Would you file an FTC or FCC complaint for Android T-Mobile ROM lies?

Then blame the EPA who decided how to measure it.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question yourself?

If enough L9 customers cared, there'd be a groundswell for a class action suit. I guess I missed it.

More likely I should blame my driving out in the Real World, where there are slopes, headwinds, rain, snow, fog, dust, and other drivers.

TJ

that's what i meand, since that's what the majority of people use when listening to mobile devices.

you said apple aac.

aac is not apple's format. it's an industry standard format that apple and numerous other companies use.

apple didn't modify anything.

then you must have done something wrong.

were these aac files you made or ones made by others?

it's possible to make crappy aac files, just as it's possible to make a crappy cd. anything can be crap.

it's also possible to do a good job and make quality aac (or mp3) files.

a valid comparison is between the best of each medium, not the best of one and the worst of the other.

that's the whole point. you get a substantial size benefit with no audible artifacts at the higher bit rates.

at lower bit rates there are more artifacts. at some point, the amount of artifacts becomes a problem, depending on the sounds. voice files, for instance, don't need as high of a bit rate as music.

yes it most certainly will.

there are numerous ios apps that play flac or vorbis directly.

there are also flac plug-ins for itunes, although that won't help on an ios device.

you could also convert the files to apple lossless and use the native ios music app rather than a separate app. converting from one lossless format (flac) to another lossless format (alac) is lossless.

or just play them as-is with one of many apps.

plenty of options.

i'm not having any storage problems at all and cloud solutions don't work when there's no network connection or if someone doesn't have unlimited data bandwidth.

Cripes. You must be a lot younger than i thought. Those two have been nothing but industry shills for over 30 years.

on

then

That is just one of hundreds of reliable sites with useful hosts tables.

?-)

Real bad leadfoot eh?

?-)

This number shouldn't be called mpg or km/l, it should be called Fuel Consumption Index, because it is not the real life consumption; it is measured in a reproducible and comparable way to allow for the comparing (sp?) of different cars.

is

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000 tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)

Have there been any scientific tests on the effects of listening fatigue, over hours, from listening to PAC and SBR compressed files? It is a real consideration as any broadcast engineer worth his Rohde and Schwarz can tell you. I can listen to 128k MP3 all day long in the car but once I get in a quiet place the same files sound like wire recordings.

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no reason.

It is acknowledged that some of us hear better. I have not read a magazine in years.

I know someone who freely admits to buying a car because "it was white, had two doors, and a spoiler". :-)

Your point is still valid, of course.

I didn't mean people don't do that, just that doing it is stupid.

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made from the same master. Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound different.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers. Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same. Both are wrong.

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not. And that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

aliasing is due to undersampling, not a codec, and the sampling rate is high enough to reproduce all audible frequencies (and then some), especially for anyone past about 20-30 years old.

i guarantee that in a double-blind test you won't be able to tell the difference between an original aiff and an aac. countless such tests have shown this to be true for others.

that's because they *are* indistinguishable.

the differences are well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. cds already reproduce *more* than what humans can hear.

that's possible, but it's not a function of the format.

if the same remastering was also done for a cd version, then it would sound the same as the sacd.

that's a very simplistic view.

there can be a difference with crap and non-crap (i.e., 64kbps mp3 versus aiff or $2 headphones versus $200 headphones), but when the differences are beyond what humans can hear, it's all in their heads. dogs might enjoy the difference though.

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in. they are *guessing*.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

whether something is open source or not has nothing whatsoever to do with how it sounds.

in a double-blind test, you won't be able to tell which is which.

That was my point.

You have a better way to describe it in a single post? I didn't mean that the middle is empty.

Yes, when they are beyond what humans can hear they can't be heard. Your point? What they can hear depends on the source material, the reporuction system, and the person.

In guessing what?