Both of you say you have worked as DJs. Given that you've been in very loud environments for prolonged periods, do either of you actually beleive your hearing is optimum, and good enough to hear any actual 'differences'? Because all the DJs I've known have had slight to moderate hearing loss, and are the people I'd least trust to judge sound quality of audio equipment.
Nope, I don't - and I doubt mboy does either. I'm always very suspicious of people's claims to have 'golden ears'. I definitely have some hearing loss at the higher end (though this comes with age anyway).
Not a great article but interesting.....
The experts, who between them have some of the best ears in the business, could not consistently tell the difference between the original and the lossy. The championVorbis was the overall champion, topping the charts in two categories: 128Kbps and over 300Kbps.
But the results probably say more about individual perception then codec technology.
The fact that four out of the five judges thought Vorbis and AAC sounded better than the original WAV at 128Kbps is a curious thing indeed.
It's worth noting lossy's underlying technology is founded on perceptual coding, which is based around a psycho-acoustic model of human hearing.
In plain English, the bits of audio that are messed with in a compressed audio file are based on an opinion of how humans hear, rather than on any fundamental laws of maths or physics.
In the case of MP3, a group of scientists in Germany (The Franhofer Institute) decided amongst themselves what to chuck out and what to keep, so it's probable the sound will be coloured to a degree and therefore may actually sound better than the original to some people.