Pioneer Laserdisc question

[Kojiro Sasaki]

I'm an audiophile with expensive headphones.

You still haven't posted what equipment do you use

Every test I've heard of that's tried to investigate this has turned up different results. You might as well flip a coin.

You must help me here. If you have some articles under your hand, it would be great, if you could share them. I can do the same, if you want (I need to find them again - I've never saved any links).

[Danfun64]

Here is a comparison between the 16:9 Dragon Box and the 4:3 FunimationNow transfers of Curse of the Blood Rubies. Note that the images aren't perfect representations of their source material, but should get the point across at least:

You haven't posted any opinions about those screenshot. What do you think is good/wrong about them? Which AR looks better to you? What are your arguments to back up your opinions?

Sorry for not responding to this sooner.

The HD Funimation transfer is open matte for the DB films, and for the DBZ films it's cropped from an Open Matte transfer (but still mostly shows more image than the Dragon Boxes all around). In the case of Curse of the Blood Rubies, the loss of image in the sides is minimal, but you get a huge increase in the top and bottom area. That being said, the crushed blacks greatly hurt the image quality, especially in the nighttime scenes like Goku chasing Bat Oolong.

An interesting thing to note, the HD transfers of the DB movies don't appear to have any cleanup done whatsoever, as indicated by not only the grain but the film artifacts. On the other hand, they were never released by Funi on Blu-Ray (apparently at least DB Movie 1 has been released on Blu-Ray in the Latin American region, but apparently uses MPEG-2 and has a DVD like size instead of using the full 25 GBs.

On another note, I'm kind of amazed how similar the 1995 SD and censored BLT transfer and 2010 HD and uncut Funi transfers of Curse of the Blood Rubies look. Very similar colors and cropping.

In short, the Dragon Box transfers have the best contrast for everything made before Kai. Some transfers come close...but not close enough.

[Kojiro Sasaki]

The HD Funimation transfer is open matte for the DB films, and for the DBZ films it's cropped from an Open Matte transfer (but still mostly shows more image than the Dragon Boxes all around). In the case of Curse of the Blood Rubies, the loss of image in the sides is minimal, but you get a huge increase in the top and bottom area. That being said, the crushed blacks greatly hurt the image quality, especially in the nighttime scenes like Goku chasing Bat Oolong.

Yeah, the crushed blacks are actually the biggest problem of those transfers. It's a shame, because proper black/white and contrast balance is not that hard to be tweaked properly. maybe they think that it looks better? I am tempted to write them a big letter, based on materials I prepared for Toei, regarding the issue

An interesting thing to note, the HD transfers of the DB movies don't appear to have any cleanup done whatsoever, as indicated by not only the grain but the film artifacts. On the other hand, they were never released by Funi on Blu-Ray (apparently at least DB Movie 1 has been released on Blu-Ray in the Latin American region, but apparently uses MPEG-2 and has a DVD like size instead of using the full 25 GBs.

I've seen Blu-ray release of DB Movie 3 on amazon, imported from Mexico (I believe). I have no idea about its quality.

In short, the Dragon Box transfers have the best contrast for everything made before Kai. Some transfers come close...but not close enough.

Yeah, but Dragon Boxes are still crushed. Sometimes, badly:




After discussions with video experts and research I made, we figured out that the original 35 mm films contain all the detail, and proper scan should show us correct contrast and black/white balance. We “only” need to make Toei scan them again

[Danfun64]

Where do the left images come from, and why do I have the feeling that the second left image is a film cel?

[Kojiro Sasaki]

Where do the left images come from, and why do I have the feeling that the second left image is a film cel?

1. Trailer from Dragon Box 2. You have correct feeling.

[Danfun64]

WHY DOES THE TRAILER LOOK BETTER THAN THE ACTUAL MOVIE??? Do any of the transfers for that movie have similar quality to the Trailer or are the Dragon Boxes really the best there is for that film?

[AnimeMaakuo]

WHY DOES THE TRAILER LOOK BETTER THAN THE ACTUAL MOVIE??? Do any of the transfers for that movie have similar quality to the Trailer or are the Dragon Boxes really the best there is for that film?

Dragon Boxes are the best thus far.

[Robo4900]

It doesn't matter whether you "perceive" music a certain way or not. Technical facts are technical facts! If you can hear 20kHz, then you cannot hear 21kHz, 22kHz, 23kHz, etc. I guess when an audiophile has no technical facts and cannot accept being wrong, they can still "perceive" things. OK. It seems that many audiophiles invest WAAY too much money, time and effort into believing that they hear EVERYTHING, without taking into account how inferior their ears really are.

Maybe I shouldn't be jumping in here, but you seem to be going out of your way to have a problem with this, and aren't actually addressing important points that are being made. There's no reason to believe that it's impossible to hear the difference between lossless and lossy audio. The objection you're presenting isn't taking anything into account but your own perception, that's not a solid place to argue from on its own. You can't effectively measure personal perceptions

That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't measure the perceptions of anyone other than yourself. Normally I side with the facts, but audio is a very analogue thing, and is entirely based on peoples' individual perception of it, so it's not something that can really be quantified scientifically.
I really don't see why AnimeMaakuo is having trouble getting this idea into his head...

If you can hear 20kHz, then you cannot hear 21kHz, 22kHz, 23kHz, etc. - This is not opinion. This is fact. Also, I'm referring to Dragon Box: The Movies versus DBZ Laser Disc.

The difference between lossless and lossy isn't simply the 21-24KHz band. That can be the case with particularly high bitrates on really well put-together compression formats, but practically speaking, that's rarely the case.
And anyway, I wasn't talking about the DBox vs LD, I was talking about Pioneer's DVD vs the LaserDisc. A fact you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Many audiophiles claim to hear BIG difference between speaker cables, which are proven to not indroduce any changes in the audio signal. What people say cannot be considered fact without proper research.
I remeber one discussion at audio forum, where audiophiles compared various lossless formats such as APE, FLAC, WavPack and WMA Lossless. Most of them said, that they hear differences between all of them

Yeah, I'm not one of them. When I say I'm an audiophile, I simply mean I have very particular tastes about audio quality; if it's lossless, great! If it's lossy, I balk at it. Sure, sometimes the difference isn't noticeable, but if we're talking MP3 vs FLAC, FLAC is clearly better every time, regardless of the bitrate used for the MP3. If we're talking a high-bitrate OGG file, then sure, that's probably good enough. But practically speaking, when someone uses lossy compression, it's usually MP3 or AC-3, neither of which are any good, so I just go lossless, and avoid that mess all-together. Plus, lossless means I can make edits to my music without worrying about lossy transcoding, which is a big plus.

If you can't tell the differences, then the position to take is the position of not caring; loads of people can hear the difference*, so they should use lossless commercially where possible; if you don't think the difference is noticeable, you can convert your music to lossy. For a DVD or BD, it isn't taking up space on your hard drive anyway, so there's literally no downside.

101% agree! * - they cannot It's their imagination. During the ABX tests, many listeners said, that they hear the difference when they knew the source, but after blind tests, they were unable to determine the source correctly. Their selections were completely random.

As I've said, I've seen arguments like this where people on both sides have pointed to tests that point in both directions. I don't have any in particular to point to, as they're all so contradictory, so I've never bothered to save any of them.
As for why this is, I'd say it depends on the format. If you're comparing MP3 to lossless, MP3 is sure to lose. Something like AAC or OGG at a high bitrate, that'll probably be more difficult, and might even be indistinguishable.
Still though, it might depend on the equipment, etc. As I've said before, sound is a very analogue thing; sometimes it can be unpredictable, and yes, placebo can come into it; if someone has a pair of Beats, they'll probably extol its virtues, despite it being among the crappiest-sounding set of speakers you can buy. Problem is, if someone uses such a piece of equipment, they'll think both sound great, even though what's actually happening is both are being crappified to sound about the same.

Here's the thing though...

If you can't tell the differences, then the position to take is the position of not caring[...] they should use lossless commercially where possible; if you don't think the difference is noticeable, you can convert your music to lossy. For a DVD or BD, it isn't taking up space on your hard drive anyway, so there's literally no downside.

Surely this is the be-all, end-all of this argument?
We can argue about lossy vs lossless all day, but ultimately, is there really anything that can be said against this point? (AnimeMaakuo, I'm looking at you)

[AnimeMaakuo]

That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't measure the perceptions of anyone other than yourself. Normally I side with the facts, but audio is a very analogue thing, and is entirely based on peoples' individual perception of it, so it's not something that can really be quantified scientifically. I really don't see why AnimeMaakuo is having trouble getting this idea into his head...

This conversation is fruitless. If an engineer demonstrates that there's no measurable difference between two speaker cables, the "audiophile" could easily state that "perception is not something that can really be quantified scientifically", which avoids dealing with the fact that there is absolutely no difference. There are hundreds if not thousands of things that can happen in a day that might affect the way you "perceive" sound, but facts are facts. Ever wash your car and wonder why it drives nicer? It's called the Placebo Effect.

“Audiophilism” is a religion, and I have no interest in taking your faith away from you. Enjoy your hobbies as you want to enjoy them.

[Kojiro Sasaki]

That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't measure the perceptions of anyone other than yourself. Normally I side with the facts, but audio is a very analogue thing, and is entirely based on peoples' individual perception of it, so it's not something that can really be quantified scientifically.

My point was how the lossy/lossless differences confront with our auditory perception. The only thing we know for sure is that the differences are present. What is their practical significance? This is the question. According to my current experience, I consider them barely existing and negligible.

Yeah, I'm not one of them. When I say I'm an audiophile, I simply mean I have very particular tastes about audio quality; if it's lossless, great! If it's lossy, I balk at it. Sure, sometimes the difference isn't noticeable, but if we're talking MP3 vs FLAC, FLAC is clearly better every time, regardless of the bitrate used for the MP3. If we're talking a high-bitrate OGG file, then sure, that's probably good enough. But practically speaking, when someone uses lossy compression, it's usually MP3 or AC-3, neither of which are any good, so I just go lossless, and avoid that mess all-together. Plus, lossless means I can make edits to my music without worrying about lossy transcoding, which is a big plus.

In today's era of terabytes, lossy audio should die out completely. We definitely agree on that one, but I wouldn't be that optimistic about hearing the difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3. Every source I've seen says that it's impossible to discern the difference or that it's barely discernible and the listeners cannot say which is better (I still do not trust some of those tests, because correct vs incorrect guesses ratio is very bad).

As I've said, I've seen arguments like this where people on both sides have pointed to tests that point in both directions. I don't have any in particular to point to, as they're all so contradictory, so I've never bothered to save any of them.
As for why this is, I'd say it depends on the format. If you're comparing MP3 to lossless, MP3 is sure to lose. Something like AAC or OGG at a high bitrate, that'll probably be more difficult, and might even be indistinguishable.
Still though, it might depend on the equipment, etc. As I've said before, sound is a very analogue thing; sometimes it can be unpredictable, and yes, placebo can come into it; if someone has a pair of Beats, they'll probably extol its virtues, despite it being among the crappiest-sounding set of speakers you can buy. Problem is, if someone uses such a piece of equipment, they'll think both sound great, even though what's actually happening is both are being crappified to sound about the same.

The biggest problem with those tests is that you never know how they were handled, who carried them out, who participated and what were the intentions of the author and participants. Here is one of the articles I've read some time ago:
https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itu ... t-results/

I am still waiting/looking for truly scientific research, which would focus on the differences vs auditory perception rather than what people feel or think.

Surely this is the be-all, end-all of this argument?
We can argue about lossy vs lossless all day, but ultimately, is there really anything that can be said against this point?

The point is 100% correct! Lossy audio shall not pass!

You still haven't said what equipment do you use

[Robo4900]

My point was how the lossy/lossless differences confront with our auditory perception. The only thing we know for sure is that the differences are present. What is their practical significance? This is the question. According to my current experience, I consider them barely existing and negligible.

And here lies the problem; everyone has different experience with this. No one can come to a consensus on who's right. And this is all compounded by the fact we're using awful compression formats like MP3 or AC3, alongside better, more modern ones like AAC or OGG.
In this specific case, we're talking about 224kbps AC3 vs PCM. PCM is uncompressed, therefore lossless, meanwhile 224kbps AC3 is a pretty poor system. Is it bad enough that the difference is noticeable? Who knows, no one can seem to agree. But, what if I want to grab that audio, and adjust its sync so it fits to the Dragon Boxes? (Movies 2 and 3 have a couple of shots that run longer on the Dragon Boxes than they do on either the Ultimate Uncut DVDs, or the Pioneer DVDs) The lossy transcoding problem suddenly pops up. If I encode to lossless so it takes up the same amount of space as before, the quality will go down; if the problems with lossy encoding weren't noticeable before, they could very well be now. But, I have a lot of space on my PC, so I can just save it lossless, and sync it to a ripped MKV on my PC. But as I say, I have the space, and until I decided to rip the discs to my PC, the discs weren't taking up the space, so really, there would have been no harm in the audio being lossless in the first place(Putting aside encoding limitations of the time the discs were released in), and in fact, it would have made this all easier.
Granted, DVDs have space and maximum bitrate problems, so it's understandable that DVDs are usually lossy, but there's no excuse for Blu-Ray.

In today's era of terabytes, lossy audio should die out completely. We definitely agree on that one, but I wouldn't be that optimistic about hearing the difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3. Every source I've seen says that it's impossible to discern the difference or that it's barely discernible and the listeners cannot say which is better (I still do not trust some of those tests, because correct vs incorrect guesses ratio is very bad).

Right. And honestly, I'm not sure I can really argue against this. You clearly heavily believe the difference is negligible, but we both believe that, because no one can reach a consensus on this, and because of both lossy transcoding issues, and the fact space isn't an issue anymore, lossy needs to die out, because lossless satisfies both sides.

So really, we shouldn't be fighting over whether there's a difference between lossy or lossless; we should be challenging DVD and Blu-Ray manufacturers on why they don't use lossless audio encoding. Because realistically, there's no downside, but it'll give them some real buzz from the audiophile crowd(Both the realist-type like myself, and the crazy type that you've mentioned in the past), and fans who like to make edits, such as us Dragon Ball fans, who are practically obsessed with grabbing the current official releases, and making edits to anything from the audio mix, to the entire soundtrack, or even to the colour correction(Yeah, I know video isn't part of this discussion, but my point is that we like to edit everything).

The biggest problem with those tests is that you never know how they were handled, who carried them out, who participated and what were the intentions of the author and participants. Here is one of the articles I've read some time ago:
https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itu ... t-results/

I am still waiting/looking for truly scientific research, which would focus on the differences vs auditory perception rather than what people feel or think.

Yeah. In fairness, this kind of research isn't hugely important right now; especially with the world in the position it is right now, where hard science is often pushed aside in favour of political or monetary gain.

(Before anyone decides to take issue with what I just said: Please keep in mind this is a discussion about sound, and lossless vs lossy compression. Let's not turn this into a political flame war, please)

You still haven't said what equipment do you use

Sennheiser HD 280 Pro headphones hooked up to my PC. Currently looking into soundcards, although I've been far too busy recently to make any real progress on that front(I'm not sure whether this would affect the sound quality, but if it helps with audio latency in TuxGuitar and the like, I'm all for it).

This conversation is fruitless. If an engineer demonstrates that there's no measurable difference between two speaker cables, the "audiophile" could easily state that "perception is not something that can really be quantified scientifically", which avoids dealing with the fact that there is absolutely no difference. There are hundreds if not thousands of things that can happen in a day that might affect the way you "perceive" sound, but facts are facts. Ever wash your car and wonder why it drives nicer? It's called the Placebo Effect.

Nice job not actually reading my post there.
I'm not talking about speaker cables, I'm not some idiot who claims different lossless formats sound different, I'm saying that in the case of lossy vs lossless, there is a difference, which is noticed by some people. You're just grabbing things Kojiro has said about some Audiophiles, the kind I like to avoid associating with, and throwing them at me while trying to make yourself sound clever. This is a highly flawed strategy, as it basically just looks like you can't defend your own position, so you just throw whatever you can find at me until I give in.

Anyway, you failed to actually respond to any of the point I made in my post, so allow me to regurgitate them...

The difference between lossless and lossy isn't simply the 21-24KHz band. That can be the case with particularly high bitrates on really well put-together compression formats, but practically speaking, that's rarely the case.
I'm talking about Pioneer's DVDs vs their LaserDiscs. (224kbps AC3 vs PCM)

And, the piece de resistance...

Here's the thing though...

If you can't tell the differences, then the position to take is the position of not caring[...] they should use lossless commercially where possible; if you don't think the difference is noticeable, you can convert your music to lossy. For a DVD or BD, it isn't taking up space on your hard drive anyway, so there's literally no downside.

Surely this is the be-all, end-all of this argument?
We can argue about lossy vs lossless all day, but ultimately, is there really anything that can be said against this point? (AnimeMaakuo, I'm looking at you)

I called you out right there, AnimeMaakuo. Please do respond to this point if you can, as this is the core point of my argument. We could discuss lossy vs lossless all year round, but ultimately, unless you can counter this point, Kojiro and I will always come out on top of these discussions.

[AnimeMaakuo]

This conversation is fruitless. If an engineer demonstrates that there's no measurable difference between two speaker cables, the "audiophile" could easily state that "perception is not something that can really be quantified scientifically", which avoids dealing with the fact that there is absolutely no difference. There are hundreds if not thousands of things that can happen in a day that might affect the way you "perceive" sound, but facts are facts. Ever wash your car and wonder why it drives nicer? It's called the Placebo Effect.

Nice job not actually reading my post there.
I'm not talking about speaker cables, I'm not some idiot who claims different lossless formats sound different, I'm saying that in the case of lossy vs lossless, there is a difference, which is noticed by some people. You're just grabbing things Kojiro has said about some Audiophiles, the kind I like to avoid associating with, and throwing them at me while trying to make yourself sound clever. This is a highly flawed strategy, as it basically just looks like you can't defend your own position, so you just throw whatever you can find at me until I give in.

Did I hurt your feelings? Are you ok?

Surely this is the be-all, end-all of this argument?
We can argue about lossy vs lossless all day, but ultimately, is there really anything that can be said against this point? (AnimeMaakuo, I'm looking at you)

I called you out right there, AnimeMaakuo. Please do respond to this point if you can, as this is the core point of my argument. We could discuss lossy vs lossless all year round, but ultimately, unless you can counter this point, Kojiro and I will always come out on top of these discussions.

Robo4900, I've already "countered" your point with a really good example, and the only response you have for me is, "you're just trying to be clever with highly flawed tactics, and I don't like to associate myself with people like you". Ok, that's fine, you're welcome to leave this discussion then.

I'm talking about Pioneer's DVDs vs their LaserDiscs. (224kbps AC3 vs PCM)

Technically - PCM is better. But practically, it's IMPOSSIBLE to hear. Completely, absolutely and totally impossible to hear. Phase errors and ringing are at such a small level, that humans cannot tell the difference. ABX tests proved this to be right. Frequency response, dynamic range, various harmonic distortions, linear distortions, ringing, phase errors, TIM distortions, background noise, wow and flutter and many others.

Bottom line: I cannot discern any changes in the sound, and neither can the people who participate in my blindfold tests. Why? Because the difference is 100000x smaller than our ears can catch. It's completely marginal, from a listeners point of view (FAAAAR from being audible). Audiophiles in this business have the tendency to hear "imaginary" sounds made by their brain without taking into account how inferior their ears really are.

About me - I've been an audio enthusiast for a very long time, I've had the pleasure of owning many expensive systems, and I've conducted dozens of experiments using them. My hearing is still 20Hz - 20kHz range (confirmed by Audiologist on February 27, 2017), and I'm currently using a system that cost $24,000+. Am I trying to brag about it? No, but $82.00 headphones is not good enough and cannot be used as a reference.

[Robo4900]

Did I hurt your feelings? Are you ok?

Clearly you haven't read my sig quote.
I'm just pointing out the fact your argument is clearly running out of steam.
If my manner concerns you, I'm actually very much enjoying this debate. I strongly believe it's always good to challenge and re-examine your views, and what better way is there to do so than to discuss it with people of an opposing viewpoint?

Robo4900, I've already "countered" your point with a really good example, and the only response you have for me is, "you're just trying to be clever with highly flawed tactics, and I don't like to associate myself with people like you". Ok, that's fine, you're welcome to leave this discussion then.

Once again, you haven't actually read my post.

I said that the position to take is the position of not caring. If you don't think there's a difference, then you shouldn't care about this in the slightest. If you rip a CD to your PC, you can recompress it to lossy if you want the space.
If you buy a Blu-Ray, it's not going to take up more space on your shelf if the manufacturer chose to encode the audio lossless, so it won't actually affect you.
Opposing this point is like a straight person opposing gay marriage; it doesn't affect you in the slightest, so you shouldn't care about it in the slightest.

It's possible I just missed your response to this(Forgive me if this is the case), but I don't remember you providing an answer to this.

Technically - PCM is better. But practically, it's IMPOSSIBLE to hear. Completely, absolutely and totally impossible to hear. Phase errors and ringing are at such a small level, that humans cannot tell the difference. ABX tests proved this to be right. Frequency response, dynamic range, various harmonic distortions, linear distortions, ringing, phase errors, TIM distortions, background noise, wow and flutter and many others.

I feel like a broken record; if you actually read mine and Kojiro's posts, you'll see we've discussed this at length.
Here's the highlights: Lossless vs lossy tests are all over the place; one factor in this is that we don't know the formats used. If you directly compare 224kbps AC3 to PCM, I'm confident there would be a difference noted. But as far as I'm aware, that specific test hasn't been carried out.

[...] Audiophiles in this business have the tendency to hear "imaginary" sounds made by their brain without taking into account how inferior their ears really are. [...]

And yet again, you haven't read my posts; I'm not an audiophile in the sense that I consider audio cables to affect sound, or in the sense that I can hear a difference between lossless foramts; I'm an audiophile in the same sense that someone who loves maths is a numberphile. In other words, I simply am an audio enthusiast, and I like to know everything I can about it.

Bottom line: I cannot discern any changes in the sound, and neither can the people who participate in my blindfold tests. Why? Because the difference is 100000x smaller than our ears can catch. It's completely marginal, from a listeners point of view (FAAAAR from being audible).
[...]
About me - I've been an audio enthusiast for a very long time, I've had the pleasure of owning many expensive systems, and I've conducted dozens of experiments using them. My hearing is still 20Hz - 20kHz range (confirmed by Audiologist on February 27, 2017), and I'm currently using a system that cost $24,000+. Am I trying to brag about it? No, but $82.00 headphones is not good enough and cannot be used as a reference.

Once again, this highly depends on the individual lossy format. 448kbps AAC is probably good enough, but 224kbps AC3, 192kbps MP3, and 96kbps AC3 aren't. (192kbps MP3 is a common music format, 224kbps AC3 is what Pioneer used for their releases, and 96kbps AC3 is what Funimation used for theirs)
Besides, if you've spent your whole life listening to lossy music, you'd be used to it. This might seem like a feeble excuse, but it all goes back to my main point: Unless you can put together a fair test that directly compares 224kbps AC3 or 192kbps MP3 to PCM, using well-known, reputable studio headphones of a well-respected brand like Sennheiser or some such, with multiple people of different ages and demographics, with multiple repetitions, many different pieces of audio, we can't know for sure. And even then, it still depends on the source used. For the poor-quality Japanese audio of Dragon Ball that's currently used on all official releases, there's nothing in the high range, the low range is limited, and the mid-range is heavily distorted anyway. But for Funimation's dub of Dragon Ball Kai, there's 6 channels of full-range audio. So, there would most certainly be different results for these sources.
The problem is, from what I've seen and heard, ABX tests comparing lossless to lossy are either not this careful, or are more weird about their format selections in a way that causes a bias in one direction(For example: 448kbps AAC vs PCM for bias towards no difference, or 64kbps MP3 vs PCM for bias towards lossless. I'm exaggerating, but you get my point).

Point is, the results are too wildly different to get anything useful out of the ABX tests you can find online currently. I've seen people on both sides of this argument use ABX tests to aid their arguments. Kojiro and I have already discussed this, and come to the conclusion that neither of us will change our minds about this, but that lossless should be used on consumer releases anyway for the reason that there's no downside to doing so, and in the modern age, lossy provides no upsides unless you're doing a DVD.

[AnimeMaakuo]

Did I hurt your feelings? Are you ok?

I'm just pointing out the fact your argument is clearly running out of steam.

You're free to believe whatever you like.

Once again, you haven't actually read my post.

Cut the crap.

Technically - PCM is better. But practically, it's IMPOSSIBLE to hear. Completely, absolutely and totally impossible to hear. Phase errors and ringing are at such a small level, that humans cannot tell the difference. ABX tests proved this to be right. Frequency response, dynamic range, various harmonic distortions, linear distortions, ringing, phase errors, TIM distortions, background noise, wow and flutter and many others.

I feel like a broken record; if you actually read mine and Kojiro's posts, you'll see we've discussed this at length.

You have the tendency to repeat phrases like "you haven't read my post", or "Kojiro and I have discussed this at great length". These are discussion boards, are they not? I gave you my answer.

If you directly compare 224kbps AC3 to PCM, I'm confident there would be a difference noted. But as far as I'm aware, that specific test hasn't been carried out.

I've already performed these experiments using $24,000+ worth of equipment, so now you're aware.

[...] Audiophiles in this business have the tendency to hear "imaginary" sounds made by their brain without taking into account how inferior their ears really are. [...]

And yet again, you haven't read my posts; I'm not an audiophile in the sense that I consider audio cables to affect sound, or in the sense that I can hear a difference between lossless foramts; I'm an audiophile in the same sense that someone who loves maths is a numberphile. In other words, I simply am an audio enthusiast, and I like to know everything I can about it.

First you are an audiophile, and now you're an audio enthusiast. Which is it?

Bottom line: I cannot discern any changes in the sound, and neither can the people who participate in my blindfold tests. Why? Because the difference is 100000x smaller than our ears can catch. It's completely marginal, from a listeners point of view (FAAAAR from being audible).
[...]
About me - I've been an audio enthusiast for a very long time, I've had the pleasure of owning many expensive systems, and I've conducted dozens of experiments using them. My hearing is still 20Hz - 20kHz range (confirmed by Audiologist on February 27, 2017), and I'm currently using a system that cost $24,000+. Am I trying to brag about it? No, but $82.00 headphones is not good enough and cannot be used as a reference.

448kbps AAC is probably good enough, but 224kbps AC3, 192kbps MP3, and 96kbps AC3 aren't. (192kbps MP3 is a common music format, 224kbps AC3 is what Pioneer used for their releases, and 96kbps AC3 is what Funimation used for theirs)

Nobody mentioned anything about low bitrates like 96 kbps or 192 kbs. It was already proven that people can hear the difference between low bitrates and lossless/uncompressed audio. We are talking about differences between high bitrates and lossless audio here.

This might seem like a feeble excuse, but it all goes back to my main point: Unless you can put together a fair test that directly compares 224kbps AC3 or 192kbps MP3 to PCM, using well-known, reputable studio headphones of a well-respected brand like Sennheiser or some such, with multiple people of different ages and demographics, with multiple repetitions, many different pieces of audio, we can't know for sure.

Cheap, mass-produced headphones with parts made in China cannot be used as a reference. In fact, you don't even need headphones for this kind of test.

The problem is, from what I've seen and heard, ABX tests comparing lossless to lossy are either not this careful.

How do you know, were you there?

Point is, the results are too wildly different to get anything useful out of the ABX tests you can find online currently. I've seen people on both sides of this argument use ABX tests to aid their arguments.

Technical facts and ABX tests wouldn't make a difference to you anyway, so what's the point in even talking about it?

[Kojiro Sasaki]

Point is, the results are too wildly different to get anything useful out of the ABX tests you can find online currently. I've seen people on both sides of this argument use ABX tests to aid their arguments. Kojiro and I have already discussed this, and come to the conclusion that neither of us will change our minds about this, but that lossless should be used on consumer releases anyway for the reason that there's no downside to doing so, and in the modern age, lossy provides no upsides unless you're doing a DVD.

As I said before, even if some differences do not have practical influnce on the quality, they still are there! (flac 28.2 MB -> 9,75 MB mp3 320) My perfectionism does not allow me to allow them to be lost. Also, as it was said before, lossless gives much more positives than just audible or inaudible differences - you can edit it without any quality changes, they can be transcoded million times to various formats without quality loss, uncompressed PCM is compatible practically with everything. From a collector point of view - when you keep lossless music taken from CD pressed in the 80's, you not only have music from the 80's but also BITS from the 80's! Isn't it exciting?

Technical facts and ABX tests wouldn't make a difference to you anyway, so what's the point in even talking about it?

I've talked with many audiophiles, who were saying that they don't hear the differences because ABX tests are flawed, not their auditory perception. There is always a way to feel superior I can understand them to some extent. You spend $200.000 on equipment, enjoy your hobby for years, and suddenly they tell you, that differences aren't audible or are marginal. This hurts! Many of them prefer to ignore/reject this and keep living their dream.

Everybody posted their equipment, so I need to post my stuff: http://www.audiofil.pl/stereo/kacik-kol ... ierek.html
This is an article with very good pictures - check them out!

Robo, do you have speakers/amplifier?

(this is Dragon Ball related! You cannot watch Dragon Ball without sound! )
(the soundtrack is EXTREMELY well recorded/produced and it requires true Hi Fi playback to be enjoyed properly)
(let's pay some respect to the original authors of Dragon Ball, by writing what Hi Fi playback is in Japanese)

高忠実度再生とは、(1)周波数レンジ（ｆ 特)が広く平坦である、(2) 歪（高調波歪、混変調歪、過渡歪、位相歪など）が少ない、(3) ダイナミックレンジ（最大音と最小音の比）が大きい）、(4) 信号対雑音比（S/N比）が大きい、(5)音像定位がよい（ステレオ感が鮮明である）ことと定義出来ます。

[Robo4900]

You have the tendency to repeat phrases like "you haven't read my post", or "Kojiro and I have discussed this at great length". These are discussion boards, are they not? I gave you my answer.

I kind of have to; there's no other explanation as to why half your answers have no relevance to what I was actually saying.

I've already performed these experiments using $24,000+ worth of equipment, so now you're aware.

First off, you're one person. A test like this needs to be performed blind on multiple people of different age ranges, etc., and performed multiple times.

First you are an audiophile, and now you're an audio enthusiast. Which is it?

Whichever one you won't insult me for being.
Honestly, I don't care about which particular label applies. I like my audio to sound as nice as possible, and I always rip my CDs to lossless. I'd assumed I could just say that I'm an audiophile, and people would get that. Clearly, in your case at least, this isn't the case, so how about we just drop this small technicality?

Nobody mentioned anything about low bitrates like 96 kbps or 192 kbs. It was already proven that people can hear the difference between low bitrates and lossless/uncompressed audio. We are talking about differences between high bitrates and lossless audio here.

No, we aren't. We're talking about lossless vs lossy in general, with a specific focus in 224kbps AC3 vs PCM.
If you've actually read my posts, as you claim to have, I've in particular referred to the fact Blu-Ray manufacturers have no excuse not to use lossless. That's been the core of my argument this whole time, and it's been something you've consistently avoided acknowledging. Funimation make Blu-Rays, and they're constantly using low bitrates like 96kbs or 192kbps for the Japanese and Faulconer + dub tracks on their releases. This is a very wide-ranging issue.

But, let's keep this simple -- this discussion right here is about 224kbps AC3 vs PCM. And more specifically, the fact that in the modern day, there's no reason why PCM shouldn't be used over AC3.
If you have a point to make in favour of lossless or lossy that would benefit from bringing other formats into it, then that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but 224kbps AC3 vs PCM is the heart of this discussion.

Cheap, mass-produced headphones with parts made in China cannot be used as a reference. In fact, you don't even need headphones for this kind of test.

So your entire rebuttal to my point is to criticise the specific brand I named?

How do you know, were you there?

Sorry if I don't copy down and save every link I've ever visited.

Technical facts and ABX tests wouldn't make a difference to you anyway, so what's the point in even talking about it?

The technical fact is that PCM contains more data than 224kbps AC3. The question is whether it's noticeable.
ABX tests point in both directions. The question is whether there's one that can be trusted out there.

I've already made both of these points in the past. I fail to see what your point is here.

As I said before, even if some differences do not have practical influnce on the quality, they still are there! (flac 28.2 MB -> 9,75 MB mp3 320) My perfectionism does not allow me to allow them to be lost. Also, as it was said before, lossless gives much more positives than just audible or inaudible differences - you can edit it without any quality changes, they can be transcoded million times to various formats without quality loss, uncompressed PCM is compatible practically with everything. From a collector point of view - when you keep lossless music taken from CD pressed in the 80's, you not only have music from the 80's but also BITS from the 80's! Isn't it exciting?

This guy gets it.

I've talked with many audiophiles, who were saying that they don't hear the differences because ABX tests are flawed, not their auditory perception. There is always a way to feel superior I can understand them to some extent. You spend $200.000 on equipment, enjoy your hobby for years, and suddenly they tell you, that differences aren't audible or are marginal. This hurts! Many of them prefer to ignore/reject this and keep living their dream.

Indeed. I personally am willing to admit I'm wrong, but for the moment, I have yet to see a valid argument. Maakuo has basically just whined at me for a page and a half; you've cited ABX tests, but such tests seem to be inconsistent, and given the other points to be made in favour of lossless(Editing, etc.), not hugely relevant.
Anyway, as I say, I like to mess around with editing my audio, so even if it turned out there actually was no difference between lossy and lossless, I have the space for it, so I'd just keep everything lossless anyway. So really, that renders the debate kind of a moot point, practically speaking.

Robo, do you have speakers/amplifier?

Not right now. I find headphones more convenient anyway.

[AnimeMaakuo]

You have the tendency to repeat phrases like "you haven't read my post", or "Kojiro and I have discussed this at great length". These are discussion boards, are they not? I gave you my answer.

I kind of have to; there's no other explanation as to why half your answers have no relevance to what I was actually saying.

If you aren't capable of understanding my analogy, then I don't know how to help you. I gave you an answer; there's nothing left to talk about.

I've already performed these experiments using $24,000+ worth of equipment, so now you're aware.

First off, you're one person. A test like this needs to be performed blind on multiple people of different age ranges, etc., and performed multiple times.

I've performed this experiment dozens of times, using dozens of people who's hearing is 20 Hz - 20 kHz range.

Nobody mentioned anything about low bitrates like 96 kbps or 192 kbs. It was already proven that people can hear the difference between low bitrates and lossless/uncompressed audio. We are talking about differences between high bitrates and lossless audio here.

No, we aren't. We're talking about lossless vs lossy in general, with a specific focus in 224kbps AC3 vs PCM.

When I talk about inaudible differences, I am always talking about highest bitrates only. Differences between low bitrates were already proven scientifically.

Cheap, mass-produced headphones with parts made in China cannot be used as a reference. In fact, you don't even need headphones for this kind of test.

So your entire rebuttal to my point is to criticise the specific brand I named?

No, I'm simply stating that $82.00 headphones is not good enough and cannot be used as a reference.

As I said before, even if some differences do not have practical influnce on the quality, they still are there! (flac 28.2 MB -> 9,75 MB mp3 320) My perfectionism does not allow me to allow them to be lost. Also, as it was said before, lossless gives much more positives than just audible or inaudible differences - you can edit it without any quality changes, they can be transcoded million times to various formats without quality loss, uncompressed PCM is compatible practically with everything. From a collector point of view - when you keep lossless music taken from CD pressed in the 80's, you not only have music from the 80's but also BITS from the 80's! Isn't it exciting?

This guy gets it.

I agree 100% with Kojiro, however using him as a means to somehow belittle me won't help your case.

I've talked with many audiophiles, who were saying that they don't hear the differences because ABX tests are flawed, not their auditory perception. There is always a way to feel superior I can understand them to some extent. You spend $200.000 on equipment, enjoy your hobby for years, and suddenly they tell you, that differences aren't audible or are marginal. This hurts! Many of them prefer to ignore/reject this and keep living their dream.

Maakuo has basically just whined at me for a page and a half

Did I hurt your feelings? Are you ok?

[Robo4900]

If you aren't capable of understanding my analogy, then I don't know how to help you. I gave you an answer; there's nothing left to talk about.

An analogy is when you describe and compare what you're describing to another situation, typically to improve the communication of an idea of yours.
The specific point I was referring to in the section you responded to doesn't involve any analogies; you pointed out the fact this is a discussion board, which it is, but there's no comparison to any other scenario.

I've performed this experiment dozens of times, using dozens of people who's hearing is 20 Hz - 20 kHz range.

Somehow, I doubt the validity of your claims.
If you're willing to do a properly worded blog post or something on this, I might believe you, but even then, it wouldn't be truly valid without repeat experiments from an independent source to check that you aren't biased.

When I talk about inaudible differences, I am always talking about highest bitrates only. Differences between low bitrates were already proven scientifically.

Then clearly you haven't read my earlier posts, as I've already admitted 448kbps AAC of the Japanese audio is probably inaudibly different from lossless. If this was truly how you were approaching this discussion, the debate would already be over; or at least, this aspect of it would.
From the beginning, this discussion has specifically been about the 224kbps AC3 track of the Pioneer DVDs, compared to the PCM audio on the Pioneer Laserdiscs(See the thread title). If all you're arguing about is the "Highest bitrates", why did you even take issue with this in the first place?

No, I'm simply stating that $82.00 headphones is not good enough and cannot be used as a reference.

Except that's exactly the problem. What I said was "Unless you can put together a fair test that directly compares 224kbps AC3 or 192kbps MP3 to PCM, using well-known, reputable studio headphones of a well-respected brand like Sennheiser or some such, with multiple people of different ages and demographics, with multiple repetitions, many different pieces of audio, we can't know for sure."
My point wasn't about the quality of Sennheiser, my point wasn't about any particular price point, my point was that a test should be carried out using proper equipment, a large sample size, a wide range of demographics, and many repeat tests. In other words: This should be carried out as a scientific experiment, otherwise no one will listen to you.
But clearly, the only take-away you can possibly perceive from this point is the fact I prefer using headphones, and I don't have the money to drop on a £10,000+ sound system, so maybe I should just drop this point.

I agree 100% with Kojiro

So you agree that official releases should use lossless where possible.
Meaning you do agree with literally the core part of the point I've been making all along, which you've repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
Glad to know you're finally coming around to my way of thinking.

however using him as a means to somehow belittle me won't help your case.

You'd have to have pretty thin skin to be offended at that. Look, for the record, I haven't been trying to insult or belittle you in any part of this. Anything that looks like an insult should be read with a heavy layer of sarcasm over it. I don't like insulting people for the hell of it; I'm not some mean-spirited jerk who takes pleasure from putting people down.
When I said "This guy gets it," I just meant Kojiro clearly was correctly interpreting what I was saying, and was looking at things from my point of view. There was also a sarcastic part of it that was making fun of the fact you keep dismissing my larger points, and instead dismantling the specific words I'm using to convey those points, but ultimately, I am having fun with this debate, and I do respect you for the fact that you continue to discuss this with me, despite both of us being rather stubborn about our views.
If I have come off as condescending or insulting though, I do apologise.

Did I hurt your feelings? Are you ok?

You already said that, and I already responded to it...

Did I hurt your feelings? Are you ok?

Clearly you haven't read my sig quote.
I'm just pointing out the fact your argument is clearly running out of steam.
If my manner concerns you, I'm actually very much enjoying this debate. I strongly believe it's always good to challenge and re-examine your views, and what better way is there to do so than to discuss it with people of an opposing viewpoint?

[VegettoEX]

The attitudes and dismissals on display in this thread — specifically from, but not limited to, AnimeMaakuo — absolutely do not live up to the spirit of our community guidelines. If you're not willing to truly have a real, genuine conversation with your fellow fans without resorting to that kind of language, this is not the place for you. Be aware that account strikes add up to temporary/permanent bans, which revoke access to the entirety of the Kanzenshuu website. Please take a step back to re-evaluate what it is you find of value here.