I can't
express any difference between the two. And technically, no difference

I'm not quite sure what you mean above. If you're listening to a version
that has been subject to 'lossy' encoding then, by definition, the result
will tend to be altered. e.g. If you look at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/in...lacresults.png

you can see that the lower ('diff') plot for a recent R3 broadcast shows
that the aac (lossy) and flac (loss free) versions differ at a level
typically about 40dB below the flac version. For THD this would mean about
1% which would be audible. But if I listen to the 'diff' it sounds like an
odd kind of modulated noise. So in practice the aac and flac may sound
subtly different - but in a way you may not notice or be aware of.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 29-04-17 12:32, RJH wrote:

What they don't cover is what I would call psycho or socio acoustics.

Do you mean stuff like expectation bias?

Julf