<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_19_176209</id>
	<title>1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255972080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Results of a blind listening test show that <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49303980,00.htm">a third of people can't tell the difference</a> between music encoded at 48Kbps and the same music encoded at 160Kbps. The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival <a href="http://songs.sky.com/">Sky Songs</a>. Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression. Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Results of a blind listening test show that a third of people ca n't tell the difference between music encoded at 48Kbps and the same music encoded at 160Kbps .
The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs .
Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service , whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC + compression .
Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Results of a blind listening test show that a third of people can't tell the difference between music encoded at 48Kbps and the same music encoded at 160Kbps.
The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs.
Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression.
Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798389</id>
	<title>Re:The number should be doubled.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255983720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who can't tell the difference have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.  Therefore we can deduce that over *two-thirds* of the population can't tell the difference, by adding in the inferred members who couldn't tell, but guessed right.</p></div><p>That would hold true if we were sure that a certain portion of the members were guessing, but we don't know that to be the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who ca n't tell the difference have a 50-50 chance of getting it right .
Therefore we can deduce that over * two-thirds * of the population ca n't tell the difference , by adding in the inferred members who could n't tell , but guessed right.That would hold true if we were sure that a certain portion of the members were guessing , but we do n't know that to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who can't tell the difference have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.
Therefore we can deduce that over *two-thirds* of the population can't tell the difference, by adding in the inferred members who couldn't tell, but guessed right.That would hold true if we were sure that a certain portion of the members were guessing, but we don't know that to be the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796827</id>
	<title>Anecdotal Crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255978140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be a concert-trained violinist.  I don't have perfect pitch, but I can usually get close.  I've got to say--I *can't* and have never been able to tell the difference.</p><p>I can't even hear the difference between a tape, LP, CD, or MP3--other than the fact that most LPs I've listened too tended to have poor wiring that resulted in sound problems going to the speakers--put on a pair of headphones and they all sound the same to me.</p><p>The *ONLY* exception, has been that I can hear the difference in some classical music between a cassette, and a high quality MP3.  I'm not saying that it isn't there...but I suspect there's got to be some unusual...hearing differences involved.  And honestly--the above doesn't even make sense to me--I'd expect a high quality MP3 to sound *worse* than a CD since it's lossless--but they sound the same to me.  It really makes me wonder how much of sound is just a placebo effect...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be a concert-trained violinist .
I do n't have perfect pitch , but I can usually get close .
I 've got to say--I * ca n't * and have never been able to tell the difference.I ca n't even hear the difference between a tape , LP , CD , or MP3--other than the fact that most LPs I 've listened too tended to have poor wiring that resulted in sound problems going to the speakers--put on a pair of headphones and they all sound the same to me.The * ONLY * exception , has been that I can hear the difference in some classical music between a cassette , and a high quality MP3 .
I 'm not saying that it is n't there...but I suspect there 's got to be some unusual...hearing differences involved .
And honestly--the above does n't even make sense to me--I 'd expect a high quality MP3 to sound * worse * than a CD since it 's lossless--but they sound the same to me .
It really makes me wonder how much of sound is just a placebo effect.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be a concert-trained violinist.
I don't have perfect pitch, but I can usually get close.
I've got to say--I *can't* and have never been able to tell the difference.I can't even hear the difference between a tape, LP, CD, or MP3--other than the fact that most LPs I've listened too tended to have poor wiring that resulted in sound problems going to the speakers--put on a pair of headphones and they all sound the same to me.The *ONLY* exception, has been that I can hear the difference in some classical music between a cassette, and a high quality MP3.
I'm not saying that it isn't there...but I suspect there's got to be some unusual...hearing differences involved.
And honestly--the above doesn't even make sense to me--I'd expect a high quality MP3 to sound *worse* than a CD since it's lossless--but they sound the same to me.
It really makes me wonder how much of sound is just a placebo effect...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796301</id>
	<title>apples oranges...</title>
	<author>ArchieBunker</author>
	<datestamp>1255976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are using two completely different codecs. Try 48kbps mp3 vs 160kbps mp3 and see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are using two completely different codecs .
Try 48kbps mp3 vs 160kbps mp3 and see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are using two completely different codecs.
Try 48kbps mp3 vs 160kbps mp3 and see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796295</id>
	<title>Some other factors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a lot of things to mention in this article. They are using VERY high end hardware that can interpolate the sound and cause sound clipping (which makes things sound metallic) to be minimized. They also didn't mention what songs were chosen. A lot of music is mastered to sound good on poor quality speakers and thus the 48 Kbps may actually not be the limiting factor. <br>At least there going to be a new reason to sell audio snake oil now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of things to mention in this article .
They are using VERY high end hardware that can interpolate the sound and cause sound clipping ( which makes things sound metallic ) to be minimized .
They also did n't mention what songs were chosen .
A lot of music is mastered to sound good on poor quality speakers and thus the 48 Kbps may actually not be the limiting factor .
At least there going to be a new reason to sell audio snake oil now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of things to mention in this article.
They are using VERY high end hardware that can interpolate the sound and cause sound clipping (which makes things sound metallic) to be minimized.
They also didn't mention what songs were chosen.
A lot of music is mastered to sound good on poor quality speakers and thus the 48 Kbps may actually not be the limiting factor.
At least there going to be a new reason to sell audio snake oil now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799773</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1255945320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This goes a long way in explaining how Creed sold 10 million albums.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This goes a long way in explaining how Creed sold 10 million albums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This goes a long way in explaining how Creed sold 10 million albums.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796989</id>
	<title>Most people aren't too descriminating.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1255978620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because people prefer a particular rate doesn't mean its actually better. Many people are probably used to listening to crap and so tend to favor sound they're familiar with. Also, in my experience people seem to think that good quality audio means boomy bass. So I wouldn't be surprised that muddy audio, with the volume turned up, sounds good to people. Also, sometimes, if people don't know what to listen for they wont be able to pick up on the differences which otherwise would be obvious.</p><p>For me, 128Kbps sounds like crap. The best way to describe it is that music sounds muffled, there's isn't enough definition. It's kind of like a jpg with too much compression. I find it a joke that is considered high quality. 192Kbps is good; at this rate I find it acceptable. But when I rip CDs I always go to 256Kbps. I can't really find much to complain about at that rate except that on a 4GB iPod I run out of space fairly quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because people prefer a particular rate does n't mean its actually better .
Many people are probably used to listening to crap and so tend to favor sound they 're familiar with .
Also , in my experience people seem to think that good quality audio means boomy bass .
So I would n't be surprised that muddy audio , with the volume turned up , sounds good to people .
Also , sometimes , if people do n't know what to listen for they wont be able to pick up on the differences which otherwise would be obvious.For me , 128Kbps sounds like crap .
The best way to describe it is that music sounds muffled , there 's is n't enough definition .
It 's kind of like a jpg with too much compression .
I find it a joke that is considered high quality .
192Kbps is good ; at this rate I find it acceptable .
But when I rip CDs I always go to 256Kbps .
I ca n't really find much to complain about at that rate except that on a 4GB iPod I run out of space fairly quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because people prefer a particular rate doesn't mean its actually better.
Many people are probably used to listening to crap and so tend to favor sound they're familiar with.
Also, in my experience people seem to think that good quality audio means boomy bass.
So I wouldn't be surprised that muddy audio, with the volume turned up, sounds good to people.
Also, sometimes, if people don't know what to listen for they wont be able to pick up on the differences which otherwise would be obvious.For me, 128Kbps sounds like crap.
The best way to describe it is that music sounds muffled, there's isn't enough definition.
It's kind of like a jpg with too much compression.
I find it a joke that is considered high quality.
192Kbps is good; at this rate I find it acceptable.
But when I rip CDs I always go to 256Kbps.
I can't really find much to complain about at that rate except that on a 4GB iPod I run out of space fairly quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796281</id>
	<title>Yeah, but they weren't listening through Monster..</title>
	<author>irchs</author>
	<datestamp>1255976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but they weren't listening through Monster Cable, you can't tell the difference between anything without Monster equipment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but they were n't listening through Monster Cable , you ca n't tell the difference between anything without Monster equipment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but they weren't listening through Monster Cable, you can't tell the difference between anything without Monster equipment...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798225</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the sound is clean</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1255983300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go grab a pair of the cheapest PC speakers you can find, plug them in, and turn them all the way up to lisen throughout your house.</p><p>Next get a friend who didn't just loose his hearing: grab (say) a pair of Magipan planar ribbons and a powerful amp, hook them up, and turn them to the same relative volume (to fill the house the same way).</p><p>Notice how his eyes aren't bleeding. Notice how you can feel the lower frequencies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go grab a pair of the cheapest PC speakers you can find , plug them in , and turn them all the way up to lisen throughout your house.Next get a friend who did n't just loose his hearing : grab ( say ) a pair of Magipan planar ribbons and a powerful amp , hook them up , and turn them to the same relative volume ( to fill the house the same way ) .Notice how his eyes are n't bleeding .
Notice how you can feel the lower frequencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go grab a pair of the cheapest PC speakers you can find, plug them in, and turn them all the way up to lisen throughout your house.Next get a friend who didn't just loose his hearing: grab (say) a pair of Magipan planar ribbons and a powerful amp, hook them up, and turn them to the same relative volume (to fill the house the same way).Notice how his eyes aren't bleeding.
Notice how you can feel the lower frequencies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796541</id>
	<title>That's because 1/3 the population is tone deaf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is this 1/3 is the same ones that listen to Dave Mathews and and Alice in Chains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is this 1/3 is the same ones that listen to Dave Mathews and and Alice in Chains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is this 1/3 is the same ones that listen to Dave Mathews and and Alice in Chains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798399</id>
	<title>And among those who could tell the difference...</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1255983780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1/3 of those who could spot a difference in the audio clips also complained of hearing voices in their heads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1/3 of those who could spot a difference in the audio clips also complained of hearing voices in their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1/3 of those who could spot a difference in the audio clips also complained of hearing voices in their heads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800045</id>
	<title>deaf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1/3 of people is fuckin deaf!
<br>
1/3 OF PEOPLE IS FUCKIN DEAF I SAID!!!
<br> <br>
Note to the filter. I know that using caps is like yelling, but I want the 1/3 people to hear me. I WAS TALKING WITH THE FILTER!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1/3 of people is fuckin deaf !
1/3 OF PEOPLE IS FUCKIN DEAF I SAID ! ! !
Note to the filter .
I know that using caps is like yelling , but I want the 1/3 people to hear me .
I WAS TALKING WITH THE FILTER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1/3 of people is fuckin deaf!
1/3 OF PEOPLE IS FUCKIN DEAF I SAID!!!
Note to the filter.
I know that using caps is like yelling, but I want the 1/3 people to hear me.
I WAS TALKING WITH THE FILTER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802277</id>
	<title>This is patently absurd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255958160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is misleading. As an audio producer, I am familiar with the psychology behind hearing. Ears become attuned to certain frequencies and noise domains. If you are consistently exposed to low quality signals, your brain adjusts for them and learns to extract the signal from the noise. If you are consistently exposed to high quality signals, your brain becomes used to it and is not good at dealing with noise. Hence, this argument is the same as this argument:</p><p>"1/3 of people cannot recognise a quality racehorse from a nag". This is because they are not educated in horses and have no decent experience by which to judge from.</p><p>This is entirely different from saying "Nags are as good as race horses because 1/3 of people think so".</p><p>I guarentee no matter what the compression format, I can tell you which audio is sampled at 48k and which at 160k, because I work with them daily.</p><p>This article is basically saying "1/3 of people have completely untrained ears and dont know the difference between different sounds. Therefore, they dont know the difference between different sounds".</p><p>If this wasnt so boring it might be an Ig Nobel candidate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is misleading .
As an audio producer , I am familiar with the psychology behind hearing .
Ears become attuned to certain frequencies and noise domains .
If you are consistently exposed to low quality signals , your brain adjusts for them and learns to extract the signal from the noise .
If you are consistently exposed to high quality signals , your brain becomes used to it and is not good at dealing with noise .
Hence , this argument is the same as this argument : " 1/3 of people can not recognise a quality racehorse from a nag " .
This is because they are not educated in horses and have no decent experience by which to judge from.This is entirely different from saying " Nags are as good as race horses because 1/3 of people think so " .I guarentee no matter what the compression format , I can tell you which audio is sampled at 48k and which at 160k , because I work with them daily.This article is basically saying " 1/3 of people have completely untrained ears and dont know the difference between different sounds .
Therefore , they dont know the difference between different sounds " .If this wasnt so boring it might be an Ig Nobel candidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is misleading.
As an audio producer, I am familiar with the psychology behind hearing.
Ears become attuned to certain frequencies and noise domains.
If you are consistently exposed to low quality signals, your brain adjusts for them and learns to extract the signal from the noise.
If you are consistently exposed to high quality signals, your brain becomes used to it and is not good at dealing with noise.
Hence, this argument is the same as this argument:"1/3 of people cannot recognise a quality racehorse from a nag".
This is because they are not educated in horses and have no decent experience by which to judge from.This is entirely different from saying "Nags are as good as race horses because 1/3 of people think so".I guarentee no matter what the compression format, I can tell you which audio is sampled at 48k and which at 160k, because I work with them daily.This article is basically saying "1/3 of people have completely untrained ears and dont know the difference between different sounds.
Therefore, they dont know the difference between different sounds".If this wasnt so boring it might be an Ig Nobel candidate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798063</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>thomassnielsen</author>
	<datestamp>1255982700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I can hear the difference of 160kbps Vorbis and 320Kbps Vorbis, and any mp3 compared to high bitrate vorbis or lossless. That said, Spotify with 320kbps Vorbis has finally reached the point where I consider it worth paying for it as a streaming service. In most cases I can't differentiate between 320kbps Vorbis and Apple Lossless, which is my default ripping format.
<br> <br>
The few times I really want to listen to high-quality music, I put on my Sennheiser headset or turn on my toslink-connected hifi system, and play SACDs directly or lossless rips on my Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I can hear the difference of 160kbps Vorbis and 320Kbps Vorbis , and any mp3 compared to high bitrate vorbis or lossless .
That said , Spotify with 320kbps Vorbis has finally reached the point where I consider it worth paying for it as a streaming service .
In most cases I ca n't differentiate between 320kbps Vorbis and Apple Lossless , which is my default ripping format .
The few times I really want to listen to high-quality music , I put on my Sennheiser headset or turn on my toslink-connected hifi system , and play SACDs directly or lossless rips on my Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I can hear the difference of 160kbps Vorbis and 320Kbps Vorbis, and any mp3 compared to high bitrate vorbis or lossless.
That said, Spotify with 320kbps Vorbis has finally reached the point where I consider it worth paying for it as a streaming service.
In most cases I can't differentiate between 320kbps Vorbis and Apple Lossless, which is my default ripping format.
The few times I really want to listen to high-quality music, I put on my Sennheiser headset or turn on my toslink-connected hifi system, and play SACDs directly or lossless rips on my Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797621</id>
	<title>Re:The number should be doubled.</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1255981140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOOOO!!!!</p><p>Did you have to do it? You just ruined over a hundred (or more[1]) years worth of mathematics in statistics.</p><p>Now every Gallup done so far must be discredited, every medical experiment redone, eve..</p><p>My brain hurts, I cannot even think of the chil..consequences.</p><p>[1] depends on how your stat...calendar looks like</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOOOO ! ! !
! Did you have to do it ?
You just ruined over a hundred ( or more [ 1 ] ) years worth of mathematics in statistics.Now every Gallup done so far must be discredited , every medical experiment redone , eve..My brain hurts , I can not even think of the chil..consequences .
[ 1 ] depends on how your stat...calendar looks like</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOOOO!!!
!Did you have to do it?
You just ruined over a hundred (or more[1]) years worth of mathematics in statistics.Now every Gallup done so far must be discredited, every medical experiment redone, eve..My brain hurts, I cannot even think of the chil..consequences.
[1] depends on how your stat...calendar looks like</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797083</id>
	<title>Re:OGG vs CNET</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255978980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And MP3 isn't an audio format.</p><p>In any case, everyone on slashdot knew what they were referring to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And MP3 is n't an audio format.In any case , everyone on slashdot knew what they were referring to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And MP3 isn't an audio format.In any case, everyone on slashdot knew what they were referring to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796551</id>
	<title>Is that all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are top rated shows. Most people have no sense of quality programing in any form. It's like Laserdisk and Blu-Ray, quality will only appeal to a select few. I just hope they don't drop their standards to compete. I got very excited when I first heard about Digital TV until I found out they didn't mean HD just digital. Most of the higher quality formats didn't fail because they were inferior it was because the average person either couldn't tell the difference or didn't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are top rated shows .
Most people have no sense of quality programing in any form .
It 's like Laserdisk and Blu-Ray , quality will only appeal to a select few .
I just hope they do n't drop their standards to compete .
I got very excited when I first heard about Digital TV until I found out they did n't mean HD just digital .
Most of the higher quality formats did n't fail because they were inferior it was because the average person either could n't tell the difference or did n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are top rated shows.
Most people have no sense of quality programing in any form.
It's like Laserdisk and Blu-Ray, quality will only appeal to a select few.
I just hope they don't drop their standards to compete.
I got very excited when I first heard about Digital TV until I found out they didn't mean HD just digital.
Most of the higher quality formats didn't fail because they were inferior it was because the average person either couldn't tell the difference or didn't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259</id>
	<title>As long as the sound is clean</title>
	<author>SilverJets</author>
	<datestamp>1255976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the sound is clean and there is no static, no pops, crackles, or hissing, I could care less what it is encoded at.  To my ear there really is no difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the sound is clean and there is no static , no pops , crackles , or hissing , I could care less what it is encoded at .
To my ear there really is no difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the sound is clean and there is no static, no pops, crackles, or hissing, I could care less what it is encoded at.
To my ear there really is no difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797331</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the sound is clean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as the sound is clean and there is no static, no pops, crackles, or hissing, I could care less what it is encoded at.  To my ear there really is no difference.</p></div><p>I couldn't agree more. In addition to it, it also greatly depends on the applications. It is useless to have 64-bit resolution and FLAC if the music is intended to be listened in the subway at peak hour using cheap headphones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the sound is clean and there is no static , no pops , crackles , or hissing , I could care less what it is encoded at .
To my ear there really is no difference.I could n't agree more .
In addition to it , it also greatly depends on the applications .
It is useless to have 64-bit resolution and FLAC if the music is intended to be listened in the subway at peak hour using cheap headphones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the sound is clean and there is no static, no pops, crackles, or hissing, I could care less what it is encoded at.
To my ear there really is no difference.I couldn't agree more.
In addition to it, it also greatly depends on the applications.
It is useless to have 64-bit resolution and FLAC if the music is intended to be listened in the subway at peak hour using cheap headphones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799023</id>
	<title>One sample, some old Jackson song?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1255985820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They need to try more samples.
