Tidal caught lying about their lossless quality.

Interesting , in the world of psychoacoustical encoding aac/mp3 ... , I'm not sure you can objectively measure what sounds best to the human ear;
would science pick aac over mp3 ? equally netflix optmising encoding of the parts of the image that are human faces improves people perceptions

I had coincidentally (other tidal thread in hifi) read this blog on a human experiment setup http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html#more
which is ambivolent on whether mqa is better;
I am, however looking for a quobuz high def audio trial when my tidal trial finishes.
 
jpaul said:
Interesting , in the world of psychoacoustical encoding aac/mp3 ... , I'm not sure you can objectively measure what sounds best to the human ear;
would science pick aac over mp3 ? equally netflix optmising encoding of the parts of the image that are human faces improves people perceptions

I had coincidentally (other tidal thread in hifi) read this blog on a human experiment setup http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html#more
which is ambivolent on whether mqa is better;
I am, however looking for a quobuz high def audio trial when my tidal trial finishes.
Click to expand...

Not really though point though I understand where you are coming from, thing is in these tests it actually seems to do more damage to the sound. Also mastering is more about how the producers and artists want the kind of warmth and tones to shone over others in teh final mix, not jsut about pure quality, but getting an version the poeple behind it wanted you to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom