Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy  (Read 4636 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy

Reply #25 –
Quote from: skamp on
I've always wondered about fatigue. It seems to me that your ears are bound to get sore after listening to music for a couple hours or more, no matter what.

I do think it depends on average sound pressure level.
... I live by long distance.

[TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy

Reply #26 –
Zoiks, what's going on here?

First, to address 'Barr', no one here has ever said that lossy is always indistinguishable from lossless.  We have a few folks here who have even shown, via ABX results,  evidence of the (rare) ability to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from source. But the fact remains that most people can't.  And the fact remains that those mastering 'engineers' quoted in an earlier Colletti article haven't come up with anything like that evidence to support their claims. 

Second, I linked to a *different* Colletti article because it was about the needlessness of super 'hi rez' sample rates.  Not lossy vs lossless.  So why did that become the focus afterwards?

Third, to Greynol, masked or not, it's not like Colletti tried to make a strong argument that a 17-20kHz rolloff matters to teen listeners. It's certainly not a central point to his argument, which is an argument *against* the need for very high sample rates, that he lays out in the remaining 2/3 of a pretty well-written article that barely deviates from HA viewpoint.  To wave off the whole thing on such basis -- or on the basis 'it won't tell me anything I don't know'  --  seems rather curmudgeonly.

Fourth, re the Berger 'ipod generation' news piece from '09, I never saw any reference to blind comparison methods in various reports on that work -- rather , it sounded from some reports like an unrigorous mass trial that he subjected all his first-year classes to.    Nor have I ever found a reference to a publication that came from it. There's nothing about it on Berger's website, either. If someone's got more details, I'd welcome reading them.

[TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy

Reply #27 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Second, I linked to a *different* Colletti article because it was about the needlessness of super 'hi rez' sample rates.  Not lossy vs lossless.  So why did that become the focus afterwards?

Probably because of your off-topic necrobump.  Maybe this will teach you to refrain from doing it in the future.

Quote
Third, to Greynol, masked or not, it's not like Colletti tried to make a strong argument that a 17-20kHz rolloff matters to teen listeners. It's certainly not a central point to his argument, which is an argument *against* the need for very high sample rates, that he lays out in the remaining 2/3 of a pretty well-written article that barely deviates from HA viewpoint.  To wave off the whole thing on such basis -- or on the basis 'it won't tell me anything I don't know'  --  seems rather curmudgeonly.

I already conceded the point and later finished reading it. Guess what, I found nothing new.

...and to address the "another good article," the one that began this discussion was *not* good.

[TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy

Reply #28 –
You're a pip, Greynol.  Don't ever change.   

FWIW, 2bdecided noted a good article by Colletti -- actually he called it 'great', with some later qualification  --  on this thread, before I did.  So, 'another good article' seemed appropriate when I posted my link.  Which was no more off-topic than 2b's.




 



[TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy

Reply #30 –
Ah, so 2b was wrong too!  And you were wrong for forgetting he'd been wrong before me.  Gad, what a trainwreck.  Can this thread be saved?

[TOS #2/5] From: Big-label mastering engineers don’t understand lossy

Reply #31 –
To his (and my) defense his wasn't that far off-topic (read the thread title if you aren't sure why), so the discussion didn't veer much, if at all.  This is why it went unnoticed, if not un-moderated. The same can't be said for you.