I want LG5 in Hi-Res Audio. PLEASE READ.

[Nino 12]

13 minutes ago, Justinn said:

This is simply not true and there are numbers to prove it. People who can't hear the difference. can't hear it because they don't know what to listen for or don't listen to music closely enough to even hear minor details in non hi-res recordings. But, you are completely, 100 percent wrong about FLACs being encoded from CD releases. Did you even read what I wrote earlier? I didn't pull that out of my ass. 

Sure you didn't pull it out of your ass  In blind listening tests nobody has ever shown that they can pick out FLAC files from their 320 kb/s mp3 counterparts on high end playback equipment. Bad compression can lead to lost detail but that's generally not a problem past a certain bitrate becuase on any reasonably modern codec you can easily retain all detail while squising areas of the sound that you literally just don't need becuase they were never adding anything in the first place. There are frequencies completely undetectable to any human ear ever measured for frequency response in history that get compressed out. Even FLAC does some compression for that reason. You're embarrassing yourself to anybody who actually knows what they're talking about.  

At any rate you continually refuse to actually disprove anything people who understand audio says in this thread becuase you can't. On that note I think we're done because while it is entertaining, it's also very sad that this is what the high end audio community has come to. If you're actually interested I suggest you join a forum for the audiophile community and learn about it all. Personally I find it interesting and I think you will too since this is obviously something you love to talk about, whether you understand what you're saying or not.  I was at that point once too  

[Born Brave 2,072]

4 minutes ago, Nino said:

Sure you didn't pull it out of your ass  In blind listening tests nobody has ever shown that they can pick out FLAC files from their 320 kb/s mp3 counterparts on high end playback equipment. Bad compression can lead to lost detail but that's generally not a problem past a certain bitrate becuase on any reasonably modern codec you can easily retain all detail. There are frequencies completely undetectable to any human ear ever measured for frequency response in history that get compressed out. Even FLAC does some compression for that reason. You're embarrassing yourself to anybody who actually knows what they're talking about.  

At any rate you continually refuse to actually disprove anything people who understand audio says in this thread becuase you can't. It's simultaneously very entertaining and very sad that this is what the high end audio community has come to. If you're actually interested I suggest you join a forum for the audiophile community and learn about it all. Personally I find it interesting and I think you will too since this is obviously something you love to talk about, whether you understand what you're saying or not.  I was at that point once too  

With all due respect, I am not embarrassed nor am I wrong about anything. In fact, I have 4 PM chains right now where people have personally thanked me for telling them about Hi-Res audio because they can hear the difference also. I am already a member of head-fi.org, I have been for several years. Your attempt to make me seem delusional  and ignorant is not working nor is it making you look any more intelligent or reputable when it comes to the specifics of what makes Hi-Res audio different from standard 16bit CD Quality. 

[Nino 12]

2 minutes ago, Justinn said:

the specifics of what makes Hi-Res audio different from standard 16bit CD Quality. 

There are none. It's just for people who demand higher numbers and don't mind being sold snake oil. There's a reason the industry has standardized on 16bit audio.

Spoiler

hint: It's not becuase they hate music and want to see it gimped by poor business practices

 

[Born Brave 2,072]

1 minute ago, Nino said:

There are none. It's just for people who demand higher numbers and don't mind being sold snake oil.

You're completely wrong. Again, Idk how many more times I have to say it. There are hundreds upon hundreds of arguments just like this on Head-Fi. 

[Nino 12]

Just now, Justinn said:

You're completely wrong. Again, Idk how many more times I have to say it. There are hundreds upon hundreds of arguments just like this on Head-Fi. 

Yes there are. There are two sides to this argument if you look closely though.

 

One side that insists that 24 bits are best bits becuz i have lcd-x's and shut up nerd

The other side uses science and an understanding of how digital file formats work to know with certainty that objectively there's no benefit

[Born Brave 2,072]

37 minutes ago, Nino said:

Yes there are. There are two sides to this argument if you look closely though.

 

One side that insists that 24 bits are best bits becuz i have lcd-x's and shut up nerd

The other side uses science and an understanding of how digital file formats work to know with certainty that objectively there's no benefit

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

"Overall the studio masters sounded fuller, more spacious and less flat. Some tracks sounded very close to CD. Others, like The Who’s Pinball Wizard, were strikingly different, sounding more real, less produced and more raw or natural, as it would be listening live"

"The first question is ‘could I tell the difference?’. And yes, I could, although perhaps not in the transformative way I was expecting.

The higher quality recordings become ever crisper and clearer, with each instrumental part emerging from a murky swamp of sound. But for me, appreciating the difference was reliant on a degree of concentration.

Have them on in the background and I might not notice any change between the studio masters and the nastiest compressed MP3. Listen attentively to, say, the bassline in The Who’s Pinball Wizard, and it’s undoubtedly easier to hear where the notes roam rather than just getting the general impression".

So unless you want to argue with the Guardian too, people can hear the difference. I know I can, especially since I know what to listen for which is basically what I've been saying for the duration of discussion on this topic. 

[Gardevoir 9,822]

10 hours ago, Yoro Shellington said:

wow 

what wow 

[Gardevoir 9,822]

7 hours ago, Justinn said:

YES!! I dont just use HDTracks.com, I use other sites too. Some site's have better genre selection than others. 

But to be honest the common ear notices no difference between high mp3 and flac. 

[Born Brave 2,072]

1 minute ago, Emigrante said:

But to be honest the common ear notices no difference between high mp3 and flac. 

Your ears probably don't but mine do..... I don't know how many times I have to explain this. 

[Gardevoir 9,822]

6 hours ago, AmericanHSlave said:

No, if you want to talk about loud, it's gonna be Born This Way.

I mean the choruses of Born This Way, Marry the Night, Heavy Metal Lover, Americano, The Edge Of Glory

 they are all GOOD songs but the production is so complex, I think there are like 100 instruments played in it. In ARTPOP it was cleaner and neater, more pleasant to the ears. Aura is a great example. Mary Jane Holland is the only loud one.

The album is loud. I did show you the example. Maybe BTW was louder, idk but that doesn't change the fact that AP is noisy too. 

 

@Justinn sorry I din't read the whole thread. 

[Nino 12]

13 minutes ago, Justinn said:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

"Overall the studio masters sounded fuller, more spacious and less flat. Some tracks sounded very close to CD. Others, like The Who’s Pinball Wizard, were strikingly different, sounding more real, less produced and more raw or natural, as it would be listening live"

"The first question is ‘could I tell the difference?’. And yes, I could, although perhaps not in the transformative way I was expecting.

The higher quality recordings become ever crisper and clearer, with each instrumental part emerging from a murky swamp of sound. But for me, appreciating the difference was reliant on a degree of concentration.

Have them on in the background and I might not notice any change between the studio masters and the nastiest compressed MP3. Listen attentively to, say, the bassline in The Who’s Pinball Wizard, and it’s undoubtedly easier to hear where the notes roam rather than just getting the general impression".

So unless you want to argue with the Guardian too, people can hear the difference. I know I can, especially since I know what to listen for which is basically what I've been saying for the duration of discussion on this topic. 

This wasn't a blind test therefore it is invalid. Even respected professionals have cognitive biases. Literally everything with a brain does. Again I don't know how many times I have to say it but in BLIND testing it's completely useless. Not one study has ever given any evidence otherwise.  

[Born Brave 2,072]

45 minutes ago, Nino said:

This wasn't a blind test therefore it is invalid. Even respected professionals have cognitive biases. Literally everything with a brain does. Again I don't know how many times I have to say it but in BLIND testing it's completely useless. Not one study has ever given any evidence otherwise.  

I'd like to know what specific BLIND tests you're referring to. A lot of the "blind tests" that have been done on this subject involved a lot of people who have no idea what they are doing, what they are listening for, or better yet probably are listening on **** headphones and a moderate volume and weren't exactly controlled tests. And even if more than half the people couldn't distinguish between 16bit and 24bit , there are still people that did hear the difference and identified it correctly, unless you are willing to call those people "lucky guessers" it renders your argument that the differences are inaudible inconclusive and not factual. 

I will say if you're listening on plain basic headphones or earbuds and aren't listening at a high level of volume, you probably won't hear the difference but for example, if you look at an iPhone 6 and an iPhone 6S they look identical- but when you start using the 6S in depth after upgrading from a 6 you'll know right away the 6S is an improvement... furthermore if you give a person who's never even used an iPhone either of the two they wouldn't be able to appreciate the improvement because they wouldn't know what to compare it to, they would just be happy to have an iPhone. My argument is that most people probably don't know how to listen to music. I know that sounds ridiculous but I stand by it. 

[Lara Croft 2,129]

At first I thought you were being a little elitist (no offense) but after listening to the Hi-res FLAC version of TIHTY in comparison to the iTunes version I'm completely on board omfg 

[Born Brave 2,072]

Just now, G Y P S Y said:

At first I thought you were being a little elitist (no offense) but after listening to the FLAC version of TIHTY in comparison to the iTunes version I'm completely on board omfg 

 I think you might be listening to an upscaled version of TIHTY because I haven't found a true lossless FLAC of that song yet. Where did you find it? 

Go here and listen to the samples.

http://hdtracks.com/.. 

 

[Lara Croft 2,129]

Just now, Justinn said:

 I think you might be listening to an upscaled version of TIHTY because I haven't found a true lossless FLAC of that song yet. Where did you find it? 

Go here and listen to the samples.

http://hdtracks.com/.. 

 

https://tracks.technics.com/CA/releases/4822838

It's definitely a lot clearer, I'm unsure if it's a true version though.