I could go on, but, again, there isn’t much point. I doubt we could ever convince the writers of how wrong they are.
"0 = Kazoo." Bummer. I play the kazoo and I assure you it is definitely not a zero. At least a 25.
Is this the same article which claims that the speed at which a CD is ripped changes the sound, even if they are a bit-perfect match? I bought the electronic download of that issue of the magazine just to read the BS. I was curious.
The article happens to be part 2 of a 4-part series. The first installment went to great length to describe the test equipment and methods used, and explained all the questions they were going to try to answer. I think this is what I'm looking for, a comprehensive examination of digital audio, as it sits today, so I can know which tools to use, and the difference in the various formats that can be used to store and play back my audio collection. I haven't seen this installment, yet, but I'm sure that if the person who started this thread had been paying attention, they would have seen that it was part 2 of a series. They need to go back an issue, and come up to speed, because it's way too early in the series to be calling them out on their findings, as they're only halfway through the article. Anything less is what I call B.S.. By the way, I'm not a big fan of those guys, because I'm sick of in depth reviews of $5K dacs and $25K speaker systems, since the great majority of people anywhere can't even dream of owning that gear, and I find it to be elitist, IMHO, but sometimes they do teach me about audio, and we should let them finish this lesson, before we start running them down, I think.
0 = Kazoo. 50 = 320kbps MP3. 100 = Red Book CD, 44.1khz/16 bit.. 150 = 176/24 upconverted..Furthermore, a "very large" difference of 50 points would "require only one A/B comparison and is so large that a 24-hour hiatus between listening sessions would still elicit the typical audiophile expression of 'Holy Cow! This is a night and day difference!'"
The article claims a persistent degradation of sound quality after each conversion from WAV to FLAC to WAV again.
Of course you downloaded it on an ultra-slow modem line for added high end readability?
The article doesn't make sense, it's like comparing text files: Copy a plain text file, compress one with LZMA and then uncompress it, then check if they're still identical. So maybe it's not the magazine at fault, maybe just the author of the article. Was probably an intern or something, writing it.
And if you care to read a bunch of otherwise intelligent guys go way, way down the rabbit hole trying to 'explain' this 'mystery', check out the whatsbestforum thread.