Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F
As the founder of AIX Records and the developer of the iTrax.com website, I disagree with the assessment of the Cognitive study, just as I do the paper by David Moran in the September issue of The Journal of Audio Engineering Society. It is possible, under the right conditions, to have average listeners react more positively to HD Audio than to low resolution MP3s and even CDs.
The requirement is that the things being compared actually are different AND that is determined by the quality of the original recording. I have a great sounding studio with top of the line B&W speakers, Meridian 800/801, Audience Cables and Bryston Amps. The space was designed by Peter Gruneisen of Studio Bau:ton and tuned by Trinnov Audio. Our recordings contain no artificial reverberation, no equalization was applied and no dynamic processing of any kind was employed at any stage. We do not master our tracks...they are what they are.
In the numerous demos that I do for visitors of all levels of interest, I play The Latin Jazz Trio "Mujaka" track of the award-winning "Mosiac" track from Laurence Juber's Guitar Noir. The high frequency material in these tracks goes quite high...actually beyond the normally accepted upper range of hearing. Keith Howard measure the high end extending to 35kHz in his article in Stereophile form a year ago. When I play the same track at various levels of resolution (MP3 128 kbps, MP3 256 kbps, CD-Audio Stereo 44.1/16 bits) the experience is difference and less compelling. I hope to be able to do a rigorous study in the near future but thus far I can only state that with the right source materials...the listening experience is noticeable.
Try if for yourself. Download the Mujaka track as a 19s MP3 file and 96/24 PCM file from the iTrax.com web site and compare them. If you can tell a difference, please let me know.