My point was
Would you still be able to tell the difference if you were going in blind (deaf)?
If you were listening to a 256/320kbps mp3 that somebody was passing off as a FLAC, would you be able to call their bluff?
You could probably tell the difference with some practise and some fantastically high end equipment, but that gear is going to be well beyond the capability of any set of AKG headphones. And well beyond the capability of most bank balances.
It's a bit like the 16bit vs. 24bit audio debate. There are folk out there who will stake their reputation on 24bit being a superior listening experience. It's not. It's just fucking not. But again, I'm sure some folk will claim that theres a perceivable difference in dynamic range when there isn't.
I get what you're saying. If your brain thinks it can hear difference, that's all that really matters. Whether or not the is an actual scientifically Audible difference is irrelevant.
I also agree that bit rate is only a tiny factor in the overall experience. If a track has been mastered like dogshit, then having the highest bitrate/most sonically transparent listening apparatus isn't going to be of any help whatsoever. Your £20,000 Martin Logan's aren't going to make your £150 Cambridge Audio amp sound any better - they're only going to highlight its flaws.
But yeah, if Naproxeno has a better listening experience using FLAC then it doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks. It's his experience.
(, Wed 21 Aug 2019, 22:56, Share, Reply)