Interesting controlled test from the BBC

[f1eng]

Even when they weeded out the least sensitive listeners they found the difference between 320 MP4 from an excellent decoder was statistically indistinguishable from the original.
I post this simply because I have found loads of the differences I was sure were there disappear when I make a proper level matched comparison.
https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/...WHP384.pdf

[frejo]

That is because flac is not good either...

[f1eng]

That is because flac is not good either...

Only if you apply religious levels of blind faith rather than fact.

[frejo]

That is because flac is not good either...

Only if you apply religious levels of blind faith rather than fact.

I am sorry, irony is very difficult in writing.

I thought it was an interesting article and the people who listened seemed to be experienced listeners. I did not find out anything about the equipment used however, perhaps this would make a difference?

[f1eng]

That is because flac is not good either...

Only if you apply religious levels of blind faith rather than fact.

I am sorry, irony is very difficult in writing.

I thought it was an interesting article and the people who listened seemed to be experienced listeners. I did not find out anything about the equipment used however, perhaps this would make a difference?

One of the reasons I don't post much here any more is that since I retired I have been doing the sort of rigorous listening tests I should, as an engineer, always have done but didn't have time until I retired.
The Devialet makes a bit of self evaluation easy because of the calibrated volume control.

If I set the volume at my normal listening level then turn the level down it is silent by the time I have turned it down 60dB. I know that what I am trying to hear is just quiet music not artefacts but I am quite sure that, were the music to be playing, I would have no chance of hearing artefacts as quiet as that - probably quite a bit louder given the masking effects.
I have done a rigorous test of 16/44.1 v 24/96 of the same master as well.
I can attest that when rigorously evaluated all the differences I thought I heard between 5 different DACs were not there.
I have done the same with 2 preamps.
-60dB is 0.1% which means a CD is indeed perfect for me, no improvement could be audible (by me). Even LPs are often below 0.1% distortion quite a bit of the time.

The things I could consistently hear differences due to were:-
Loudspeaker, listener and furniture position in the room.
All 4 of my record players sound different to each other.
Microphones themselves and their position relative to the musicians when I am recording.
The loudspeakers themselves.
I also think I hear differences between some power amps but that could be the effect of output impedance on speaker FR or clipping. Low feedback amps and valve amps are prone to the former and low power amps are useless for the sort of music I listen to.

This is a long winded way of saying I don't think the equipment the BBC will have used could be a genuine reason for the results based on my own experience.

[Pim]

Interesting test. It confirms my own findings, blind and sober; The mastering is more important than the codec and rap sucks regardless of the mastering or codec.

[markush]

Well it’s always important to realize the motivation behind a study and their indented outcome.
In this case BBC wanted to showcase that their broadcasting with reduced / compressed file size is obviously not making a difference. Well they achieved their desired result ;-)

[f1eng]

Well it’s always important to realize the motivation behind a study and their indented outcome.
In this case BBC wanted to showcase that their broadcasting with reduced / compressed file size is obviously not making a difference. Well they achieved their desired result ;-)

I think the BBC is more serious than that and will have done a scientifically valid and thorough test.
Most of the opinions posted on hifi forums, particularly on the subject of digital files and DACs require religious levels of blind faith and preferably zero understanding of physics to be "credible".
IME

[markush]

Well sure most comments you find on hifi forums are biased in some form - most of the time trying to justify their current setup.
But what keeps me wondering of the BBC setup is for example what streams they used for the comparison. Seems it was not the master or original recording, rather what they could stream in lossless or compressed format.

[Pim]

Well sure most comments you find on hifi forums are biased in some form - most of the time trying to justify their current setup.
But what keeps me wondering of the BBC setup is for example what streams they used for the comparison. Seems it was not the master or original recording, rather what they could stream in lossless or compressed format.

The BBC is a broadcaster. I would think they would have plenty of masters they recorded themselves.