... dare you could tell the difference between 256kbit AAC and CD AIFF encodings using a double blind setup.
Also, CD audio quality is all you need for listening. There is no "the more the better" regarding your ears; it´s different for mixing sound, there you want as much headroom as possible.
For further interest:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/...idelity-and-audio-history-unburdened-by-fact/
Already done. Easy for me to tell the difference. The artifacts are easy to point out especially in the highs and lows. The mids, not so much. Did this for a week straight with F2k's ABX plugin.
I'd rather have 24 bit audio over 16 bit audio. That would contain much more detail in the dynamic range of the recording. Would be very useful for high quality classical recordings. The standard Red Book recording does not suffice for me sometimes.
As for the article, it is very subjective and full of faulty comparisons. Here I'll disprove all of the author's points:
1. Audio advancement in the digital realm pretty much stopped with the introduction of PCM waveforms that contain raw audio data (e.g. AIFF, WAV). Any advancement since then to improve audio quality is either incredibly obscure (e.g. CAF) or a race to see how much storage one can save without damaging too much of the source material. The comparison that the author puts up against video is also biased; compression in video is very practical, even necessary for mass distribution, while in digital audio it is MUCH less so, especially nowadays when storage capacity isn't that big of an issue. In that light, video compression is
necessary while audio compression is
unnecessary.
2. Lossy compression, as most audiophiles such as me know, reduce audio quality. Period. Here the author ignores a crucial part of Fraunhofer Institute's quote:
as close as possible. Lossy compression can only approximate, and it's easy to hear the detrimental effects of lossy compression especially in files with lots of high frequency sounds. Of course how bad these artifacts sound is very subjective, and I'll leave that out of here, but my point is: why settle for lossy when you can have lossless? Even if it's a small boost in audio quality, it's still there.
3. The iPod has a pretty subpar DAC. Compared to a good DAC, most iPods display inherent distortion and cannot project multiple instruments well, whereas LPs from the 70's had the full dynamic range of CDs as well as minimal distortion; the iPod pales in comparison to the venerable and arguably old LP standard. Ignoring this, though, the author makes a stupid comparison between a 20's transistor radio to a modern PMP.
4. Loudness wars IS killing my ears. It's especially bothering when iTunes goes from a high fidelity copy of Master of Puppets to Death Magnetic. Here the author is arguing that it's the radio, not the iPod, that created the loudness wars, and not about the actual detrimental effects of the loudness wars to audio quality, and you can even look at the waveforms and tell the effects without even listening to the songs. Either way, it got worse as technology advanced, so the author is clearly in the wrong here.
Simply put: why settle for less when you clearly don't have to?