Jonathan Blow's presentation

[Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 02:13:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
> On 05/08/2017 03:28 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>>
> Uncompressed? Seriously? I assume that really means FLAC or 
> something rather than truly uncompressed, but even 
> still...sounds more like a bullet-list 
> pandering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hselling point to the same 
> suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"classy folk" who buy Monster-brand cables 
> for digital signals than a legit quality enhancement. Take a 
> top-of-the-line $$$$ audio system, set down a room full of 
> audiophiles, and compare lossless vs 320kbps Vorbis...in a true 
> double-blind, no WAY they'd be able to consistently spot the 
> difference even if they try. Let alone while being detracted by 
> all the fun of causing mass mayhem and carnage. Unless maybe 
> you just happen to stumble upon some kind of audio savant.

Don't need to go that high. c't did a double blind study some 
years ago with the help of her sister magazine for audio 
equipment. So they made a very good setup. What they discovered 
is that mp3 with 160 kbit/s CBR was already undistinguishable 
from CD for 99% of people for almost all kind of music. mp3 is 
much better than its reputation, due to really bad encoders at 
the beginning (Xing was awful and was the widest used at the 
beginning, Fraunhofer was excellent but not free, lame took years 
before it was any good) people thought that the crap they heard 
was inherent to the mp3 format but very often it was bad 
grabbing, over eager lo-pass filtering and crappy psycho-acoustic 
models (Xing). So you make a good point that uncompressed audio 
for a game is completely nuts.