Re: Psychoacoustic modeling
Reply #4 – 2021-07-24 15:41:32
Not wanting to sound too cynical to newcomers to this or any other field (everyone is one in almost everything) or worse: like an old geezer (I reckon I'm halfway into it) reminiscing about "how good things were back then", but I can definitely see guess where questions like these come from, thanks to some ten-fold increase in these so-called "best of lists" in the last decade and a half or so - be it about programming languages or lawn mowers. The still-standing "specialized press" have had their fair share of such clickbaits as well, with their regular "best drummer/album/movie ever" BS! People have just gotten used to this "why reading the book/article? Let's all skim the Cliffs notes/wiki article and get done with it!" drivel! And with such, second-hand bias, instead of properly researched opinion , seems to have become not only acceptable, but even commendable! Back to our lossy audio compression field, I recall that, at least in the late 90s, when promises as far-fetched as MP3 Pro or VQF came up, the first thing we did was downloading the (usual proprietary) tools, (so we'd already start off by taking it with pinch of salt) and then tried them there and then, before wanting to get miraculous end-all answers to fields as subjective as this one in particular or as encompassing as programming languages. All this rather chatty pondering (sorry) makes me wonder: What ever happened to the good olde hands-on approach? I mean, most tools are free or even open source, people can easily take THEIR OWN conclusions for themselves IF they're willing to do so! Edit: strikethrough and some rephrasing/typo correction