</p><p>
Some sounds really suck at low bit rates, like cymbals.  All the info is in the higher frequencies.
</p><p>
One of the worst cases is voice over white noise.  Humans are good at pulling voice out of white noise, but most codecs use too many bits trying to replicate the white noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to try more samples .
Some sounds really suck at low bit rates , like cymbals .
All the info is in the higher frequencies .
One of the worst cases is voice over white noise .
Humans are good at pulling voice out of white noise , but most codecs use too many bits trying to replicate the white noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They need to try more samples.
Some sounds really suck at low bit rates, like cymbals.
All the info is in the higher frequencies.
One of the worst cases is voice over white noise.
Humans are good at pulling voice out of white noise, but most codecs use too many bits trying to replicate the white noise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799621</id>
	<title>what?</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1255944780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no seriously, i couldn't hear you, can you speak a little louder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no seriously , i could n't hear you , can you speak a little louder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no seriously, i couldn't hear you, can you speak a little louder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29803849</id>
	<title>NOT surprising, misleading title</title>
	<author>DoctorSVD</author>
	<datestamp>1255970340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is absolutely nothing surprising about this study - it is right in line with the large AB studies done in the past comparing AAC, WMA, MP3 etc. (Since the poster didn't bother to read up on the topic before positing to slashdot, I cannot be bothered to look up a link either)  . AAC+ is a vastly superior codec for low bit-rate streaming, for which it was developed. It uses a very powerful technique called spectral replication (who would have thought something that useful would come out of Sweden - just kidding). Please don't post articles about things you know nothing about. Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutely nothing surprising about this study - it is right in line with the large AB studies done in the past comparing AAC , WMA , MP3 etc .
( Since the poster did n't bother to read up on the topic before positing to slashdot , I can not be bothered to look up a link either ) .
AAC + is a vastly superior codec for low bit-rate streaming , for which it was developed .
It uses a very powerful technique called spectral replication ( who would have thought something that useful would come out of Sweden - just kidding ) .
Please do n't post articles about things you know nothing about .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutely nothing surprising about this study - it is right in line with the large AB studies done in the past comparing AAC, WMA, MP3 etc.
(Since the poster didn't bother to read up on the topic before positing to slashdot, I cannot be bothered to look up a link either)  .
AAC+ is a vastly superior codec for low bit-rate streaming, for which it was developed.
It uses a very powerful technique called spectral replication (who would have thought something that useful would come out of Sweden - just kidding).
Please don't post articles about things you know nothing about.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29807271</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously, the test was flawed</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1256050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the higher compression audio had simply used this $500 Denon ethernet cable, the results would have been different:</p><p> <a href="http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp" title="denon.com">http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp</a> [denon.com] </p><p>But seriously, can you make a sweeping statement like "People can't tell 48k audio from 160k" if you're also switching compression technologies?  OGG vs. AAC is a whole article on it's own, you just muddy the waters by making this about the compression rate.</p><p>This is just a new version of the old megahertz myth of the CPU wars.  Two different 2GHZ processors from different manufacturers are not equal, we all finally figured that out for the most part, right?  Now we've moved onwards...  to the Kbps myth?</p></div><p>Denon cables are a cheap joke. If you're serious you'll use dancable Anjou speakers cables from Pear Cables and wooden volume control knob from Reference Audio Mods.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the higher compression audio had simply used this $ 500 Denon ethernet cable , the results would have been different : http : //www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp [ denon.com ] But seriously , can you make a sweeping statement like " People ca n't tell 48k audio from 160k " if you 're also switching compression technologies ?
OGG vs. AAC is a whole article on it 's own , you just muddy the waters by making this about the compression rate.This is just a new version of the old megahertz myth of the CPU wars .
Two different 2GHZ processors from different manufacturers are not equal , we all finally figured that out for the most part , right ?
Now we 've moved onwards... to the Kbps myth ? Denon cables are a cheap joke .
If you 're serious you 'll use dancable Anjou speakers cables from Pear Cables and wooden volume control knob from Reference Audio Mods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the higher compression audio had simply used this $500 Denon ethernet cable, the results would have been different: http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp [denon.com] But seriously, can you make a sweeping statement like "People can't tell 48k audio from 160k" if you're also switching compression technologies?
OGG vs. AAC is a whole article on it's own, you just muddy the waters by making this about the compression rate.This is just a new version of the old megahertz myth of the CPU wars.
Two different 2GHZ processors from different manufacturers are not equal, we all finally figured that out for the most part, right?
Now we've moved onwards...  to the Kbps myth?Denon cables are a cheap joke.
If you're serious you'll use dancable Anjou speakers cables from Pear Cables and wooden volume control knob from Reference Audio Mods.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797219</id>
	<title>Glitch-Pop: The robust choice in music</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1255979400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recommend listening to glitch-pop. It's inherently robust against lossy codecs and even some data corruption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recommend listening to glitch-pop .
It 's inherently robust against lossy codecs and even some data corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recommend listening to glitch-pop.
It's inherently robust against lossy codecs and even some data corruption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797817</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1255981920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. This would only be true if the speaker masked the exact same frequencies as the MP3. In this case, you are losing frequency content at the source (lossy MP3 file) and are AGAIN losing frequencies at the speakers. I have found, at least in my experience, that low bitrate stuff is even more unbearable on low end gear than on better systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
This would only be true if the speaker masked the exact same frequencies as the MP3 .
In this case , you are losing frequency content at the source ( lossy MP3 file ) and are AGAIN losing frequencies at the speakers .
I have found , at least in my experience , that low bitrate stuff is even more unbearable on low end gear than on better systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
This would only be true if the speaker masked the exact same frequencies as the MP3.
In this case, you are losing frequency content at the source (lossy MP3 file) and are AGAIN losing frequencies at the speakers.
I have found, at least in my experience, that low bitrate stuff is even more unbearable on low end gear than on better systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798505</id>
	<title>Re:There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1255984200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rip mine to a lossless format for that reason.  It generally works out at about 480 or so, which isn't that much more 320.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rip mine to a lossless format for that reason .
It generally works out at about 480 or so , which is n't that much more 320 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rip mine to a lossless format for that reason.
It generally works out at about 480 or so, which isn't that much more 320.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Cowclops</author>
	<datestamp>1255976760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I've been telling people for years that the "weakest link" concept in audio reproduction is an oversimplification and therefore wrong.</p><p>There are orthagonal distortion components introduced by various devices. An MP3's digital distortion (sizzle sounds, to borrow from another article somebody linked to) would be IN ADDITION TO poor frequency response and mechanical distortion. It isn't "masked" by it. And it doesn't take significantly more bitrate to go from "crappy" to "great." 128kbps CBR MP3 is pretty crappy, but 160kbps VBR MP3 is indistinguishable from the source "even on great systems." I don't intend to argue what bitrate you consider "sufficient," just that "Listen to a low bitrate because you have crappy speaker" implies that crappy speakers mask MP3 compression artifacts.</p><p>If I were to go out on a limb, I'd say its possible for crappy speakers to distort even more with overcompressed MP3s than good speakers do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 've been telling people for years that the " weakest link " concept in audio reproduction is an oversimplification and therefore wrong.There are orthagonal distortion components introduced by various devices .
An MP3 's digital distortion ( sizzle sounds , to borrow from another article somebody linked to ) would be IN ADDITION TO poor frequency response and mechanical distortion .
It is n't " masked " by it .
And it does n't take significantly more bitrate to go from " crappy " to " great .
" 128kbps CBR MP3 is pretty crappy , but 160kbps VBR MP3 is indistinguishable from the source " even on great systems .
" I do n't intend to argue what bitrate you consider " sufficient , " just that " Listen to a low bitrate because you have crappy speaker " implies that crappy speakers mask MP3 compression artifacts.If I were to go out on a limb , I 'd say its possible for crappy speakers to distort even more with overcompressed MP3s than good speakers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I've been telling people for years that the "weakest link" concept in audio reproduction is an oversimplification and therefore wrong.There are orthagonal distortion components introduced by various devices.
An MP3's digital distortion (sizzle sounds, to borrow from another article somebody linked to) would be IN ADDITION TO poor frequency response and mechanical distortion.
It isn't "masked" by it.
And it doesn't take significantly more bitrate to go from "crappy" to "great.
" 128kbps CBR MP3 is pretty crappy, but 160kbps VBR MP3 is indistinguishable from the source "even on great systems.
" I don't intend to argue what bitrate you consider "sufficient," just that "Listen to a low bitrate because you have crappy speaker" implies that crappy speakers mask MP3 compression artifacts.If I were to go out on a limb, I'd say its possible for crappy speakers to distort even more with overcompressed MP3s than good speakers do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796413</id>
	<title>Error: Test not ABX.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This wasn't a proper repeated ABX double-blind listening test, nor an ABC-HR, but just a single-trial single-blind AB for each person, with <i>one</i> track and no hidden reference. Pathetic and unscientific, and definitely shouldn't be presented as a valid listening test, given how susceptible audio research is to error.</p><p>Dear C|Net: If you're going to do a listening test, please don't just do something that'd get you laughed at on (then banned from) Hydrogenaudio. It's easy to do it properly - Hydrogenaudio have been doing it for years, and that's how the encoders are tuned. Doing it wrong tells you nothing of value.</p><p>Previous, proper ABX double-blind listening tests have proved that Vorbis -q5 (using AoTuV b5.5), which is what Spotify use, is perceptually transparent on almost all listeners on almost all audio. Meanwhile, 48kbps AAC-HE+SBR with a good encoder is best-in-class for its bitrate at the moment, but is very poor at some sounds which spectral band replication tends to make too prominent or artificial; electronic music encodes well, but classical most certainly does not. It almost always is distinguishable in ABX, although it ranks moderately highly in ABC-HR, especially for its bitrate, on untrained listeners. It's not even remotely a competitor to Vorbis -q5, though (or LAME 3.98 -V2 for that matter).</p><p>Want research sources? Hydrogenaudio listening tests, and/or peer-reviewed papers conducted using similar/the same methodologies. Want to contradict those? Do your tests properly first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was n't a proper repeated ABX double-blind listening test , nor an ABC-HR , but just a single-trial single-blind AB for each person , with one track and no hidden reference .
Pathetic and unscientific , and definitely should n't be presented as a valid listening test , given how susceptible audio research is to error.Dear C | Net : If you 're going to do a listening test , please do n't just do something that 'd get you laughed at on ( then banned from ) Hydrogenaudio .
It 's easy to do it properly - Hydrogenaudio have been doing it for years , and that 's how the encoders are tuned .
Doing it wrong tells you nothing of value.Previous , proper ABX double-blind listening tests have proved that Vorbis -q5 ( using AoTuV b5.5 ) , which is what Spotify use , is perceptually transparent on almost all listeners on almost all audio .
Meanwhile , 48kbps AAC-HE + SBR with a good encoder is best-in-class for its bitrate at the moment , but is very poor at some sounds which spectral band replication tends to make too prominent or artificial ; electronic music encodes well , but classical most certainly does not .
It almost always is distinguishable in ABX , although it ranks moderately highly in ABC-HR , especially for its bitrate , on untrained listeners .
It 's not even remotely a competitor to Vorbis -q5 , though ( or LAME 3.98 -V2 for that matter ) .Want research sources ?
Hydrogenaudio listening tests , and/or peer-reviewed papers conducted using similar/the same methodologies .
Want to contradict those ?
Do your tests properly first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wasn't a proper repeated ABX double-blind listening test, nor an ABC-HR, but just a single-trial single-blind AB for each person, with one track and no hidden reference.
Pathetic and unscientific, and definitely shouldn't be presented as a valid listening test, given how susceptible audio research is to error.Dear C|Net: If you're going to do a listening test, please don't just do something that'd get you laughed at on (then banned from) Hydrogenaudio.
It's easy to do it properly - Hydrogenaudio have been doing it for years, and that's how the encoders are tuned.
Doing it wrong tells you nothing of value.Previous, proper ABX double-blind listening tests have proved that Vorbis -q5 (using AoTuV b5.5), which is what Spotify use, is perceptually transparent on almost all listeners on almost all audio.
Meanwhile, 48kbps AAC-HE+SBR with a good encoder is best-in-class for its bitrate at the moment, but is very poor at some sounds which spectral band replication tends to make too prominent or artificial; electronic music encodes well, but classical most certainly does not.
It almost always is distinguishable in ABX, although it ranks moderately highly in ABC-HR, especially for its bitrate, on untrained listeners.
It's not even remotely a competitor to Vorbis -q5, though (or LAME 3.98 -V2 for that matter).Want research sources?
Hydrogenaudio listening tests, and/or peer-reviewed papers conducted using similar/the same methodologies.
Want to contradict those?
Do your tests properly first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800941</id>
	<title>More like two thirds.</title>
	<author>rew</author>
	<datestamp>1255950600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one third choses the supposedly inferior codec, then you could say that about 2 thirds simply doesn't know the difference and just choses randomly.</p><p>However, If I read things correctly, they tested one codec at 48k against another codec at 160k. This test shows that "the other codec at 160k" is pretty bad: It gets beaten (for a lot of people) by 48k on the other codec. Not that 1/3rd (or 2/3rds) of the people don't know what they are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one third choses the supposedly inferior codec , then you could say that about 2 thirds simply does n't know the difference and just choses randomly.However , If I read things correctly , they tested one codec at 48k against another codec at 160k .
This test shows that " the other codec at 160k " is pretty bad : It gets beaten ( for a lot of people ) by 48k on the other codec .
Not that 1/3rd ( or 2/3rds ) of the people do n't know what they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one third choses the supposedly inferior codec, then you could say that about 2 thirds simply doesn't know the difference and just choses randomly.However, If I read things correctly, they tested one codec at 48k against another codec at 160k.
This test shows that "the other codec at 160k" is pretty bad: It gets beaten (for a lot of people) by 48k on the other codec.
Not that 1/3rd (or 2/3rds) of the people don't know what they are talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796369</id>
	<title>not particularly surprising</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1255976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people only really have broad demands on how their music sounds.  Give them fairly deep bass, no obvious crackle at the high end, and they'll pretty much be happy with anything in between.  If they're used to a "lower-end" listening experience to begin with (cheap headphones, laptop speakers, low-end stereos), then they'll be even less picky overall.</p><p>It also wouldn't surprise me if a fair number of the participants just picked one arbitrarily, just for the sake of giving an answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people only really have broad demands on how their music sounds .
Give them fairly deep bass , no obvious crackle at the high end , and they 'll pretty much be happy with anything in between .
If they 're used to a " lower-end " listening experience to begin with ( cheap headphones , laptop speakers , low-end stereos ) , then they 'll be even less picky overall.It also would n't surprise me if a fair number of the participants just picked one arbitrarily , just for the sake of giving an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people only really have broad demands on how their music sounds.
Give them fairly deep bass, no obvious crackle at the high end, and they'll pretty much be happy with anything in between.
If they're used to a "lower-end" listening experience to begin with (cheap headphones, laptop speakers, low-end stereos), then they'll be even less picky overall.It also wouldn't surprise me if a fair number of the participants just picked one arbitrarily, just for the sake of giving an answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800553</id>
	<title>The conclusions are complete bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255948860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have an original recording R, and two renditions A and B.</p><p>People are asked whether they like A or B better (without giving them access to R at all).</p><p>67\% like A better, 33\% like B better.</p><p>The article concludes that this means that those 33\% can't distinguish A and B, and the other can.</p><p>This is such a load of horse hockey.  Why would they say they prefer a version if they can't distinguish them?<br>If we make the hypothesis that those that can't distinguish the versions pick a random one, then we have 33\%<br>who randomly picked B, and thus likely about an equal 33\% who randomly picked A.  Which would mean that<br>actually only 34\% made a qualified choice of A.</p><p>Now this is under the hypothesis that those who were able to distinguish the versions picked the one that is closer<br>to R.  But people never got to listen to R!  With good compression, most of the predictable, \_musical\_ content is kept<br>and most of the data loss occurs with high entropy data, noise.  Thus the compressed material tends to be warmer in sound, though less faithful.</p><p>In short: the experimenters get the experiment wrong because of wrong premises, and even accepting their totally idiotic premises, they interpret the numbers utterly wrong.</p><p>This is not merely garbage in, garbage out: with their intellectual capacities, they would produce garbage out even from useful data in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have an original recording R , and two renditions A and B.People are asked whether they like A or B better ( without giving them access to R at all ) .67 \ % like A better , 33 \ % like B better.The article concludes that this means that those 33 \ % ca n't distinguish A and B , and the other can.This is such a load of horse hockey .
Why would they say they prefer a version if they ca n't distinguish them ? If we make the hypothesis that those that ca n't distinguish the versions pick a random one , then we have 33 \ % who randomly picked B , and thus likely about an equal 33 \ % who randomly picked A. Which would mean thatactually only 34 \ % made a qualified choice of A.Now this is under the hypothesis that those who were able to distinguish the versions picked the one that is closerto R. But people never got to listen to R !
With good compression , most of the predictable , \ _musical \ _ content is keptand most of the data loss occurs with high entropy data , noise .
Thus the compressed material tends to be warmer in sound , though less faithful.In short : the experimenters get the experiment wrong because of wrong premises , and even accepting their totally idiotic premises , they interpret the numbers utterly wrong.This is not merely garbage in , garbage out : with their intellectual capacities , they would produce garbage out even from useful data in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have an original recording R, and two renditions A and B.People are asked whether they like A or B better (without giving them access to R at all).67\% like A better, 33\% like B better.The article concludes that this means that those 33\% can't distinguish A and B, and the other can.This is such a load of horse hockey.
Why would they say they prefer a version if they can't distinguish them?If we make the hypothesis that those that can't distinguish the versions pick a random one, then we have 33\%who randomly picked B, and thus likely about an equal 33\% who randomly picked A.  Which would mean thatactually only 34\% made a qualified choice of A.Now this is under the hypothesis that those who were able to distinguish the versions picked the one that is closerto R.  But people never got to listen to R!
With good compression, most of the predictable, \_musical\_ content is keptand most of the data loss occurs with high entropy data, noise.
Thus the compressed material tends to be warmer in sound, though less faithful.In short: the experimenters get the experiment wrong because of wrong premises, and even accepting their totally idiotic premises, they interpret the numbers utterly wrong.This is not merely garbage in, garbage out: with their intellectual capacities, they would produce garbage out even from useful data in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796947</id>
	<title>Terrible Headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255978560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That headline is incredibly deceptive: this story isn't about bitrates, it's about codecs.  AAC+ is a very good codec - my radio station streams to a Flash player using AAC+ at 64kbps. It sounds better than 128kbps MP3 stream it replaced. However, comparing these codecs is really apples and oranges. The way the sound degrades as MP3, OGG, or AAC+ degrades is incredibly different. MP3 is clearly the worst one - even and reasonable bitrates, it loses the clarity of the high end, with a muffled bass. AAC+ seems to degrade by sounding more brittle and harsh as the bitrate goes down. I haven't worked with  Ogg enough to know how it compares, I've only used it at high bitrates. So, I'm sure that the responses to this test depend more on which kind of compression artifacts the listener prefers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That headline is incredibly deceptive : this story is n't about bitrates , it 's about codecs .
AAC + is a very good codec - my radio station streams to a Flash player using AAC + at 64kbps .
It sounds better than 128kbps MP3 stream it replaced .
However , comparing these codecs is really apples and oranges .
The way the sound degrades as MP3 , OGG , or AAC + degrades is incredibly different .
MP3 is clearly the worst one - even and reasonable bitrates , it loses the clarity of the high end , with a muffled bass .
AAC + seems to degrade by sounding more brittle and harsh as the bitrate goes down .
I have n't worked with Ogg enough to know how it compares , I 've only used it at high bitrates .
So , I 'm sure that the responses to this test depend more on which kind of compression artifacts the listener prefers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That headline is incredibly deceptive: this story isn't about bitrates, it's about codecs.
AAC+ is a very good codec - my radio station streams to a Flash player using AAC+ at 64kbps.
It sounds better than 128kbps MP3 stream it replaced.
However, comparing these codecs is really apples and oranges.
The way the sound degrades as MP3, OGG, or AAC+ degrades is incredibly different.
MP3 is clearly the worst one - even and reasonable bitrates, it loses the clarity of the high end, with a muffled bass.
AAC+ seems to degrade by sounding more brittle and harsh as the bitrate goes down.
I haven't worked with  Ogg enough to know how it compares, I've only used it at high bitrates.
So, I'm sure that the responses to this test depend more on which kind of compression artifacts the listener prefers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797971</id>
	<title>Re:There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255982460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a terrabyte there's no need to rip to anything smaller than FLAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a terrabyte there 's no need to rip to anything smaller than FLAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a terrabyte there's no need to rip to anything smaller than FLAC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797273</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?" But that's really a stereotype from the olden days. There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg. VBR makes a *huge* difference.</p></div><p>FWIW, even then your qualified assertion that 128kbps fixed bitrate MP3s are the guilty party is based on an anachronistic stereotype.</p><p>I used to encode most of my stuff at fixed-bitrate 128mbps a few years back, using notlame, and while I won't claim that it was hifi, the quality was much better than other peoples' 128kbps MP3s that I, uh... acquired through nonstandard channels.</p><p>As far as I'm aware this is because some of the first MP3 encoders (as used in quite a number of early products) were very crude in how they encoded the data. I suspect that these are mostly gone now. (Notlame was- I believe- a derivative of the well-regarded lame encoder).</p><p>So even 128 kbps MP3s don't have to be as bad as their reputation suggests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people hear 128k and think , " How can a person possibly not get * that * ?
" But that 's really a stereotype from the olden days .
There 's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg .
VBR makes a * huge * difference.FWIW , even then your qualified assertion that 128kbps fixed bitrate MP3s are the guilty party is based on an anachronistic stereotype.I used to encode most of my stuff at fixed-bitrate 128mbps a few years back , using notlame , and while I wo n't claim that it was hifi , the quality was much better than other peoples ' 128kbps MP3s that I , uh... acquired through nonstandard channels.As far as I 'm aware this is because some of the first MP3 encoders ( as used in quite a number of early products ) were very crude in how they encoded the data .
I suspect that these are mostly gone now .
( Notlame was- I believe- a derivative of the well-regarded lame encoder ) .So even 128 kbps MP3s do n't have to be as bad as their reputation suggests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?
" But that's really a stereotype from the olden days.
There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg.
VBR makes a *huge* difference.FWIW, even then your qualified assertion that 128kbps fixed bitrate MP3s are the guilty party is based on an anachronistic stereotype.I used to encode most of my stuff at fixed-bitrate 128mbps a few years back, using notlame, and while I won't claim that it was hifi, the quality was much better than other peoples' 128kbps MP3s that I, uh... acquired through nonstandard channels.As far as I'm aware this is because some of the first MP3 encoders (as used in quite a number of early products) were very crude in how they encoded the data.
I suspect that these are mostly gone now.
(Notlame was- I believe- a derivative of the well-regarded lame encoder).So even 128 kbps MP3s don't have to be as bad as their reputation suggests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796277</id>
	<title>And in other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it turns out that at least 1/3 of all people are over the age of 25.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it turns out that at least 1/3 of all people are over the age of 25 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it turns out that at least 1/3 of all people are over the age of 25.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171</id>
	<title>Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they used the "mosquito" - then lots of people would just randomly pick something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Or just say things like "Hey! What's that ringing in my ear!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they used the " mosquito " - then lots of people would just randomly pick something : - ) Or just say things like " Hey !
What 's that ringing in my ear !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they used the "mosquito" - then lots of people would just randomly pick something :-) Or just say things like "Hey!
What's that ringing in my ear!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797765</id>
	<title>n=16</title>
	<author>DoctorNathaniel</author>
	<datestamp>1255981740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lessee.. google up 'binomial distribution' with n=16 and m=5 and...</p><p>Yup, if we take the null hypothesis that no one could tell the difference, there's a 6\% chance of null hypothesis giving this result.  This isn't a study, it's some gossip.  No meaningful statement can be made, other than 'it's pretty clear that the lower bitrate isn't likely to be PREFERABLE' which is not much of a conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lessee.. google up 'binomial distribution ' with n = 16 and m = 5 and...Yup , if we take the null hypothesis that no one could tell the difference , there 's a 6 \ % chance of null hypothesis giving this result .
This is n't a study , it 's some gossip .
No meaningful statement can be made , other than 'it 's pretty clear that the lower bitrate is n't likely to be PREFERABLE ' which is not much of a conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lessee.. google up 'binomial distribution' with n=16 and m=5 and...Yup, if we take the null hypothesis that no one could tell the difference, there's a 6\% chance of null hypothesis giving this result.
This isn't a study, it's some gossip.
No meaningful statement can be made, other than 'it's pretty clear that the lower bitrate isn't likely to be PREFERABLE' which is not much of a conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796617</id>
	<title>It's worse than that.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255977300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over a third of the people tested thought the lower bit rate audio sounded BETTER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over a third of the people tested thought the lower bit rate audio sounded BETTER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over a third of the people tested thought the lower bit rate audio sounded BETTER.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804077</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255972860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  Do you believe everything you read?</p><p>Less scrupulous companies (<i>especially</i> toward the bottom end of the market) have been absolutely lying about audio products since...  well, since we've had audio products for them to lie about.  Open your ears, and you'll understand.</p><p>Meanwhile, I've got a bridge I think you might be just the right person for.  And a there's a few <a href="http://www.scientology.org/#/books/product/beginning-books/dianetics-the-modern-science-of-mental-health-softcover-english" title="scientology.org">books</a> [scientology.org] that you might be interested in reading, full of truth and other factual stuff -- I mean, it's <i>in print</i> for fuck's sake, so it must be true.</p><p>Caveat emptor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Do you believe everything you read ? Less scrupulous companies ( especially toward the bottom end of the market ) have been absolutely lying about audio products since... well , since we 've had audio products for them to lie about .
Open your ears , and you 'll understand.Meanwhile , I 've got a bridge I think you might be just the right person for .
And a there 's a few books [ scientology.org ] that you might be interested in reading , full of truth and other factual stuff -- I mean , it 's in print for fuck 's sake , so it must be true.Caveat emptor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Do you believe everything you read?Less scrupulous companies (especially toward the bottom end of the market) have been absolutely lying about audio products since...  well, since we've had audio products for them to lie about.
Open your ears, and you'll understand.Meanwhile, I've got a bridge I think you might be just the right person for.
And a there's a few books [scientology.org] that you might be interested in reading, full of truth and other factual stuff -- I mean, it's in print for fuck's sake, so it must be true.Caveat emptor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797849</id>
	<title>Let me guess....</title>
	<author>exiguus</author>
	<datestamp>1255981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet if one looks at the demographics, that 1/3 of the people tested were born before 1980.  Like myself this 1/3 also believes that vinyl sounds way better than any digital format even with all the pop, hisses and squeaks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet if one looks at the demographics , that 1/3 of the people tested were born before 1980 .
Like myself this 1/3 also believes that vinyl sounds way better than any digital format even with all the pop , hisses and squeaks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet if one looks at the demographics, that 1/3 of the people tested were born before 1980.
Like myself this 1/3 also believes that vinyl sounds way better than any digital format even with all the pop, hisses and squeaks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29816037</id>
	<title>relevance</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1256039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people are writing this off because the lower bitrate couldn't possibly sound better. Personally I couldn't judge because I never use either codec. I did notice in my experiments with MP3 over the years though that quality is also highly dependent on the encoder. 96kps (Joint Stereo, 44.1kHz) on Fraunhofer would sound far better than 160kps on Xing (but encode in 5x the time).</p><p>Ultimately though, MP3 has become the lingua franca for digital audio, so it's more like "two formats were compared that don't play on any of my dozen or so portable players; some preferences were revealed." I have MP3s from a decade ago that still play fine now on anything with a CPU and sound output, but my Yamaha YQF files? Lost them, and I might even be hard pressed to find a player. For me, quality takes a backseat to long-term playability. Both formats have this in theory, but at the moment, they aren't even that playable in the present day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people are writing this off because the lower bitrate could n't possibly sound better .
Personally I could n't judge because I never use either codec .
I did notice in my experiments with MP3 over the years though that quality is also highly dependent on the encoder .
96kps ( Joint Stereo , 44.1kHz ) on Fraunhofer would sound far better than 160kps on Xing ( but encode in 5x the time ) .Ultimately though , MP3 has become the lingua franca for digital audio , so it 's more like " two formats were compared that do n't play on any of my dozen or so portable players ; some preferences were revealed .
" I have MP3s from a decade ago that still play fine now on anything with a CPU and sound output , but my Yamaha YQF files ?
Lost them , and I might even be hard pressed to find a player .
For me , quality takes a backseat to long-term playability .
Both formats have this in theory , but at the moment , they are n't even that playable in the present day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people are writing this off because the lower bitrate couldn't possibly sound better.
Personally I couldn't judge because I never use either codec.
I did notice in my experiments with MP3 over the years though that quality is also highly dependent on the encoder.
96kps (Joint Stereo, 44.1kHz) on Fraunhofer would sound far better than 160kps on Xing (but encode in 5x the time).Ultimately though, MP3 has become the lingua franca for digital audio, so it's more like "two formats were compared that don't play on any of my dozen or so portable players; some preferences were revealed.
" I have MP3s from a decade ago that still play fine now on anything with a CPU and sound output, but my Yamaha YQF files?
Lost them, and I might even be hard pressed to find a player.
For me, quality takes a backseat to long-term playability.
Both formats have this in theory, but at the moment, they aren't even that playable in the present day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804063</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Wolfrider</author>
	<datestamp>1255972680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--Before moving, I ripped most of my CDs to 160 Kbit OGG VBR and left the physical CDs behind.  After converting the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg files back to 44100 KHz WAV files when needed and burning them to CD, I can't really tell the difference from the original CD quality.</p><p>--True in all cases? No - but good enough for my needs.  There are songs that are so complex, that you just want to keep the original ripped WAV file around just in case.  But 160 Kbit OGG VBR (ripped in Linux, natch) is just about as good as CD quality to my ear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--Before moving , I ripped most of my CDs to 160 Kbit OGG VBR and left the physical CDs behind .
After converting the .ogg files back to 44100 KHz WAV files when needed and burning them to CD , I ca n't really tell the difference from the original CD quality.--True in all cases ?
No - but good enough for my needs .
There are songs that are so complex , that you just want to keep the original ripped WAV file around just in case .
But 160 Kbit OGG VBR ( ripped in Linux , natch ) is just about as good as CD quality to my ear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--Before moving, I ripped most of my CDs to 160 Kbit OGG VBR and left the physical CDs behind.
After converting the .ogg files back to 44100 KHz WAV files when needed and burning them to CD, I can't really tell the difference from the original CD quality.--True in all cases?
No - but good enough for my needs.
There are songs that are so complex, that you just want to keep the original ripped WAV file around just in case.
But 160 Kbit OGG VBR (ripped in Linux, natch) is just about as good as CD quality to my ear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797481</id>
	<title>Depends on your speakers</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1255980480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I play 64kbps streams on Mythtv through the speakers on my old 27" TV and it sounds great.  I play the same on my (rather spiffy) Cambridge setup on my gaming PC, and they sound like crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I play 64kbps streams on Mythtv through the speakers on my old 27 " TV and it sounds great .
I play the same on my ( rather spiffy ) Cambridge setup on my gaming PC , and they sound like crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I play 64kbps streams on Mythtv through the speakers on my old 27" TV and it sounds great.
I play the same on my (rather spiffy) Cambridge setup on my gaming PC, and they sound like crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798035</id>
	<title>What about XM/Sirius?</title>
	<author>LS1 Brains</author>
	<datestamp>1255982640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their sales reps call me incessantly after buying a car with a packaged receiver, begging me to sign up.
<br> <br>Rep: "Did you enjoy your free trial?"
<br>Me: "No, because it sounds like hammered poop!  I didn't use it at all."
<br> <br>
EVERY rep I spoke with would respond with questions about the setup, satellite problems due to buildings, etc.  When I explained that with a clear view of the sky on a bright sunny day, that FM radio sounded clearly superior to their service, they seemed utterly confused - thinking my hardware was "bad."  They would ask me to visit the dealer to have it checked.  I would start to explain that XM/Sirius' 34kbps streams are simply awful to listen to, but then realized they wouldn't understand.  So I politely stated their service didn't offer anything I would enjoy, and thanked them for the call.  That was also a mistake<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "Oh but we have 200 something channels!"  "Right.  Of poor quality sound that is quite unpleasant to my ears.  Thanks for your time, but PLEASE remove me from your callback list."
<br> <br>
Most folks I personally know who actually pay for sat radio, are listening to talk radio or sports radio where the low bitrate streams don't matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their sales reps call me incessantly after buying a car with a packaged receiver , begging me to sign up .
Rep : " Did you enjoy your free trial ?
" Me : " No , because it sounds like hammered poop !
I did n't use it at all .
" EVERY rep I spoke with would respond with questions about the setup , satellite problems due to buildings , etc .
When I explained that with a clear view of the sky on a bright sunny day , that FM radio sounded clearly superior to their service , they seemed utterly confused - thinking my hardware was " bad .
" They would ask me to visit the dealer to have it checked .
I would start to explain that XM/Sirius ' 34kbps streams are simply awful to listen to , but then realized they would n't understand .
So I politely stated their service did n't offer anything I would enjoy , and thanked them for the call .
That was also a mistake ... " Oh but we have 200 something channels !
" " Right .
Of poor quality sound that is quite unpleasant to my ears .
Thanks for your time , but PLEASE remove me from your callback list .
" Most folks I personally know who actually pay for sat radio , are listening to talk radio or sports radio where the low bitrate streams do n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their sales reps call me incessantly after buying a car with a packaged receiver, begging me to sign up.
Rep: "Did you enjoy your free trial?
"
Me: "No, because it sounds like hammered poop!
I didn't use it at all.
"
 
EVERY rep I spoke with would respond with questions about the setup, satellite problems due to buildings, etc.
When I explained that with a clear view of the sky on a bright sunny day, that FM radio sounded clearly superior to their service, they seemed utterly confused - thinking my hardware was "bad.
"  They would ask me to visit the dealer to have it checked.
I would start to explain that XM/Sirius' 34kbps streams are simply awful to listen to, but then realized they wouldn't understand.
So I politely stated their service didn't offer anything I would enjoy, and thanked them for the call.
That was also a mistake ... "Oh but we have 200 something channels!
"  "Right.
Of poor quality sound that is quite unpleasant to my ears.
Thanks for your time, but PLEASE remove me from your callback list.
"
 
Most folks I personally know who actually pay for sat radio, are listening to talk radio or sports radio where the low bitrate streams don't matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798971</id>
	<title>Re:It's the cheapo speaker syndrome</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1255985580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference, but they're a dying breed.</i> </p><p>
Half the 'stereophiles' out there are running around buying Monster digital audio and HDMI cables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference , but they 're a dying breed .
Half the 'stereophiles ' out there are running around buying Monster digital audio and HDMI cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference, but they're a dying breed.
Half the 'stereophiles' out there are running around buying Monster digital audio and HDMI cables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799245</id>
	<title>Re:Nyquist Anyone???</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1255943340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apparently this company doesn't understand they're business very well...</i></p><p>Just like some people don't understand the difference between frequency and bitrate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently this company does n't understand they 're business very well...Just like some people do n't understand the difference between frequency and bitrate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently this company doesn't understand they're business very well...Just like some people don't understand the difference between frequency and bitrate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796457</id>
	<title>I've noticed this myself</title>
	<author>solid\_liq</author>
	<datestamp>1255976820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I only ask musicians who are good at what they do for advice on audio equipment.  If you want to know what's good, you have to ask a musician who's passionate about music.  Musicians know what the music is supposed to sound like because they've spent countless hours learning songs and practicing their craft.  By listening to them, I have a setup that's so good it's made me turn and look behind me more than a few times because I swore the noise was made by something in the room.
<br> <br>
KRK Rokit Studio monitors with a BBE Sonic Maximizer, in case you're wondering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I only ask musicians who are good at what they do for advice on audio equipment .
If you want to know what 's good , you have to ask a musician who 's passionate about music .
Musicians know what the music is supposed to sound like because they 've spent countless hours learning songs and practicing their craft .
By listening to them , I have a setup that 's so good it 's made me turn and look behind me more than a few times because I swore the noise was made by something in the room .
KRK Rokit Studio monitors with a BBE Sonic Maximizer , in case you 're wondering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I only ask musicians who are good at what they do for advice on audio equipment.
If you want to know what's good, you have to ask a musician who's passionate about music.
Musicians know what the music is supposed to sound like because they've spent countless hours learning songs and practicing their craft.
By listening to them, I have a setup that's so good it's made me turn and look behind me more than a few times because I swore the noise was made by something in the room.
KRK Rokit Studio monitors with a BBE Sonic Maximizer, in case you're wondering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798547</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1255984260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It attempts to prove that one music service has better sound quality than another, which if you are a consumer deciding which one to sign up to, is very useful information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It attempts to prove that one music service has better sound quality than another , which if you are a consumer deciding which one to sign up to , is very useful information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It attempts to prove that one music service has better sound quality than another, which if you are a consumer deciding which one to sign up to, is very useful information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796227</id>
	<title>Follow the money, fuckwits!</title>
	<author>ringbarer</author>
	<datestamp>1255975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CNET - Owned by Rupert Murdoch.<br>Sky - Owned by Rupert Murdoch.</p><p>Impartial Journalism - Not on this Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNET - Owned by Rupert Murdoch.Sky - Owned by Rupert Murdoch.Impartial Journalism - Not on this Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNET - Owned by Rupert Murdoch.Sky - Owned by Rupert Murdoch.Impartial Journalism - Not on this Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804151</id>
	<title>Source material</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As too often in today's culture, everyone is focused in on tiny things and missing the big picture.</p><p>Some original content / source material compresses well to a lower bitrate.  IE: it didn't have the sonic detail in the first place.  This test would be more meaningful if there was a way to measure how much loss occurs during compression, and test people to see if they can hear the difference- knowing how much numeric loss there is.</p><p>I would want to see a spectrogram of the original music to know if it has enough high-frequency detail to begin with.  If not, then I'm sure the lower bitrate works just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As too often in today 's culture , everyone is focused in on tiny things and missing the big picture.Some original content / source material compresses well to a lower bitrate .
IE : it did n't have the sonic detail in the first place .
This test would be more meaningful if there was a way to measure how much loss occurs during compression , and test people to see if they can hear the difference- knowing how much numeric loss there is.I would want to see a spectrogram of the original music to know if it has enough high-frequency detail to begin with .
If not , then I 'm sure the lower bitrate works just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As too often in today's culture, everyone is focused in on tiny things and missing the big picture.Some original content / source material compresses well to a lower bitrate.
IE: it didn't have the sonic detail in the first place.
This test would be more meaningful if there was a way to measure how much loss occurs during compression, and test people to see if they can hear the difference- knowing how much numeric loss there is.I would want to see a spectrogram of the original music to know if it has enough high-frequency detail to begin with.
If not, then I'm sure the lower bitrate works just fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796557</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done that too, with similar results. I've listened to a CD and 128kbps mp3 made by myself using EAC &amp; the best headphones I had around, and couldn't tell the difference. (Admittedly, through a Soundblaster soundcard.) I've played a CD through a good component CD player, then the 128kbps mp3 version through a dvd player hooked to the same amp &amp; speakers (pretty good NAD amp &amp; B&amp;W speakers). I still couldn't tell the difference, neither could my wife, so since then (this was 6+ years ago) I haven't worried about it. I rip my CDs at 196 or so and get on with listening to them. With improved codecs I can see that you could get listenable quality out of 48kbps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done that too , with similar results .
I 've listened to a CD and 128kbps mp3 made by myself using EAC &amp; the best headphones I had around , and could n't tell the difference .
( Admittedly , through a Soundblaster soundcard .
) I 've played a CD through a good component CD player , then the 128kbps mp3 version through a dvd player hooked to the same amp &amp; speakers ( pretty good NAD amp &amp; B&amp;W speakers ) .
I still could n't tell the difference , neither could my wife , so since then ( this was 6 + years ago ) I have n't worried about it .
I rip my CDs at 196 or so and get on with listening to them .
With improved codecs I can see that you could get listenable quality out of 48kbps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done that too, with similar results.
I've listened to a CD and 128kbps mp3 made by myself using EAC &amp; the best headphones I had around, and couldn't tell the difference.
(Admittedly, through a Soundblaster soundcard.
) I've played a CD through a good component CD player, then the 128kbps mp3 version through a dvd player hooked to the same amp &amp; speakers (pretty good NAD amp &amp; B&amp;W speakers).
I still couldn't tell the difference, neither could my wife, so since then (this was 6+ years ago) I haven't worried about it.
I rip my CDs at 196 or so and get on with listening to them.
With improved codecs I can see that you could get listenable quality out of 48kbps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796883</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on what you're used to hearing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl.</p><p>... And audiophiles will pay top-dollar for crippled hardware<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Ohhh - a future market for used Apple iPods!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow 's vinyl.... And audiophiles will pay top-dollar for crippled hardware ...Ohhh - a future market for used Apple iPods !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl.... And audiophiles will pay top-dollar for crippled hardware ...Ohhh - a future market for used Apple iPods!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797323</id>
	<title>They must have used Monster cables</title>
	<author>Ardeaem</author>
	<datestamp>1255979880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because even crap 48Kbps-encoded audio sounds great with Monster cables!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because even crap 48Kbps-encoded audio sounds great with Monster cables !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because even crap 48Kbps-encoded audio sounds great with Monster cables!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798739</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Phreakiture</author>
	<datestamp>1255984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>VBR makes a *huge* difference.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe, maybe not.  Earlier this year, I was able to demonstrate that <a href="http://www.allappropriatetech.com/content/2009/03/20/audio\_codec\_shootout.html" title="allappropriatetech.com">OGG Vorbis is a superior-sounding codec to MP3 and Dolby Digital at low bitrates.</a> [allappropriatetech.com]  Comparing MP3 to OGG is comparing apples to oranges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VBR makes a * huge * difference.Maybe , maybe not .
Earlier this year , I was able to demonstrate that OGG Vorbis is a superior-sounding codec to MP3 and Dolby Digital at low bitrates .
[ allappropriatetech.com ] Comparing MP3 to OGG is comparing apples to oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VBR makes a *huge* difference.Maybe, maybe not.
Earlier this year, I was able to demonstrate that OGG Vorbis is a superior-sounding codec to MP3 and Dolby Digital at low bitrates.
[allappropriatetech.com]  Comparing MP3 to OGG is comparing apples to oranges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802265</id>
	<title>It's probably already been said, but</title>
	<author>Runefox</author>
	<datestamp>1255958040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not about to wade through 450 comments to find out. I wonder if this has any correlation with the finding that some people actually ended up preferring the sound of MP3-compressed, artefacted music than the original, lossless copy? Something about compression artefacts, for whatever reason, seems to be defining music as we know it today.</p><p>That's not to say that 48kbps AACplusv2 doesn't sound damned good for the bitrate (depending on the music type), mind you. It's absolutely awesome for low-bandwidth connections for streaming audio. But I do find it incredibly interesting that this is the case - It means that in essence, it's not a question of accurate reproduction of the source material in these cases, but rather what people seem to be finding more "natural", as far as what they're used to hearing. Or maybe there's just something about lossy compression artefacts that sound good to some people. Certainly, it bugs me to no end, but I'm not most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not about to wade through 450 comments to find out .
I wonder if this has any correlation with the finding that some people actually ended up preferring the sound of MP3-compressed , artefacted music than the original , lossless copy ?
Something about compression artefacts , for whatever reason , seems to be defining music as we know it today.That 's not to say that 48kbps AACplusv2 does n't sound damned good for the bitrate ( depending on the music type ) , mind you .
It 's absolutely awesome for low-bandwidth connections for streaming audio .
But I do find it incredibly interesting that this is the case - It means that in essence , it 's not a question of accurate reproduction of the source material in these cases , but rather what people seem to be finding more " natural " , as far as what they 're used to hearing .
Or maybe there 's just something about lossy compression artefacts that sound good to some people .
Certainly , it bugs me to no end , but I 'm not most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not about to wade through 450 comments to find out.
I wonder if this has any correlation with the finding that some people actually ended up preferring the sound of MP3-compressed, artefacted music than the original, lossless copy?
Something about compression artefacts, for whatever reason, seems to be defining music as we know it today.That's not to say that 48kbps AACplusv2 doesn't sound damned good for the bitrate (depending on the music type), mind you.
It's absolutely awesome for low-bandwidth connections for streaming audio.
But I do find it incredibly interesting that this is the case - It means that in essence, it's not a question of accurate reproduction of the source material in these cases, but rather what people seem to be finding more "natural", as far as what they're used to hearing.
Or maybe there's just something about lossy compression artefacts that sound good to some people.
Certainly, it bugs me to no end, but I'm not most people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798145</id>
	<title>Nyquist Anyone???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255983000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone ever hear of Nyquist theory?  Anything at more than half the sampling rate will be aliased to a lower frequency unless it is filtered.  Human hearing maxes at approximately 20khz.  If you filter out 22khz you can sample at 44khz without aliasing.  Usually when I work with a DSP i filter everything under 200 hz (DC Noise) and over 30 khz (outside our hearing range) and then I can sample it at 64k with no aliasing.  There is no point to sampling music over 64 khz...  it's pretty simple math and I thought common knowledge to anyone who has done any DSP.  Apparently this company doesn't understand they're business very well...  the results of this test are fairly predictable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone ever hear of Nyquist theory ?
Anything at more than half the sampling rate will be aliased to a lower frequency unless it is filtered .
Human hearing maxes at approximately 20khz .
If you filter out 22khz you can sample at 44khz without aliasing .
Usually when I work with a DSP i filter everything under 200 hz ( DC Noise ) and over 30 khz ( outside our hearing range ) and then I can sample it at 64k with no aliasing .
There is no point to sampling music over 64 khz... it 's pretty simple math and I thought common knowledge to anyone who has done any DSP .
Apparently this company does n't understand they 're business very well... the results of this test are fairly predictable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone ever hear of Nyquist theory?
Anything at more than half the sampling rate will be aliased to a lower frequency unless it is filtered.
Human hearing maxes at approximately 20khz.
If you filter out 22khz you can sample at 44khz without aliasing.
Usually when I work with a DSP i filter everything under 200 hz (DC Noise) and over 30 khz (outside our hearing range) and then I can sample it at 64k with no aliasing.
There is no point to sampling music over 64 khz...  it's pretty simple math and I thought common knowledge to anyone who has done any DSP.
Apparently this company doesn't understand they're business very well...  the results of this test are fairly predictable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797853</id>
	<title>Bias Removed?</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1255982040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was done as a represenative sample then the majority of participants would be over 40. We all know that hearing degrades over time. Without the test broken up by age group there is an inherit bias in the sample group. The top 5k of that 15k to 20k is shot in most 40 year olds and if I remember rightly there is a pocket in the 8k-12k that goes early on too.</p><p>It is possible that an additional bias of Internet savvy users versus general population may also be present.</p><p>In addition musical tastes between age groups factors in since, both working for Audiologists (Miracle Ear, Sonus, National Hearing, Amplifon) and going through the training for the NOAH I was amazed to see the age groups, the very old and a growing number of youth. Loud Music = Damaged Ears but worse yet are those damn ear buds. A generational bias of people using "In the Ear" headphones has done quite a bit of damage to the range in which people hear and there is a considerable generation gap in that damage.</p><p>Since I am a big Post-Waters Floyd fan (the more blues influenced Gilmore days) and a Jazz\Industrial\Classical the damage to my ears would be very different then a R&amp;B\Rap fan.</p><p>I would be very interested in a large scale, well done survey to see if this is more an issue of hearing damage segmented by Age, Music Tastes, and hobbies (No kidding, Hunters are one of the biggest demographics of hearing aid wearers due to gun fire but get this, Country fans have strong correlations to ear damage not from the music, but from hunting.) So various hobbies and lifestyles can correlate to hearing damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was done as a represenative sample then the majority of participants would be over 40 .
We all know that hearing degrades over time .
Without the test broken up by age group there is an inherit bias in the sample group .
The top 5k of that 15k to 20k is shot in most 40 year olds and if I remember rightly there is a pocket in the 8k-12k that goes early on too.It is possible that an additional bias of Internet savvy users versus general population may also be present.In addition musical tastes between age groups factors in since , both working for Audiologists ( Miracle Ear , Sonus , National Hearing , Amplifon ) and going through the training for the NOAH I was amazed to see the age groups , the very old and a growing number of youth .
Loud Music = Damaged Ears but worse yet are those damn ear buds .
A generational bias of people using " In the Ear " headphones has done quite a bit of damage to the range in which people hear and there is a considerable generation gap in that damage.Since I am a big Post-Waters Floyd fan ( the more blues influenced Gilmore days ) and a Jazz \ Industrial \ Classical the damage to my ears would be very different then a R&amp;B \ Rap fan.I would be very interested in a large scale , well done survey to see if this is more an issue of hearing damage segmented by Age , Music Tastes , and hobbies ( No kidding , Hunters are one of the biggest demographics of hearing aid wearers due to gun fire but get this , Country fans have strong correlations to ear damage not from the music , but from hunting .
) So various hobbies and lifestyles can correlate to hearing damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was done as a represenative sample then the majority of participants would be over 40.
We all know that hearing degrades over time.
Without the test broken up by age group there is an inherit bias in the sample group.
The top 5k of that 15k to 20k is shot in most 40 year olds and if I remember rightly there is a pocket in the 8k-12k that goes early on too.It is possible that an additional bias of Internet savvy users versus general population may also be present.In addition musical tastes between age groups factors in since, both working for Audiologists (Miracle Ear, Sonus, National Hearing, Amplifon) and going through the training for the NOAH I was amazed to see the age groups, the very old and a growing number of youth.
Loud Music = Damaged Ears but worse yet are those damn ear buds.
A generational bias of people using "In the Ear" headphones has done quite a bit of damage to the range in which people hear and there is a considerable generation gap in that damage.Since I am a big Post-Waters Floyd fan (the more blues influenced Gilmore days) and a Jazz\Industrial\Classical the damage to my ears would be very different then a R&amp;B\Rap fan.I would be very interested in a large scale, well done survey to see if this is more an issue of hearing damage segmented by Age, Music Tastes, and hobbies (No kidding, Hunters are one of the biggest demographics of hearing aid wearers due to gun fire but get this, Country fans have strong correlations to ear damage not from the music, but from hunting.
) So various hobbies and lifestyles can correlate to hearing damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797469</id>
	<title>Whose music?</title>
	<author>librarybob</author>
	<datestamp>1255980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a huge difference between the "expectations for todays' pop music" and the "expectations for serious music (could be classical, could be jazz, could be many things as long as it cares for quality)."  Back in the day, we dropped AM radio in favor of FM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but AM was good enough as background noise and FM was where you bought serious equipment.  People accept what they're used to until exposed to something much better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a huge difference between the " expectations for todays ' pop music " and the " expectations for serious music ( could be classical , could be jazz , could be many things as long as it cares for quality ) .
" Back in the day , we dropped AM radio in favor of FM ... but AM was good enough as background noise and FM was where you bought serious equipment .
People accept what they 're used to until exposed to something much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a huge difference between the "expectations for todays' pop music" and the "expectations for serious music (could be classical, could be jazz, could be many things as long as it cares for quality).
"  Back in the day, we dropped AM radio in favor of FM ... but AM was good enough as background noise and FM was where you bought serious equipment.
People accept what they're used to until exposed to something much better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798131</id>
	<title>There is a lot of music...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255982940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that would sound better with 100\% lossy compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that would sound better with 100 \ % lossy compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that would sound better with 100\% lossy compression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802025</id>
	<title>Atrac3 Plus anyone?</title>
	<author>kmg90</author>
	<datestamp>1255956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My favorite codec (for my psp) 64kbps ATRACplus3  MP3 128kps</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite codec ( for my psp ) 64kbps ATRACplus3 MP3 128kps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite codec (for my psp) 64kbps ATRACplus3  MP3 128kps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796837</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1255978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure why there would be a flamewar, anyone with ears can hear that AAC+ sounds better than any other codec at low bitrates. I listen to <a href="http://somafm.com/play/groovesalad48" title="somafm.com">Groove Salad</a> [somafm.com] from SomFM in AAC+ because I can't tell the difference between the 48k AAC+ stream and the 128k mp3 stream and it costs them almost 1/3rd the bandwidth for the AAC+ stream. Now for general use I use mp3 because it's universally supported which is obviously NOT the case with AAC+.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why there would be a flamewar , anyone with ears can hear that AAC + sounds better than any other codec at low bitrates .
I listen to Groove Salad [ somafm.com ] from SomFM in AAC + because I ca n't tell the difference between the 48k AAC + stream and the 128k mp3 stream and it costs them almost 1/3rd the bandwidth for the AAC + stream .
Now for general use I use mp3 because it 's universally supported which is obviously NOT the case with AAC + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why there would be a flamewar, anyone with ears can hear that AAC+ sounds better than any other codec at low bitrates.
I listen to Groove Salad [somafm.com] from SomFM in AAC+ because I can't tell the difference between the 48k AAC+ stream and the 128k mp3 stream and it costs them almost 1/3rd the bandwidth for the AAC+ stream.
Now for general use I use mp3 because it's universally supported which is obviously NOT the case with AAC+.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800057</id>
	<title>apples vs. oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255946580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When using fAAC with settings "quality 100\%" and "no cutoff under 22khz", I get 160kbit/s output. I also get noticeable cpu load during its playback. OGG uses less cpu intensive algorithms and thus loses in size/quality comparisons. Replace all occurences of OGG in the article with MP3 and it would still be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When using fAAC with settings " quality 100 \ % " and " no cutoff under 22khz " , I get 160kbit/s output .
I also get noticeable cpu load during its playback .
OGG uses less cpu intensive algorithms and thus loses in size/quality comparisons .
Replace all occurences of OGG in the article with MP3 and it would still be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When using fAAC with settings "quality 100\%" and "no cutoff under 22khz", I get 160kbit/s output.
I also get noticeable cpu load during its playback.
OGG uses less cpu intensive algorithms and thus loses in size/quality comparisons.
Replace all occurences of OGG in the article with MP3 and it would still be true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800123</id>
	<title>Re:let's be clear</title>
	<author>watanabe</author>
	<datestamp>1255946820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.</p></div><p>I thought to myself "You haven't been here long, have you?" Then I checked your UID, and well, it <em>is</em> higher than mine. But still, pretty damn low. So, I'd like to thank you for bringing back that old-timey belief that the editors of slashdot care about selecting only scientifically accurate content for the front page. Excepting JonKatz of course.</p><p>Also, I totally agree -- bad summary, bad study, but probably correct conclusions -- some people can't hear music for shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this was a very unscientific study , with a very small sample size , and really should n't be front page on slashdot.I thought to myself " You have n't been here long , have you ?
" Then I checked your UID , and well , it is higher than mine .
But still , pretty damn low .
So , I 'd like to thank you for bringing back that old-timey belief that the editors of slashdot care about selecting only scientifically accurate content for the front page .
Excepting JonKatz of course.Also , I totally agree -- bad summary , bad study , but probably correct conclusions -- some people ca n't hear music for shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.I thought to myself "You haven't been here long, have you?
" Then I checked your UID, and well, it is higher than mine.
But still, pretty damn low.
So, I'd like to thank you for bringing back that old-timey belief that the editors of slashdot care about selecting only scientifically accurate content for the front page.
Excepting JonKatz of course.Also, I totally agree -- bad summary, bad study, but probably correct conclusions -- some people can't hear music for shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796903</id>
	<title>"Can't tell" != "Wrong answer"</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1255978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you conduct a blind test, you can't simply take the correct and incorrect responses as they come.</p><p>If there were people who said the lower bit-rate sounded better, and there is no factor to actually convince them of that (ie. the music is the same recording, played at same volume, in randomized order... and they were actually asked "which has the higher bit-rate" rather than "which do you find more pleasant to listen to"), then you must assume that these people arrived at a random guess (which they might not be aware of), which means they had a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 probability of getting it wrong. For one third to randomly guess wrongly, another third would have to randomly guess right.</p><p>Conclusion: Assuming the data in the summary is right, the number of people who were unable to reliably tell the difference were likely closer to 2/3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you conduct a blind test , you ca n't simply take the correct and incorrect responses as they come.If there were people who said the lower bit-rate sounded better , and there is no factor to actually convince them of that ( ie .
the music is the same recording , played at same volume , in randomized order... and they were actually asked " which has the higher bit-rate " rather than " which do you find more pleasant to listen to " ) , then you must assume that these people arrived at a random guess ( which they might not be aware of ) , which means they had a .5 probability of getting it wrong .
For one third to randomly guess wrongly , another third would have to randomly guess right.Conclusion : Assuming the data in the summary is right , the number of people who were unable to reliably tell the difference were likely closer to 2/3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you conduct a blind test, you can't simply take the correct and incorrect responses as they come.If there were people who said the lower bit-rate sounded better, and there is no factor to actually convince them of that (ie.
the music is the same recording, played at same volume, in randomized order... and they were actually asked "which has the higher bit-rate" rather than "which do you find more pleasant to listen to"), then you must assume that these people arrived at a random guess (which they might not be aware of), which means they had a .5 probability of getting it wrong.
For one third to randomly guess wrongly, another third would have to randomly guess right.Conclusion: Assuming the data in the summary is right, the number of people who were unable to reliably tell the difference were likely closer to 2/3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796291</id>
	<title>bad title</title>
	<author>mbuimbui</author>
	<datestamp>1255976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;  1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps</p><p>Correction: Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.</p><p>Those are not the same thing.  To find out how many people thought they sounded exactly the same, I would have to RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; 1/3 of People Ca n't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160KbpsCorrection : Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.Those are not the same thing .
To find out how many people thought they sounded exactly the same , I would have to RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;  1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160KbpsCorrection: Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.Those are not the same thing.
To find out how many people thought they sounded exactly the same, I would have to RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29803233</id>
	<title>Same with HDTV</title>
	<author>dindi</author>
	<datestamp>1255965000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And many people cannot tell the difference between 720p 1080p or 480i for that matter. They also cannot tell the difference between a crappy and a good paintjob on a car/bike or distinguish a Harley from a chinese chopper with a 250 engine.</p><p>Depends on the music too. Most people use the standard crap iphone (and alike) head phones for crap encoded mp3.....</p><p>Then there are people who do not care because they are too old, busy, deaf or ignorant.</p><p>For me: I sometimes resent that I need good sound quality, 1080p where ever possible, and my bikes cost twice as much as my car costs. I also can make a difference between a bad and good paint job, but never wash my car (only my bikes) and my old trusted BMW's clear coat is literally peeling left and right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... because I really really do not give a doo-doo.</p><p>I think most people do not give a doo-doo about the quality of anything anymore. Mass crap rules, so yeah, encode it in 48kbit so you can stuff more on a cheap drive....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And many people can not tell the difference between 720p 1080p or 480i for that matter .
They also can not tell the difference between a crappy and a good paintjob on a car/bike or distinguish a Harley from a chinese chopper with a 250 engine.Depends on the music too .
Most people use the standard crap iphone ( and alike ) head phones for crap encoded mp3.....Then there are people who do not care because they are too old , busy , deaf or ignorant.For me : I sometimes resent that I need good sound quality , 1080p where ever possible , and my bikes cost twice as much as my car costs .
I also can make a difference between a bad and good paint job , but never wash my car ( only my bikes ) and my old trusted BMW 's clear coat is literally peeling left and right ...... because I really really do not give a doo-doo.I think most people do not give a doo-doo about the quality of anything anymore .
Mass crap rules , so yeah , encode it in 48kbit so you can stuff more on a cheap drive... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And many people cannot tell the difference between 720p 1080p or 480i for that matter.
They also cannot tell the difference between a crappy and a good paintjob on a car/bike or distinguish a Harley from a chinese chopper with a 250 engine.Depends on the music too.
Most people use the standard crap iphone (and alike) head phones for crap encoded mp3.....Then there are people who do not care because they are too old, busy, deaf or ignorant.For me: I sometimes resent that I need good sound quality, 1080p where ever possible, and my bikes cost twice as much as my car costs.
I also can make a difference between a bad and good paint job, but never wash my car (only my bikes) and my old trusted BMW's clear coat is literally peeling left and right ...... because I really really do not give a doo-doo.I think most people do not give a doo-doo about the quality of anything anymore.
Mass crap rules, so yeah, encode it in 48kbit so you can stuff more on a cheap drive....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797555</id>
	<title>Depends too much on the song</title>
	<author>matsoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And since when is Billy Jean representative of  music in general? It is a song with typical radio production and will not gain as much as music with higher production values might from higher bitrate.</p><p>Having conducted a double blind test with some friends I got wastly different results depending on the song.. Everyone could tell the difference between 128kbit mp3:s and 320 kbit mp3:s when listening to orchestral music, but noone could tell the difference between 320kbit and the actual CD. When listening to "Ace of Spades" with Mot&ouml;rhead noone could tell the difference between 128 and 320kbit.</p><p>As a sidenote, when we tested noone could tell the difference between the cheapest possible CD-player and a semi-expensive Marantz unit either. Or between cheap and expensive cables...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And since when is Billy Jean representative of music in general ?
It is a song with typical radio production and will not gain as much as music with higher production values might from higher bitrate.Having conducted a double blind test with some friends I got wastly different results depending on the song.. Everyone could tell the difference between 128kbit mp3 : s and 320 kbit mp3 : s when listening to orchestral music , but noone could tell the difference between 320kbit and the actual CD .
When listening to " Ace of Spades " with Mot   rhead noone could tell the difference between 128 and 320kbit.As a sidenote , when we tested noone could tell the difference between the cheapest possible CD-player and a semi-expensive Marantz unit either .
Or between cheap and expensive cables.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since when is Billy Jean representative of  music in general?
It is a song with typical radio production and will not gain as much as music with higher production values might from higher bitrate.Having conducted a double blind test with some friends I got wastly different results depending on the song.. Everyone could tell the difference between 128kbit mp3:s and 320 kbit mp3:s when listening to orchestral music, but noone could tell the difference between 320kbit and the actual CD.
When listening to "Ace of Spades" with Motörhead noone could tell the difference between 128 and 320kbit.As a sidenote, when we tested noone could tell the difference between the cheapest possible CD-player and a semi-expensive Marantz unit either.
Or between cheap and expensive cables...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796993</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1255978680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news: most people can't tell the difference between sweetened and unsweetend substances!</p><p>To test this, we gave 16 people two drinks. One, a glass of water to which we added copious amounts of sugar. The other, a glass of pre-made hummingbird food, to which we added no additional sugar. Amazingly, a significant number couldn't tell the difference! Using this data, we drew the logical conclusion that 1/3 of people can't taste sugar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news : most people ca n't tell the difference between sweetened and unsweetend substances ! To test this , we gave 16 people two drinks .
One , a glass of water to which we added copious amounts of sugar .
The other , a glass of pre-made hummingbird food , to which we added no additional sugar .
Amazingly , a significant number could n't tell the difference !
Using this data , we drew the logical conclusion that 1/3 of people ca n't taste sugar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news: most people can't tell the difference between sweetened and unsweetend substances!To test this, we gave 16 people two drinks.
One, a glass of water to which we added copious amounts of sugar.
The other, a glass of pre-made hummingbird food, to which we added no additional sugar.
Amazingly, a significant number couldn't tell the difference!
Using this data, we drew the logical conclusion that 1/3 of people can't taste sugar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802375</id>
	<title>Tone Deaf?</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1255958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not tone deaf - I just sing in a low bitrate!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not tone deaf - I just sing in a low bitrate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not tone deaf - I just sing in a low bitrate!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802931</id>
	<title>Re:That would be why...</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1255962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been noticing this lately. While annoying as all getout, I find the convenience and channel selection to be such a marked improvement over terrestrial radio that I merely deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been noticing this lately .
While annoying as all getout , I find the convenience and channel selection to be such a marked improvement over terrestrial radio that I merely deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been noticing this lately.
While annoying as all getout, I find the convenience and channel selection to be such a marked improvement over terrestrial radio that I merely deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797657</id>
	<title>Pity the comparison isn't valid...</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1255981320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to make the comparison valid, they should have used the same codec throughout, be that Ogg or AAC+ or whatever they could settle on using.  Bitrate is not an objective measure of quality: in fact, the only thing it measures objectively is file size. What makes one codec better than another is how low the bitrate can go while still sounding good. Because different codecs perform differently at the Bitrate Limbo, you need to use the same codec throughout a study, or at least test each codec at all the bitrates you're working with, in order to get a valid set of data to examine the differences.</p><p>There is no doubt in my mind that the concept here happens to be correct: that all but the most egregious differences in compression are imperceptible to most people, and that many of those who claim they can tell the difference are experiencing nothing more than the placebo effect. But this study does nothing to establish or disprove that assertion, because its methodology was fundamentally flawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to make the comparison valid , they should have used the same codec throughout , be that Ogg or AAC + or whatever they could settle on using .
Bitrate is not an objective measure of quality : in fact , the only thing it measures objectively is file size .
What makes one codec better than another is how low the bitrate can go while still sounding good .
Because different codecs perform differently at the Bitrate Limbo , you need to use the same codec throughout a study , or at least test each codec at all the bitrates you 're working with , in order to get a valid set of data to examine the differences.There is no doubt in my mind that the concept here happens to be correct : that all but the most egregious differences in compression are imperceptible to most people , and that many of those who claim they can tell the difference are experiencing nothing more than the placebo effect .
But this study does nothing to establish or disprove that assertion , because its methodology was fundamentally flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to make the comparison valid, they should have used the same codec throughout, be that Ogg or AAC+ or whatever they could settle on using.
Bitrate is not an objective measure of quality: in fact, the only thing it measures objectively is file size.
What makes one codec better than another is how low the bitrate can go while still sounding good.
Because different codecs perform differently at the Bitrate Limbo, you need to use the same codec throughout a study, or at least test each codec at all the bitrates you're working with, in order to get a valid set of data to examine the differences.There is no doubt in my mind that the concept here happens to be correct: that all but the most egregious differences in compression are imperceptible to most people, and that many of those who claim they can tell the difference are experiencing nothing more than the placebo effect.
But this study does nothing to establish or disprove that assertion, because its methodology was fundamentally flawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801509</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1255953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They weren't considering AAC, they were considering AAC+.</p><p>Vorbis sucks at low bitrates. AAC+ sucks at high bitrates. Same-codec comparisons would be meaningless; the two codecs are targeted at different use cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't considering AAC , they were considering AAC + .Vorbis sucks at low bitrates .
AAC + sucks at high bitrates .
Same-codec comparisons would be meaningless ; the two codecs are targeted at different use cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't considering AAC, they were considering AAC+.Vorbis sucks at low bitrates.
AAC+ sucks at high bitrates.
Same-codec comparisons would be meaningless; the two codecs are targeted at different use cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796653</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you listening on quality equipment? I don't mean some overpriced audiophile setup with oxygen free cables, but at least a decent set of speakers or headphones and a good DAC?<br>
&nbsp; <br>When I switched from ipod ear buds to Sennheiser cx300's anything under 128kbps sounded terrible, and even 192kbps mp3 has some noticable artifacts.  These are $30 ear buds, not anything excessive, but they sound a lot better than the cheap ones that come with iPods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you listening on quality equipment ?
I do n't mean some overpriced audiophile setup with oxygen free cables , but at least a decent set of speakers or headphones and a good DAC ?
  When I switched from ipod ear buds to Sennheiser cx300 's anything under 128kbps sounded terrible , and even 192kbps mp3 has some noticable artifacts .
These are $ 30 ear buds , not anything excessive , but they sound a lot better than the cheap ones that come with iPods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you listening on quality equipment?
I don't mean some overpriced audiophile setup with oxygen free cables, but at least a decent set of speakers or headphones and a good DAC?
  When I switched from ipod ear buds to Sennheiser cx300's anything under 128kbps sounded terrible, and even 192kbps mp3 has some noticable artifacts.
These are $30 ear buds, not anything excessive, but they sound a lot better than the cheap ones that come with iPods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797429</id>
	<title>Different Codecs</title>
	<author>DeadboltX</author>
	<datestamp>1255980300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They compared two different compression methods at two different bit-rates. While this is ok for saying "X people think Product A sounds better than Product B", it is not very scientific to say that people can't tell the difference from X bit-rate and Y bit-rate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They compared two different compression methods at two different bit-rates .
While this is ok for saying " X people think Product A sounds better than Product B " , it is not very scientific to say that people ca n't tell the difference from X bit-rate and Y bit-rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They compared two different compression methods at two different bit-rates.
While this is ok for saying "X people think Product A sounds better than Product B", it is not very scientific to say that people can't tell the difference from X bit-rate and Y bit-rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255</id>
	<title>Obviously, the test was flawed</title>
	<author>Chairboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the higher compression audio had simply used this $500 Denon ethernet cable, the results would have been different:</p><p><a href="http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp" title="denon.com">http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp</a> [denon.com]</p><p>But seriously, can you make a sweeping statement like "People can't tell 48k audio from 160k" if you're also switching compression technologies?  OGG vs. AAC is a whole article on it's own, you just muddy the waters by making this about the compression rate.</p><p>This is just a new version of the old megahertz myth of the CPU wars.  Two different 2GHZ processors from different manufacturers are not equal, we all finally figured that out for the most part, right?  Now we've moved onwards...  to the Kbps myth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the higher compression audio had simply used this $ 500 Denon ethernet cable , the results would have been different : http : //www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp [ denon.com ] But seriously , can you make a sweeping statement like " People ca n't tell 48k audio from 160k " if you 're also switching compression technologies ?
OGG vs. AAC is a whole article on it 's own , you just muddy the waters by making this about the compression rate.This is just a new version of the old megahertz myth of the CPU wars .
Two different 2GHZ processors from different manufacturers are not equal , we all finally figured that out for the most part , right ?
Now we 've moved onwards... to the Kbps myth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the higher compression audio had simply used this $500 Denon ethernet cable, the results would have been different:http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp [denon.com]But seriously, can you make a sweeping statement like "People can't tell 48k audio from 160k" if you're also switching compression technologies?
OGG vs. AAC is a whole article on it's own, you just muddy the waters by making this about the compression rate.This is just a new version of the old megahertz myth of the CPU wars.
Two different 2GHZ processors from different manufacturers are not equal, we all finally figured that out for the most part, right?
Now we've moved onwards...  to the Kbps myth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796609</id>
	<title>Blind?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this affect people that are only partially blind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this affect people that are only partially blind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this affect people that are only partially blind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29811071</id>
	<title>But the majority vote is not a quality metier</title>
	<author>DanielSmedegaardBuus</author>
	<datestamp>1256063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing about tests like these is that they say nothing about quality in general or "the truth" as perceived by the individual.</p><p>The majority of people in historic Germany voted for Hitler.<br>The majority of people thought DDT was a good idea for keeping moths out of your clothes.<br>The majority of people are more scared of dying in a terrorist attack than of taking a leathal step in the bath (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362835/posts).<br>The majority of Americans don't know that Georgia is not just an American state.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and so forth.</p><p>You can either learn from this that any selected majority of people are idiots, or that they just have different opinions, but that - thank you scientists - there are actually non-idiots out there working hard to provide crisp sounding silky smooth feinschmecker audio fidelity for the ones of us who can actually tell a difference.</p><p>Think of it this way: 1/3 thinks that 48kbps AAC+ sounds better that 160kbps OGG Vorbis... Well, don't throw out those broken loudspeakers just yet - there's a market stock-full of suckers out there just begging to buy them from you, just as long as you tell 'em they're 48kbps Ready (TM).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about tests like these is that they say nothing about quality in general or " the truth " as perceived by the individual.The majority of people in historic Germany voted for Hitler.The majority of people thought DDT was a good idea for keeping moths out of your clothes.The majority of people are more scared of dying in a terrorist attack than of taking a leathal step in the bath ( http : //freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362835/posts ) .The majority of Americans do n't know that Georgia is not just an American state .
...and so forth.You can either learn from this that any selected majority of people are idiots , or that they just have different opinions , but that - thank you scientists - there are actually non-idiots out there working hard to provide crisp sounding silky smooth feinschmecker audio fidelity for the ones of us who can actually tell a difference.Think of it this way : 1/3 thinks that 48kbps AAC + sounds better that 160kbps OGG Vorbis... Well , do n't throw out those broken loudspeakers just yet - there 's a market stock-full of suckers out there just begging to buy them from you , just as long as you tell 'em they 're 48kbps Ready ( TM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about tests like these is that they say nothing about quality in general or "the truth" as perceived by the individual.The majority of people in historic Germany voted for Hitler.The majority of people thought DDT was a good idea for keeping moths out of your clothes.The majority of people are more scared of dying in a terrorist attack than of taking a leathal step in the bath (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362835/posts).The majority of Americans don't know that Georgia is not just an American state.
...and so forth.You can either learn from this that any selected majority of people are idiots, or that they just have different opinions, but that - thank you scientists - there are actually non-idiots out there working hard to provide crisp sounding silky smooth feinschmecker audio fidelity for the ones of us who can actually tell a difference.Think of it this way: 1/3 thinks that 48kbps AAC+ sounds better that 160kbps OGG Vorbis... Well, don't throw out those broken loudspeakers just yet - there's a market stock-full of suckers out there just begging to buy them from you, just as long as you tell 'em they're 48kbps Ready (TM).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796677</id>
	<title>size does matter</title>
	<author>tehfly</author>
	<datestamp>1255977600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always conduct my tests on subject groups as large as 20 people. I find that group size large enough to speak for the entire population. Also, I happen to be related to 14 of these 20 people. So basically, I've just proven that I'm related to 70\% of the worlds population. My research is undisputable. Also, this post might a partial lie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always conduct my tests on subject groups as large as 20 people .
I find that group size large enough to speak for the entire population .
Also , I happen to be related to 14 of these 20 people .
So basically , I 've just proven that I 'm related to 70 \ % of the worlds population .
My research is undisputable .
Also , this post might a partial lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always conduct my tests on subject groups as large as 20 people.
I find that group size large enough to speak for the entire population.
Also, I happen to be related to 14 of these 20 people.
So basically, I've just proven that I'm related to 70\% of the worlds population.
My research is undisputable.
Also, this post might a partial lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796571</id>
	<title>I stopped at</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we tested with Billie Jean"</p><p>I don't hate that song.. but as a testing ground for music hardware/software, it sucks. And you should always test with different types of music.</p><p>Also, small sample size (16), only 1 song in 2 versions, presumably always in the same order, on hardware that has nothing to do with what everybody uses (does that lessen or worsen compression characteristics ?), no control group (wanna bet that with 2 exact same versions, song A or song B consistently comes out on top ? Coke and Pepsi worked that one out long ago). No indication how responses were collected (group ? interviewer ? biased ?).</p><p>made me chuckle. amateurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we tested with Billie Jean " I do n't hate that song.. but as a testing ground for music hardware/software , it sucks .
And you should always test with different types of music.Also , small sample size ( 16 ) , only 1 song in 2 versions , presumably always in the same order , on hardware that has nothing to do with what everybody uses ( does that lessen or worsen compression characteristics ?
) , no control group ( wan na bet that with 2 exact same versions , song A or song B consistently comes out on top ?
Coke and Pepsi worked that one out long ago ) .
No indication how responses were collected ( group ?
interviewer ?
biased ?
) .made me chuckle .
amateurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we tested with Billie Jean"I don't hate that song.. but as a testing ground for music hardware/software, it sucks.
And you should always test with different types of music.Also, small sample size (16), only 1 song in 2 versions, presumably always in the same order, on hardware that has nothing to do with what everybody uses (does that lessen or worsen compression characteristics ?
), no control group (wanna bet that with 2 exact same versions, song A or song B consistently comes out on top ?
Coke and Pepsi worked that one out long ago).
No indication how responses were collected (group ?
interviewer ?
biased ?
).made me chuckle.
amateurs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797919</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>CrazyOnLookER</author>
	<datestamp>1255982280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the real disqualification!
Comparing different formats at different rates means nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the real disqualification !
Comparing different formats at different rates means nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the real disqualification!
Comparing different formats at different rates means nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796495</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>alop</author>
	<datestamp>1255976940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to post the same thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to post the same thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to post the same thing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800749</id>
	<title>You couldn't be more wrong</title>
	<author>twoears</author>
	<datestamp>1255949640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re: Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl

I sell ultra high performance two channel home audio systems, including turntables. I also sell the highest performance digital, but at the end of the day vinyl is the better format -- at least that's what my clients say. Compared to the best digital sources available, vinyl still outperforms digital: it simply sounds more real. Yes, cleaning records can be a chore. Yes, you get some surface clicks and pops. But when it comes down to what sounds more like the real thing to most people without prejudices, vinyl wins. The contest is over in seconds. If you think records are just a retro thing, think again. They might be a niche market, but that market is going strong and growing...market statistics prove it.

Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC is more akin to yesterday's 8-track tapes or prerecorded cassettes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : Today 's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow 's vinyl I sell ultra high performance two channel home audio systems , including turntables .
I also sell the highest performance digital , but at the end of the day vinyl is the better format -- at least that 's what my clients say .
Compared to the best digital sources available , vinyl still outperforms digital : it simply sounds more real .
Yes , cleaning records can be a chore .
Yes , you get some surface clicks and pops .
But when it comes down to what sounds more like the real thing to most people without prejudices , vinyl wins .
The contest is over in seconds .
If you think records are just a retro thing , think again .
They might be a niche market , but that market is going strong and growing...market statistics prove it .
Today 's low-bitrate MP3/AAC is more akin to yesterday 's 8-track tapes or prerecorded cassettes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl

I sell ultra high performance two channel home audio systems, including turntables.
I also sell the highest performance digital, but at the end of the day vinyl is the better format -- at least that's what my clients say.
Compared to the best digital sources available, vinyl still outperforms digital: it simply sounds more real.
Yes, cleaning records can be a chore.
Yes, you get some surface clicks and pops.
But when it comes down to what sounds more like the real thing to most people without prejudices, vinyl wins.
The contest is over in seconds.
If you think records are just a retro thing, think again.
They might be a niche market, but that market is going strong and growing...market statistics prove it.
Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC is more akin to yesterday's 8-track tapes or prerecorded cassettes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796265</id>
	<title>I can</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You better bet I can hear the difference.</p><p>This is why I laughed at the Sirius rep who tried to get me to sign up for the Satellite radio in my Ford Fusion a couple years back. The sound quality is TERRIBLE. Why have a decent sound system and a tingy-slingy crap sound source?</p><p>I can't even stand 128kbps mp3. Now that's a little apples-to-oranges for this article (different codecs), but still.</p><p>Some people have no eye, or ear, for quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You better bet I can hear the difference.This is why I laughed at the Sirius rep who tried to get me to sign up for the Satellite radio in my Ford Fusion a couple years back .
The sound quality is TERRIBLE .
Why have a decent sound system and a tingy-slingy crap sound source ? I ca n't even stand 128kbps mp3 .
Now that 's a little apples-to-oranges for this article ( different codecs ) , but still.Some people have no eye , or ear , for quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You better bet I can hear the difference.This is why I laughed at the Sirius rep who tried to get me to sign up for the Satellite radio in my Ford Fusion a couple years back.
The sound quality is TERRIBLE.
Why have a decent sound system and a tingy-slingy crap sound source?I can't even stand 128kbps mp3.
Now that's a little apples-to-oranges for this article (different codecs), but still.Some people have no eye, or ear, for quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797497</id>
	<title>Then you are deaf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Files encoded at 1kps and 160kps will contain differences nearly everyone could pick out.</p><p>Different compression codecs will encode differently, and at different bit rates those differences will be more or less present in the sound.  At the extreme end, the sound will be affected heavily.  Spoken words will be incomprehensible.  Instruments will blend into one another.  Low and high end will blur to a muddle.  If you can't tell any of that, I suspect you are deaf.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Files encoded at 1kps and 160kps will contain differences nearly everyone could pick out.Different compression codecs will encode differently , and at different bit rates those differences will be more or less present in the sound .
At the extreme end , the sound will be affected heavily .
Spoken words will be incomprehensible .
Instruments will blend into one another .
Low and high end will blur to a muddle .
If you ca n't tell any of that , I suspect you are deaf .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Files encoded at 1kps and 160kps will contain differences nearly everyone could pick out.Different compression codecs will encode differently, and at different bit rates those differences will be more or less present in the sound.
At the extreme end, the sound will be affected heavily.
Spoken words will be incomprehensible.
Instruments will blend into one another.
Low and high end will blur to a muddle.
If you can't tell any of that, I suspect you are deaf.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796341</id>
	<title>Summary misleading</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1255976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is quite misleading.<br>It sounds like 100\% of the participants could tell the difference between the two encodings, just 1/3 of the people thought the more simple, clean, highly compressed version sounded better.  2/3 of people thought the high bitrate version sounded better.</p><p>When choosing compression, the better way to go is to shoot for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency\_(data\_compression)" title="wikipedia.org">transparency</a> [wikipedia.org] versus the uncompressed source, not which audio sounds better to your ears.</p><p>That's why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX\_test" title="wikipedia.org">ABX</a> [wikipedia.org] is the industry standard for compression comparison, not a simple AB test as in this experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is quite misleading.It sounds like 100 \ % of the participants could tell the difference between the two encodings , just 1/3 of the people thought the more simple , clean , highly compressed version sounded better .
2/3 of people thought the high bitrate version sounded better.When choosing compression , the better way to go is to shoot for transparency [ wikipedia.org ] versus the uncompressed source , not which audio sounds better to your ears.That 's why ABX [ wikipedia.org ] is the industry standard for compression comparison , not a simple AB test as in this experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is quite misleading.It sounds like 100\% of the participants could tell the difference between the two encodings, just 1/3 of the people thought the more simple, clean, highly compressed version sounded better.
2/3 of people thought the high bitrate version sounded better.When choosing compression, the better way to go is to shoot for transparency [wikipedia.org] versus the uncompressed source, not which audio sounds better to your ears.That's why ABX [wikipedia.org] is the industry standard for compression comparison, not a simple AB test as in this experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797305</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1255979820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends a lot on the music.  I encode all of my music as 256Kb/s AACs.  For about 90\% of it, I couldn't tell the difference between that and 128Kb/s.  For about 90\% of the remainder, I only can when I'm listening to it carefully.  For the rest, it's jarring in a few places even when I'm only half-listening at the lower bit rate (I think it's fixed now, but Vorbis used to be absolutely awful for anything containing harpsichords even at 256Kb/s). </p><p>
For a few tracks, 64Kb/s would probably be adequate.  In particular, things recorded in the '60s and earlier just don't have good enough masters to provide much of a quality difference at no matter how high you set the bit rate.  Encoding everything at 256Kb/s (ABR), however, is a lot easier than comparing the different encodings and working out exactly what bit rate is really required.  It's the same situation for an Internet Radio station; you need to pick a quality where everything you play will sound good, not just some of the tracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends a lot on the music .
I encode all of my music as 256Kb/s AACs .
For about 90 \ % of it , I could n't tell the difference between that and 128Kb/s .
For about 90 \ % of the remainder , I only can when I 'm listening to it carefully .
For the rest , it 's jarring in a few places even when I 'm only half-listening at the lower bit rate ( I think it 's fixed now , but Vorbis used to be absolutely awful for anything containing harpsichords even at 256Kb/s ) .
For a few tracks , 64Kb/s would probably be adequate .
In particular , things recorded in the '60s and earlier just do n't have good enough masters to provide much of a quality difference at no matter how high you set the bit rate .
Encoding everything at 256Kb/s ( ABR ) , however , is a lot easier than comparing the different encodings and working out exactly what bit rate is really required .
It 's the same situation for an Internet Radio station ; you need to pick a quality where everything you play will sound good , not just some of the tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends a lot on the music.
I encode all of my music as 256Kb/s AACs.
For about 90\% of it, I couldn't tell the difference between that and 128Kb/s.
For about 90\% of the remainder, I only can when I'm listening to it carefully.
For the rest, it's jarring in a few places even when I'm only half-listening at the lower bit rate (I think it's fixed now, but Vorbis used to be absolutely awful for anything containing harpsichords even at 256Kb/s).
For a few tracks, 64Kb/s would probably be adequate.
In particular, things recorded in the '60s and earlier just don't have good enough masters to provide much of a quality difference at no matter how high you set the bit rate.
Encoding everything at 256Kb/s (ABR), however, is a lot easier than comparing the different encodings and working out exactly what bit rate is really required.
It's the same situation for an Internet Radio station; you need to pick a quality where everything you play will sound good, not just some of the tracks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799585</id>
	<title>Pop Music</title>
	<author>StormyMonday</author>
	<datestamp>1255944660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pop music is engineered to be played on cheap equipment.    After all, that's what most people have.  Practically nobody has ever heard Michael Jackson without a ton of electronics between them.  You want a real comparison, use classical or jazz, where folks know what a *real* live performance sounds like.</p><p>It's also notable that the people who liked the lower bit rate recording said "more bass == better".  "More bass" has been the "gold standard" in pop music for a good number of years -- the harder it punches you in the stomach, the "better" it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pop music is engineered to be played on cheap equipment .
After all , that 's what most people have .
Practically nobody has ever heard Michael Jackson without a ton of electronics between them .
You want a real comparison , use classical or jazz , where folks know what a * real * live performance sounds like.It 's also notable that the people who liked the lower bit rate recording said " more bass = = better " .
" More bass " has been the " gold standard " in pop music for a good number of years -- the harder it punches you in the stomach , the " better " it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pop music is engineered to be played on cheap equipment.
After all, that's what most people have.
Practically nobody has ever heard Michael Jackson without a ton of electronics between them.
You want a real comparison, use classical or jazz, where folks know what a *real* live performance sounds like.It's also notable that the people who liked the lower bit rate recording said "more bass == better".
"More bass" has been the "gold standard" in pop music for a good number of years -- the harder it punches you in the stomach, the "better" it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796581</id>
	<title>Have to be so careful...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tests have to be very carefully set up: double blind, very carefully calibrated audio levels.</p><p>Even a 1/3 db difference makes the louder signal sound sharper / higher quality.  It's difficult to run a test that won't run into criticism about how it is conducted.</p><p>Many technical considerations for this kind of testing but also is the question "Is the difference in quality perceivable?" or is it "Given how people listen, does any difference between the two matter?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tests have to be very carefully set up : double blind , very carefully calibrated audio levels.Even a 1/3 db difference makes the louder signal sound sharper / higher quality .
It 's difficult to run a test that wo n't run into criticism about how it is conducted.Many technical considerations for this kind of testing but also is the question " Is the difference in quality perceivable ?
" or is it " Given how people listen , does any difference between the two matter ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tests have to be very carefully set up: double blind, very carefully calibrated audio levels.Even a 1/3 db difference makes the louder signal sound sharper / higher quality.
It's difficult to run a test that won't run into criticism about how it is conducted.Many technical considerations for this kind of testing but also is the question "Is the difference in quality perceivable?
" or is it "Given how people listen, does any difference between the two matter?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796351</id>
	<title>2/3rds can</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1255976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Title of article should be: 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Title of article should be : 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Title of article should be: 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804369</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on what you're used to hearing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS on this.  For a second let's forgot that vinyl exists and just think about the difference between 128 mp3's and the original CD's. First off, I agree that people can grow accustom to a particular type of sound and that they may choose that sound in a one-off blind test. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would continually choose 128 mp3 over the original track. The flaw in very quick tests is that they ask a listener how they think music should sound. The majority of people have only been exposed to low quality sound on computer speakers, ipod earbuds and car stereo's. We shouldn't be surprised when they pick the familiar sound they know. However, given the opportunity to listen to both types of music on equipment that reveals the differences and given time to live with these differences, I think people would choose the original CD. We know that human beings generally dislike sudden change, so we should be surprised when people choose what's familiar. In the long run, I can't see anyone ever becoming an 128Kbps aficionado because the quality simply isn't when listened to repeatedly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS on this .
For a second let 's forgot that vinyl exists and just think about the difference between 128 mp3 's and the original CD 's .
First off , I agree that people can grow accustom to a particular type of sound and that they may choose that sound in a one-off blind test .
However , I find it hard to believe that anyone would continually choose 128 mp3 over the original track .
The flaw in very quick tests is that they ask a listener how they think music should sound .
The majority of people have only been exposed to low quality sound on computer speakers , ipod earbuds and car stereo 's .
We should n't be surprised when they pick the familiar sound they know .
However , given the opportunity to listen to both types of music on equipment that reveals the differences and given time to live with these differences , I think people would choose the original CD .
We know that human beings generally dislike sudden change , so we should be surprised when people choose what 's familiar .
In the long run , I ca n't see anyone ever becoming an 128Kbps aficionado because the quality simply is n't when listened to repeatedly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS on this.
For a second let's forgot that vinyl exists and just think about the difference between 128 mp3's and the original CD's.
First off, I agree that people can grow accustom to a particular type of sound and that they may choose that sound in a one-off blind test.
However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would continually choose 128 mp3 over the original track.
The flaw in very quick tests is that they ask a listener how they think music should sound.
The majority of people have only been exposed to low quality sound on computer speakers, ipod earbuds and car stereo's.
We shouldn't be surprised when they pick the familiar sound they know.
However, given the opportunity to listen to both types of music on equipment that reveals the differences and given time to live with these differences, I think people would choose the original CD.
We know that human beings generally dislike sudden change, so we should be surprised when people choose what's familiar.
In the long run, I can't see anyone ever becoming an 128Kbps aficionado because the quality simply isn't when listened to repeatedly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801815</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>nullchar</author>
	<datestamp>1255955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VBR (variable bit rate) is far superior to CBR (constant bit rate) for both file size and audio quality.  The only reason to use CBR is to support ancient devices that cannot play VBR.</p><p>I use Grip to rip+encode, with Lame mp3 vbr-new as the encoder.  (I like ogg, but I prefer a homogeneous audio-format library, so I'm stuck with mp3.)</p><p>Choose a VBR level that has an acceptable file size for you.  For example, encode some CD audio at VBR-New Quality 7.  Next, encode the same tracks as CBR 192k.  Check the file size differences.  Load them in your favorite player (e.g. audacious) and check the properties of the files -- the VBR one may show "189k" for track #1, "207k" for track #2 and so on. The CBR will always show "192k".  (Note: the VBR sizes shown in the 'properties' window are just averages, any given "slice" of the song may be anywhere from 64k to 320k or whatever the floor and ceilings are of your encoder.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VBR ( variable bit rate ) is far superior to CBR ( constant bit rate ) for both file size and audio quality .
The only reason to use CBR is to support ancient devices that can not play VBR.I use Grip to rip + encode , with Lame mp3 vbr-new as the encoder .
( I like ogg , but I prefer a homogeneous audio-format library , so I 'm stuck with mp3 .
) Choose a VBR level that has an acceptable file size for you .
For example , encode some CD audio at VBR-New Quality 7 .
Next , encode the same tracks as CBR 192k .
Check the file size differences .
Load them in your favorite player ( e.g .
audacious ) and check the properties of the files -- the VBR one may show " 189k " for track # 1 , " 207k " for track # 2 and so on .
The CBR will always show " 192k " .
( Note : the VBR sizes shown in the 'properties ' window are just averages , any given " slice " of the song may be anywhere from 64k to 320k or whatever the floor and ceilings are of your encoder .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VBR (variable bit rate) is far superior to CBR (constant bit rate) for both file size and audio quality.
The only reason to use CBR is to support ancient devices that cannot play VBR.I use Grip to rip+encode, with Lame mp3 vbr-new as the encoder.
(I like ogg, but I prefer a homogeneous audio-format library, so I'm stuck with mp3.
)Choose a VBR level that has an acceptable file size for you.
For example, encode some CD audio at VBR-New Quality 7.
Next, encode the same tracks as CBR 192k.
Check the file size differences.
Load them in your favorite player (e.g.
audacious) and check the properties of the files -- the VBR one may show "189k" for track #1, "207k" for track #2 and so on.
The CBR will always show "192k".
(Note: the VBR sizes shown in the 'properties' window are just averages, any given "slice" of the song may be anywhere from 64k to 320k or whatever the floor and ceilings are of your encoder.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29803967</id>
	<title>Re:2/3rds can</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1255971540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Title of article should be: 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference...</i></p><p>The funny part is that everyone seems to be arguing about whether or not they are part of the 1/3 that doesn't hear as well as the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Title of article should be : 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference...The funny part is that everyone seems to be arguing about whether or not they are part of the 1/3 that does n't hear as well as the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Title of article should be: 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference...The funny part is that everyone seems to be arguing about whether or not they are part of the 1/3 that doesn't hear as well as the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29806789</id>
	<title>Correction &amp; Addition</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1256048520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 1/3 said the lower rate sounded better, they were probably guessing, because neither sounded better but they were in a forced choice situation. That being so, it's likely that as many people were guessing when they "chose" the 160k. Thus, it is most likely that 1/3 of the people, or less, could tell the difference.</p><p>And chances are if you played the samples back using desktop compact speakers or made them listen on ear buds, that last third would disappear as the guessers took over, half of them right, half of them wrong, and nobody hearing a bit of difference.</p><p>The main difference is in the very high frequency clipping, an effect noted by the audiophile crowd when CDs were first being introduced. It was proven then that the technology (which is essentially unchanged now) caused a high frequency noise which whether embedded in the music or removed and play by itself, grated on the nerves, made people cranky and made the listening less pleasant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 1/3 said the lower rate sounded better , they were probably guessing , because neither sounded better but they were in a forced choice situation .
That being so , it 's likely that as many people were guessing when they " chose " the 160k .
Thus , it is most likely that 1/3 of the people , or less , could tell the difference.And chances are if you played the samples back using desktop compact speakers or made them listen on ear buds , that last third would disappear as the guessers took over , half of them right , half of them wrong , and nobody hearing a bit of difference.The main difference is in the very high frequency clipping , an effect noted by the audiophile crowd when CDs were first being introduced .
It was proven then that the technology ( which is essentially unchanged now ) caused a high frequency noise which whether embedded in the music or removed and play by itself , grated on the nerves , made people cranky and made the listening less pleasant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 1/3 said the lower rate sounded better, they were probably guessing, because neither sounded better but they were in a forced choice situation.
That being so, it's likely that as many people were guessing when they "chose" the 160k.
Thus, it is most likely that 1/3 of the people, or less, could tell the difference.And chances are if you played the samples back using desktop compact speakers or made them listen on ear buds, that last third would disappear as the guessers took over, half of them right, half of them wrong, and nobody hearing a bit of difference.The main difference is in the very high frequency clipping, an effect noted by the audiophile crowd when CDs were first being introduced.
It was proven then that the technology (which is essentially unchanged now) caused a high frequency noise which whether embedded in the music or removed and play by itself, grated on the nerves, made people cranky and made the listening less pleasant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797159</id>
	<title>AAC+ uses ABR</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1255979220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AAC+ uses ABR encoding as the default. The 48Kbps is not the peak bit rate and the difficult sections of the music are going to be compressed at a higher rate. More so if there are a lot of quiet passages that can offset the average. If the Vorbis audio was encoded with CBR the comparison in terms of bit rates isn't exactly valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AAC + uses ABR encoding as the default .
The 48Kbps is not the peak bit rate and the difficult sections of the music are going to be compressed at a higher rate .
More so if there are a lot of quiet passages that can offset the average .
If the Vorbis audio was encoded with CBR the comparison in terms of bit rates is n't exactly valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AAC+ uses ABR encoding as the default.
The 48Kbps is not the peak bit rate and the difficult sections of the music are going to be compressed at a higher rate.
More so if there are a lot of quiet passages that can offset the average.
If the Vorbis audio was encoded with CBR the comparison in terms of bit rates isn't exactly valid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797237</id>
	<title>Not quite true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs. Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression.</p></div><p>So the tests give us results which are IMO actually interesting. However, Slashdot submitter and editors fucked it up to mean something entirely different. Just look at TFA's headline:</p><p> <b>Spotify vs Sky Songs: Sound quality blind test</b> - clear and simple. Describes the tests well. Then, for some idiotic reason, Slashdot uses <i>1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps</i>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See thisThe test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs .
Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service , whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC + compression.So the tests give us results which are IMO actually interesting .
However , Slashdot submitter and editors fucked it up to mean something entirely different .
Just look at TFA 's headline : Spotify vs Sky Songs : Sound quality blind test - clear and simple .
Describes the tests well .
Then , for some idiotic reason , Slashdot uses 1/3 of People Ca n't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See thisThe test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs.
Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression.So the tests give us results which are IMO actually interesting.
However, Slashdot submitter and editors fucked it up to mean something entirely different.
Just look at TFA's headline: Spotify vs Sky Songs: Sound quality blind test - clear and simple.
Describes the tests well.
Then, for some idiotic reason, Slashdot uses 1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801285</id>
	<title>vinyl records sound better too</title>
	<author>BagMan2</author>
	<datestamp>1255952580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this a surprise?  Even audio nerds are under the illusion that vinyl records sound better than CD's.  Some people just get it in their heads that the distorted sound is closer to what it should really sound like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this a surprise ?
Even audio nerds are under the illusion that vinyl records sound better than CD 's .
Some people just get it in their heads that the distorted sound is closer to what it should really sound like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this a surprise?
Even audio nerds are under the illusion that vinyl records sound better than CD's.
Some people just get it in their heads that the distorted sound is closer to what it should really sound like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797537</id>
	<title>This isn't surprising...</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1255980720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the quality at which a lot of music is engineered these days, I'm not surprised.  Since heavy (sound) compression is widely used in modern recording, I would posit that with music such treated, 48k vs. 160k won't sound significantly different to anyone, leave alone the average listener.</p><p>Given the preponderance of crappy little "earbud" headphones and low quality MP3 recordings that comprise most if not all of what many people ever hear, it's no surprise that they have not acquired any ability to distinguish subtle (or not so subtle) differences in the quality of recordings.  If you're never exposed to quality sound, it's quite possible you won't notice the difference when you do hear it.</p><p>On the other hand, with a little exposure to a decent sound system and/or good headphones and some quality recordings made by people like <a href="http://unitedstaterocks.com/rmouser.htm" title="unitedstaterocks.com">this guy</a> [unitedstaterocks.com], I have no doubts that most people who aren't already half deaf would quickly learn to distinguish and appreciate this difference.</p><p>I'm hardly an audiosnob, and I'm sure the equipment I use would horrify a real audiosnob, but these differences are enormous to me.  I cannot distinguish, from personal testing on the equipment I use, between level 5 and level 6 of OGG compression (which correspond roughly to 256kbps and 320kbps, respectively, IIUC), but I can't hearing anything at 48kbps that doesn't sound like fingernails on a chalkboard for any length of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the quality at which a lot of music is engineered these days , I 'm not surprised .
Since heavy ( sound ) compression is widely used in modern recording , I would posit that with music such treated , 48k vs. 160k wo n't sound significantly different to anyone , leave alone the average listener.Given the preponderance of crappy little " earbud " headphones and low quality MP3 recordings that comprise most if not all of what many people ever hear , it 's no surprise that they have not acquired any ability to distinguish subtle ( or not so subtle ) differences in the quality of recordings .
If you 're never exposed to quality sound , it 's quite possible you wo n't notice the difference when you do hear it.On the other hand , with a little exposure to a decent sound system and/or good headphones and some quality recordings made by people like this guy [ unitedstaterocks.com ] , I have no doubts that most people who are n't already half deaf would quickly learn to distinguish and appreciate this difference.I 'm hardly an audiosnob , and I 'm sure the equipment I use would horrify a real audiosnob , but these differences are enormous to me .
I can not distinguish , from personal testing on the equipment I use , between level 5 and level 6 of OGG compression ( which correspond roughly to 256kbps and 320kbps , respectively , IIUC ) , but I ca n't hearing anything at 48kbps that does n't sound like fingernails on a chalkboard for any length of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the quality at which a lot of music is engineered these days, I'm not surprised.
Since heavy (sound) compression is widely used in modern recording, I would posit that with music such treated, 48k vs. 160k won't sound significantly different to anyone, leave alone the average listener.Given the preponderance of crappy little "earbud" headphones and low quality MP3 recordings that comprise most if not all of what many people ever hear, it's no surprise that they have not acquired any ability to distinguish subtle (or not so subtle) differences in the quality of recordings.
If you're never exposed to quality sound, it's quite possible you won't notice the difference when you do hear it.On the other hand, with a little exposure to a decent sound system and/or good headphones and some quality recordings made by people like this guy [unitedstaterocks.com], I have no doubts that most people who aren't already half deaf would quickly learn to distinguish and appreciate this difference.I'm hardly an audiosnob, and I'm sure the equipment I use would horrify a real audiosnob, but these differences are enormous to me.
I cannot distinguish, from personal testing on the equipment I use, between level 5 and level 6 of OGG compression (which correspond roughly to 256kbps and 320kbps, respectively, IIUC), but I can't hearing anything at 48kbps that doesn't sound like fingernails on a chalkboard for any length of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796797</id>
	<title>on headphones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255978080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They ran the test on nice headphones and a nice processor. Both pieces of equipment designed to either reproduce exactly what you hear, or to make something crappy sound better.  Try playing this through a neutral system like a set of studio monitors and i all but guarantee that they can tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ran the test on nice headphones and a nice processor .
Both pieces of equipment designed to either reproduce exactly what you hear , or to make something crappy sound better .
Try playing this through a neutral system like a set of studio monitors and i all but guarantee that they can tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They ran the test on nice headphones and a nice processor.
Both pieces of equipment designed to either reproduce exactly what you hear, or to make something crappy sound better.
Try playing this through a neutral system like a set of studio monitors and i all but guarantee that they can tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797593</id>
	<title>Is this just a misunderstanding?</title>
	<author>h0oam1</author>
	<datestamp>1255981020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I often see people confuse sample rate with bit rate when discussing digital music.  48KHz is a very common sampling rate, and a 48KHz sampled bit of audio could then be streamed at any bit rate you want.

In my experience, a 48Kbps stream sounds very noticeable worse than a 160Kbps stream, regardless of codec, etc.

Can someone confirm that SkySongs shows up as 48Kbps when it is streamed to winamp, or some other mp3 player? I can't, as I am in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I often see people confuse sample rate with bit rate when discussing digital music .
48KHz is a very common sampling rate , and a 48KHz sampled bit of audio could then be streamed at any bit rate you want .
In my experience , a 48Kbps stream sounds very noticeable worse than a 160Kbps stream , regardless of codec , etc .
Can someone confirm that SkySongs shows up as 48Kbps when it is streamed to winamp , or some other mp3 player ?
I ca n't , as I am in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often see people confuse sample rate with bit rate when discussing digital music.
48KHz is a very common sampling rate, and a 48KHz sampled bit of audio could then be streamed at any bit rate you want.
In my experience, a 48Kbps stream sounds very noticeable worse than a 160Kbps stream, regardless of codec, etc.
Can someone confirm that SkySongs shows up as 48Kbps when it is streamed to winamp, or some other mp3 player?
I can't, as I am in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796909</id>
	<title>Seems a poor test</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1255978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the article, the testing seems to have very little in the way of meaningful results.</p><p>A single instance of a single song with two different encoders given to listeners who hear "more bass" as a quality where the results were so close to split (two people shy of 50/50).</p><p>To gather meaningful data: songs must be switched quickly: you should go through a variety of materials (it's worth noting that some compressions have more trouble with certain types of sounds than others), and (ideally) there should be a reference from which to work.</p><p>The goal of compression, in theory at least, is to maintain meaningful fedility. Yes, that means that "the part we notice most" is most important: but that's no excuse for causeing "a pleasent error" better than "correct reproduction".</p><p>Of course, I've never tested these encoders. It's possible that the lower bitrate encoder did a better job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the article , the testing seems to have very little in the way of meaningful results.A single instance of a single song with two different encoders given to listeners who hear " more bass " as a quality where the results were so close to split ( two people shy of 50/50 ) .To gather meaningful data : songs must be switched quickly : you should go through a variety of materials ( it 's worth noting that some compressions have more trouble with certain types of sounds than others ) , and ( ideally ) there should be a reference from which to work.The goal of compression , in theory at least , is to maintain meaningful fedility .
Yes , that means that " the part we notice most " is most important : but that 's no excuse for causeing " a pleasent error " better than " correct reproduction " .Of course , I 've never tested these encoders .
It 's possible that the lower bitrate encoder did a better job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the article, the testing seems to have very little in the way of meaningful results.A single instance of a single song with two different encoders given to listeners who hear "more bass" as a quality where the results were so close to split (two people shy of 50/50).To gather meaningful data: songs must be switched quickly: you should go through a variety of materials (it's worth noting that some compressions have more trouble with certain types of sounds than others), and (ideally) there should be a reference from which to work.The goal of compression, in theory at least, is to maintain meaningful fedility.
Yes, that means that "the part we notice most" is most important: but that's no excuse for causeing "a pleasent error" better than "correct reproduction".Of course, I've never tested these encoders.
It's possible that the lower bitrate encoder did a better job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399</id>
	<title>Re:There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1255976520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering I can buy a 1TB drive for less than $100, I don't particularly care which percentile I might inhabit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I see absolutely no reason to rip CD's at anything less than 320.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering I can buy a 1TB drive for less than $ 100 , I do n't particularly care which percentile I might inhabit ... I see absolutely no reason to rip CD 's at anything less than 320 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering I can buy a 1TB drive for less than $100, I don't particularly care which percentile I might inhabit ... I see absolutely no reason to rip CD's at anything less than 320.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797671</id>
	<title>most music sounds like ass, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255981320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about an audience who can't distinguish between a piano and a harpsichord, an 808 and a 909.</p><p>For these people, highly compressed digital wizzbangery is the norm.  "House, the way grandma used to make."  It doesn't matter if it comes out of a big system, or a cell phone.  The producers are retarded.  The audience is retarded.  Retards.  One third of em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about an audience who ca n't distinguish between a piano and a harpsichord , an 808 and a 909.For these people , highly compressed digital wizzbangery is the norm .
" House , the way grandma used to make .
" It does n't matter if it comes out of a big system , or a cell phone .
The producers are retarded .
The audience is retarded .
Retards. One third of em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about an audience who can't distinguish between a piano and a harpsichord, an 808 and a 909.For these people, highly compressed digital wizzbangery is the norm.
"House, the way grandma used to make.
"  It doesn't matter if it comes out of a big system, or a cell phone.
The producers are retarded.
The audience is retarded.
Retards.  One third of em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800673</id>
	<title>di.fm's AAC+ encoder</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1255949280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a related note, does anyone know what encoder digitally imported are using? Somehow their free 24kbps AAC+ stream sounds about as good as the premium (256kbps?) mp3.

</p><p>(For an idea of how good my ears / speakers are, ABX testing shows that I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 160kbps ogg, but everything higher than that sounds the same -- not great, but good enough that I think the above "sounds about as good as" is worth investigating)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note , does anyone know what encoder digitally imported are using ?
Somehow their free 24kbps AAC + stream sounds about as good as the premium ( 256kbps ?
) mp3 .
( For an idea of how good my ears / speakers are , ABX testing shows that I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 160kbps ogg , but everything higher than that sounds the same -- not great , but good enough that I think the above " sounds about as good as " is worth investigating )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note, does anyone know what encoder digitally imported are using?
Somehow their free 24kbps AAC+ stream sounds about as good as the premium (256kbps?
) mp3.
(For an idea of how good my ears / speakers are, ABX testing shows that I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 160kbps ogg, but everything higher than that sounds the same -- not great, but good enough that I think the above "sounds about as good as" is worth investigating)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191</id>
	<title>I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(although not as low as 46kbps) and reached the same conclusion.  Most people vastly overestimate their ability to distinguish tracks encoded at different bitrates.  And I've seen study after study that backs this up.  This includes self-professed audiophiles, the original authors of particular tracks of music, and so forth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( although not as low as 46kbps ) and reached the same conclusion .
Most people vastly overestimate their ability to distinguish tracks encoded at different bitrates .
And I 've seen study after study that backs this up .
This includes self-professed audiophiles , the original authors of particular tracks of music , and so forth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(although not as low as 46kbps) and reached the same conclusion.
Most people vastly overestimate their ability to distinguish tracks encoded at different bitrates.
And I've seen study after study that backs this up.
This includes self-professed audiophiles, the original authors of particular tracks of music, and so forth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796977</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison? Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255978620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comparison wasn't how the sound was generated. It was whether on server provided better sound than the other one for the data rate. In this case the resulting sound of the lower data rate was just a good if not better for 1/3 of the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comparison was n't how the sound was generated .
It was whether on server provided better sound than the other one for the data rate .
In this case the resulting sound of the lower data rate was just a good if not better for 1/3 of the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comparison wasn't how the sound was generated.
It was whether on server provided better sound than the other one for the data rate.
In this case the resulting sound of the lower data rate was just a good if not better for 1/3 of the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801591</id>
	<title>Re:That would be why...</title>
	<author>jombee</author>
	<datestamp>1255954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just went through a similar experience. I bought a new car with a nice sound system, activated the satellite radio trial and was utterly repulsed by the poor fidelity. Similar to this story, however, when I mentioned this to other people that have satellite radio in their vehicles they responded with confusion, not comprehending what I was complaining about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just went through a similar experience .
I bought a new car with a nice sound system , activated the satellite radio trial and was utterly repulsed by the poor fidelity .
Similar to this story , however , when I mentioned this to other people that have satellite radio in their vehicles they responded with confusion , not comprehending what I was complaining about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just went through a similar experience.
I bought a new car with a nice sound system, activated the satellite radio trial and was utterly repulsed by the poor fidelity.
Similar to this story, however, when I mentioned this to other people that have satellite radio in their vehicles they responded with confusion, not comprehending what I was complaining about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796543</id>
	<title>Yes but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC, or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG, and you might have something meaningful.</p><p>Or, 48kbps AAC vs. 48kbps OGG, and 160kbps AAC vs. 160kbps OGG, if you want a flamewar...</p></div><p>Tthe point of TFA was to compare two services, one of which is <i>actually using</i> 48kbps AAC, while the other is <i>actually using</i> 160kbps Ogg. Using any other codecs or bitrates would indeed be inciting a flamewar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC , or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG , and you might have something meaningful.Or , 48kbps AAC vs. 48kbps OGG , and 160kbps AAC vs. 160kbps OGG , if you want a flamewar...Tthe point of TFA was to compare two services , one of which is actually using 48kbps AAC , while the other is actually using 160kbps Ogg .
Using any other codecs or bitrates would indeed be inciting a flamewar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC, or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG, and you might have something meaningful.Or, 48kbps AAC vs. 48kbps OGG, and 160kbps AAC vs. 160kbps OGG, if you want a flamewar...Tthe point of TFA was to compare two services, one of which is actually using 48kbps AAC, while the other is actually using 160kbps Ogg.
Using any other codecs or bitrates would indeed be inciting a flamewar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797051</id>
	<title>Re:let's be clear</title>
	<author>boarder8925</author>
	<datestamp>1255978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.</p></div></blockquote><p>On the contrary, you've listed exactly <em>why</em> it should be on the front page!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this was a very unscientific study , with a very small sample size , and really should n't be front page on slashdot.On the contrary , you 've listed exactly why it should be on the front page !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.On the contrary, you've listed exactly why it should be on the front page!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799279</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>Delkster</author>
	<datestamp>1255943460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't AAC @ 48kbs the same as OGG at 128kbs?</p></div><p>Why would it be?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't AAC @ 48kbs the same as OGG at 128kbs ? Why would it be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't AAC @ 48kbs the same as OGG at 128kbs?Why would it be?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798467</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255984020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Environmental noise makes a big difference, IMO. (As I discovered when I finally got a flash-based mp3 player and listened to things in total silence, and noticed nuances I couldn't hear before over my computer's fan noise). Musical genre can make a difference too, since orchestral stuff can have a lot of parts going at different volumes. 4 tracks is probably too small a sample size.</p><p>In my experience, the 128-192kbps range is where things are mostly "good enough" with occasional flaws depending on the specific piece of music and the codec used. Below that - at 96kbps - it's almost always noticeably flawed. That's where audible artifacting starts to really intrude, and you can tell something isn't quite right even if you have no higher quality source to compare to; the most universal comparison I can think of is cellphones with less-than-perfect connections. I suppose a visual comparison would be on poorly-made or over-compressed DVD/HDTV video where you may notice jagged edges or blocky shadows; I've noticed that fiery explosions in the middle of action scenes are the most susceptible to compression artifacts. I automatically notice without trying that cellphone calls and overcompressed video are bad, and usually I'll automatically notice something is wrong with 96kbps audio. IMO, 96 only seems to work when it's background music in a game that has lots of foreground effects going in (so you're not really paying any attention to the background). And even then, I think most games use higher bitrates these days, which makes sense considering there's not much benefit to shaving 40 MB off the game's size when you've got 6 GB of textures and models.</p><p>On the higher end, 224k and up, I rarely if ever hear anything amiss. I might be able to if I had really good headphones, was listening in a silent location, and was very familiar with the music (either I'd heard the lossless one a lot and then tried the lossy, or the other way around).</p><p>If 1/3 of people can't tell the difference between 48kbps and 160kbps, then I must conclude that either they're going deaf, or they were in a poor listening environment, or somehow all the music chosen was like oldschool 8-bit Nintendo themes. If your hearing is intact, then even if you've never heard clear music in your entire life, you should be able to tell the difference between the same piece at both those rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Environmental noise makes a big difference , IMO .
( As I discovered when I finally got a flash-based mp3 player and listened to things in total silence , and noticed nuances I could n't hear before over my computer 's fan noise ) .
Musical genre can make a difference too , since orchestral stuff can have a lot of parts going at different volumes .
4 tracks is probably too small a sample size.In my experience , the 128-192kbps range is where things are mostly " good enough " with occasional flaws depending on the specific piece of music and the codec used .
Below that - at 96kbps - it 's almost always noticeably flawed .
That 's where audible artifacting starts to really intrude , and you can tell something is n't quite right even if you have no higher quality source to compare to ; the most universal comparison I can think of is cellphones with less-than-perfect connections .
I suppose a visual comparison would be on poorly-made or over-compressed DVD/HDTV video where you may notice jagged edges or blocky shadows ; I 've noticed that fiery explosions in the middle of action scenes are the most susceptible to compression artifacts .
I automatically notice without trying that cellphone calls and overcompressed video are bad , and usually I 'll automatically notice something is wrong with 96kbps audio .
IMO , 96 only seems to work when it 's background music in a game that has lots of foreground effects going in ( so you 're not really paying any attention to the background ) .
And even then , I think most games use higher bitrates these days , which makes sense considering there 's not much benefit to shaving 40 MB off the game 's size when you 've got 6 GB of textures and models.On the higher end , 224k and up , I rarely if ever hear anything amiss .
I might be able to if I had really good headphones , was listening in a silent location , and was very familiar with the music ( either I 'd heard the lossless one a lot and then tried the lossy , or the other way around ) .If 1/3 of people ca n't tell the difference between 48kbps and 160kbps , then I must conclude that either they 're going deaf , or they were in a poor listening environment , or somehow all the music chosen was like oldschool 8-bit Nintendo themes .
If your hearing is intact , then even if you 've never heard clear music in your entire life , you should be able to tell the difference between the same piece at both those rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Environmental noise makes a big difference, IMO.
(As I discovered when I finally got a flash-based mp3 player and listened to things in total silence, and noticed nuances I couldn't hear before over my computer's fan noise).
Musical genre can make a difference too, since orchestral stuff can have a lot of parts going at different volumes.
4 tracks is probably too small a sample size.In my experience, the 128-192kbps range is where things are mostly "good enough" with occasional flaws depending on the specific piece of music and the codec used.
Below that - at 96kbps - it's almost always noticeably flawed.
That's where audible artifacting starts to really intrude, and you can tell something isn't quite right even if you have no higher quality source to compare to; the most universal comparison I can think of is cellphones with less-than-perfect connections.
I suppose a visual comparison would be on poorly-made or over-compressed DVD/HDTV video where you may notice jagged edges or blocky shadows; I've noticed that fiery explosions in the middle of action scenes are the most susceptible to compression artifacts.
I automatically notice without trying that cellphone calls and overcompressed video are bad, and usually I'll automatically notice something is wrong with 96kbps audio.
IMO, 96 only seems to work when it's background music in a game that has lots of foreground effects going in (so you're not really paying any attention to the background).
And even then, I think most games use higher bitrates these days, which makes sense considering there's not much benefit to shaving 40 MB off the game's size when you've got 6 GB of textures and models.On the higher end, 224k and up, I rarely if ever hear anything amiss.
I might be able to if I had really good headphones, was listening in a silent location, and was very familiar with the music (either I'd heard the lossless one a lot and then tried the lossy, or the other way around).If 1/3 of people can't tell the difference between 48kbps and 160kbps, then I must conclude that either they're going deaf, or they were in a poor listening environment, or somehow all the music chosen was like oldschool 8-bit Nintendo themes.
If your hearing is intact, then even if you've never heard clear music in your entire life, you should be able to tell the difference between the same piece at both those rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800719</id>
	<title>Re:Preferences</title>
	<author>turkeydance</author>
	<datestamp>1255949520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>agreed.....old test was with tomato Ketchup.
in the USA it has a "burnt" flavor. that's
what the USA liked, although the "real"
flavor is smoother with no burnt after-taste.
Heinz went burnt since it's consumer liked
that better than the real (better?) one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed.....old test was with tomato Ketchup .
in the USA it has a " burnt " flavor .
that 's what the USA liked , although the " real " flavor is smoother with no burnt after-taste .
Heinz went burnt since it 's consumer liked that better than the real ( better ?
) one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed.....old test was with tomato Ketchup.
in the USA it has a "burnt" flavor.
that's
what the USA liked, although the "real"
flavor is smoother with no burnt after-taste.
Heinz went burnt since it's consumer liked
that better than the real (better?
) one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237</id>
	<title>The number should be doubled.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who can't tell the difference have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.  Therefore we can deduce that over *two-thirds* of the population can't tell the difference, by adding in the inferred members who couldn't tell, but guessed right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who ca n't tell the difference have a 50-50 chance of getting it right .
Therefore we can deduce that over * two-thirds * of the population ca n't tell the difference , by adding in the inferred members who could n't tell , but guessed right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who can't tell the difference have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.
Therefore we can deduce that over *two-thirds* of the population can't tell the difference, by adding in the inferred members who couldn't tell, but guessed right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796453</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1255976820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't AAC @ 48kbs the same as OGG at 128kbs?</p><p>Very dumb comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't AAC @ 48kbs the same as OGG at 128kbs ? Very dumb comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't AAC @ 48kbs the same as OGG at 128kbs?Very dumb comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798065</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously, the test was flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255982760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe Denon is STILL selling that cable for 500 bucks.  You can see from the colors of the wires that they haven't even changed the pinout.  It's a standard ethernet cable.  Hilarious!  That needs to be the next comparison.  How many can tell the difference between the DIGITAL signal coming from the $500 Denon cable and a one from a $4 piece of cable crimped by a 12 year old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe Denon is STILL selling that cable for 500 bucks .
You can see from the colors of the wires that they have n't even changed the pinout .
It 's a standard ethernet cable .
Hilarious ! That needs to be the next comparison .
How many can tell the difference between the DIGITAL signal coming from the $ 500 Denon cable and a one from a $ 4 piece of cable crimped by a 12 year old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe Denon is STILL selling that cable for 500 bucks.
You can see from the colors of the wires that they haven't even changed the pinout.
It's a standard ethernet cable.
Hilarious!  That needs to be the next comparison.
How many can tell the difference between the DIGITAL signal coming from the $500 Denon cable and a one from a $4 piece of cable crimped by a 12 year old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797623</id>
	<title>Re:The number should be doubled.</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1255981140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this wasn't a test of who can tell the difference, it was more a test of which do you like more.</p><p>10 out of 16 people thought that crisper symbols and vocals meant higher bit-rate, while 6 out of 16 thought that bigger bass sound meant higher bit-rate.</p><p>100\% were able to spot the difference between the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this was n't a test of who can tell the difference , it was more a test of which do you like more.10 out of 16 people thought that crisper symbols and vocals meant higher bit-rate , while 6 out of 16 thought that bigger bass sound meant higher bit-rate.100 \ % were able to spot the difference between the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this wasn't a test of who can tell the difference, it was more a test of which do you like more.10 out of 16 people thought that crisper symbols and vocals meant higher bit-rate, while 6 out of 16 thought that bigger bass sound meant higher bit-rate.100\% were able to spot the difference between the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796739</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1255977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest thing you will notice on good equipment with even high bitrate MP3's is cymbal muddying, it's just the nature of the codec. I'm not sure if Vorbis 1.x fixes that or not but I submitted test samples back in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9 days that were worse under Vorbis then the version of LAME available at the time. For everything else ~200-220 Kbps VBR LAME is transparent for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest thing you will notice on good equipment with even high bitrate MP3 's is cymbal muddying , it 's just the nature of the codec .
I 'm not sure if Vorbis 1.x fixes that or not but I submitted test samples back in the .9 days that were worse under Vorbis then the version of LAME available at the time .
For everything else ~ 200-220 Kbps VBR LAME is transparent for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest thing you will notice on good equipment with even high bitrate MP3's is cymbal muddying, it's just the nature of the codec.
I'm not sure if Vorbis 1.x fixes that or not but I submitted test samples back in the .9 days that were worse under Vorbis then the version of LAME available at the time.
For everything else ~200-220 Kbps VBR LAME is transparent for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29809721</id>
	<title>Dupe! 1945, the Experiment that saved Hi Fi</title>
	<author>An dochasac</author>
	<datestamp>1256059140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was done long ago in what the September 1970 Popular Electronics magazine called, <a href="http://phillokit.com/high\_fidelity/experiment\_that\_saved\_high\_fidelity.html" title="phillokit.com">"The Experiment that saved Hi Fi"</a> [phillokit.com].  Then as now, Joe six-pack was accustomed to hearing noisy distorted music.  In 1945 he was accustomed to hearing Billie Holiday and big band music with a freq cutoff of 5000Hz or so.  If engineers hadn't second guessed Joe and redesigned the experiment FM radio would have always sounded almost exactly like AM radio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was done long ago in what the September 1970 Popular Electronics magazine called , " The Experiment that saved Hi Fi " [ phillokit.com ] .
Then as now , Joe six-pack was accustomed to hearing noisy distorted music .
In 1945 he was accustomed to hearing Billie Holiday and big band music with a freq cutoff of 5000Hz or so .
If engineers had n't second guessed Joe and redesigned the experiment FM radio would have always sounded almost exactly like AM radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was done long ago in what the September 1970 Popular Electronics magazine called, "The Experiment that saved Hi Fi" [phillokit.com].
Then as now, Joe six-pack was accustomed to hearing noisy distorted music.
In 1945 he was accustomed to hearing Billie Holiday and big band music with a freq cutoff of 5000Hz or so.
If engineers hadn't second guessed Joe and redesigned the experiment FM radio would have always sounded almost exactly like AM radio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804819</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Clairvoyant</author>
	<datestamp>1256069940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, 1/3 of audiophiles still think vinyl gramophone records sound better than any digital format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , 1/3 of audiophiles still think vinyl gramophone records sound better than any digital format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, 1/3 of audiophiles still think vinyl gramophone records sound better than any digital format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</id>
	<title>Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC, or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG, and you might have something meaningful.</p><p>Or, 48kbps AAC vs. 48kbps OGG, and 160kbps AAC vs. 160kbps OGG, if you want a flamewar...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC , or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG , and you might have something meaningful.Or , 48kbps AAC vs. 48kbps OGG , and 160kbps AAC vs. 160kbps OGG , if you want a flamewar.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC, or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG, and you might have something meaningful.Or, 48kbps AAC vs. 48kbps OGG, and 160kbps AAC vs. 160kbps OGG, if you want a flamewar...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799299</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255943520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think output is the main thing, if I use my studio monitor headphones or Bose headphones I can tell a nuanced difference between lower quality and higher quality recordings; ditto for my surround sound in my living rm.  But with my CPU speakers or Ipod ear buds can't really tell so much.  The fact is I'm rarely in a situation where I can actually get the proper audio equipment to listen to music at a high bit rate and appreciate it.</p><p>
&nbsp; Usually I'm either listening on my Ipod while running using tiny ear buds with the volume don't so I don't get hit by an unheard car or in my office or workshop where I need to hear phones and such and can't discern a difference.  That being said I do usually try to get a high quality version of a song into my library, but rarely do I get the pleasure of listening to it in high quality technicolor sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think output is the main thing , if I use my studio monitor headphones or Bose headphones I can tell a nuanced difference between lower quality and higher quality recordings ; ditto for my surround sound in my living rm .
But with my CPU speakers or Ipod ear buds ca n't really tell so much .
The fact is I 'm rarely in a situation where I can actually get the proper audio equipment to listen to music at a high bit rate and appreciate it .
  Usually I 'm either listening on my Ipod while running using tiny ear buds with the volume do n't so I do n't get hit by an unheard car or in my office or workshop where I need to hear phones and such and ca n't discern a difference .
That being said I do usually try to get a high quality version of a song into my library , but rarely do I get the pleasure of listening to it in high quality technicolor sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think output is the main thing, if I use my studio monitor headphones or Bose headphones I can tell a nuanced difference between lower quality and higher quality recordings; ditto for my surround sound in my living rm.
But with my CPU speakers or Ipod ear buds can't really tell so much.
The fact is I'm rarely in a situation where I can actually get the proper audio equipment to listen to music at a high bit rate and appreciate it.
  Usually I'm either listening on my Ipod while running using tiny ear buds with the volume don't so I don't get hit by an unheard car or in my office or workshop where I need to hear phones and such and can't discern a difference.
That being said I do usually try to get a high quality version of a song into my library, but rarely do I get the pleasure of listening to it in high quality technicolor sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799011</id>
	<title>Why is this an issue?</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1255985760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean even at bit rates multiple times what this article tested storage space and bandwidth is unlikely to be an issue. At this point one should not have to worry about which codec sounds better, rather I would have expected codec's to be competing based on which is cheaper/easier to implement in embedded devices assuming that the parameters like bit-rate have already been set so they are indistinguishable from the original recording even using the best hi-fi systems out there.</p><p>So basically, when used at a "high" bit-rate (not $300 cable "high" , but "Mozart probably wouldn't tell the difference" high ), which codec has the lowest processing requirements?</p><p>Btw, using typical bitrates found on say iTunes or Amazon, how does lossless codecs like FLAC compare to the lossy ones in processing requirements? Are they in general quicker / slower to encode and decode or does it depend completely on the codec?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean even at bit rates multiple times what this article tested storage space and bandwidth is unlikely to be an issue .
At this point one should not have to worry about which codec sounds better , rather I would have expected codec 's to be competing based on which is cheaper/easier to implement in embedded devices assuming that the parameters like bit-rate have already been set so they are indistinguishable from the original recording even using the best hi-fi systems out there.So basically , when used at a " high " bit-rate ( not $ 300 cable " high " , but " Mozart probably would n't tell the difference " high ) , which codec has the lowest processing requirements ? Btw , using typical bitrates found on say iTunes or Amazon , how does lossless codecs like FLAC compare to the lossy ones in processing requirements ?
Are they in general quicker / slower to encode and decode or does it depend completely on the codec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean even at bit rates multiple times what this article tested storage space and bandwidth is unlikely to be an issue.
At this point one should not have to worry about which codec sounds better, rather I would have expected codec's to be competing based on which is cheaper/easier to implement in embedded devices assuming that the parameters like bit-rate have already been set so they are indistinguishable from the original recording even using the best hi-fi systems out there.So basically, when used at a "high" bit-rate (not $300 cable "high" , but "Mozart probably wouldn't tell the difference" high ), which codec has the lowest processing requirements?Btw, using typical bitrates found on say iTunes or Amazon, how does lossless codecs like FLAC compare to the lossy ones in processing requirements?
Are they in general quicker / slower to encode and decode or does it depend completely on the codec?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29803971</id>
	<title>And nobody is familiar with the songs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255971600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always amazed that these tests have much credence.  I'm a FLAC fellow and I'll be damned if I can tell a song is in 128 kbps unless I'm familiar with the song.  Stick in one of my favorite recordings and I'll notice elements that sound off or muffled... but on any other song how am I to know what it is supposed to sound like?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed that these tests have much credence .
I 'm a FLAC fellow and I 'll be damned if I can tell a song is in 128 kbps unless I 'm familiar with the song .
Stick in one of my favorite recordings and I 'll notice elements that sound off or muffled... but on any other song how am I to know what it is supposed to sound like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed that these tests have much credence.
I'm a FLAC fellow and I'll be damned if I can tell a song is in 128 kbps unless I'm familiar with the song.
Stick in one of my favorite recordings and I'll notice elements that sound off or muffled... but on any other song how am I to know what it is supposed to sound like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797633</id>
	<title>Re:There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1255981200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering I can buy a 1TB drive for less than $100, I don't particularly care which percentile I might inhabit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I see absolutely no reason to rip CD's at anything less than 320.</p></div><p>There is a reason. I don't know if this has changed with flash drives, but with the tiny hard disks inside an older iPod or similar player, the playing time is largely limited by the amount of data read. Playing 320 kbit/sec MP3s will empty the batteries much faster than 128 kbit/sec. Now my iPod is 98\% of the time in my car attached to a charger, so I don't care, but some people will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering I can buy a 1TB drive for less than $ 100 , I do n't particularly care which percentile I might inhabit ... I see absolutely no reason to rip CD 's at anything less than 320.There is a reason .
I do n't know if this has changed with flash drives , but with the tiny hard disks inside an older iPod or similar player , the playing time is largely limited by the amount of data read .
Playing 320 kbit/sec MP3s will empty the batteries much faster than 128 kbit/sec .
Now my iPod is 98 \ % of the time in my car attached to a charger , so I do n't care , but some people will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering I can buy a 1TB drive for less than $100, I don't particularly care which percentile I might inhabit ... I see absolutely no reason to rip CD's at anything less than 320.There is a reason.
I don't know if this has changed with flash drives, but with the tiny hard disks inside an older iPod or similar player, the playing time is largely limited by the amount of data read.
Playing 320 kbit/sec MP3s will empty the batteries much faster than 128 kbit/sec.
Now my iPod is 98\% of the time in my car attached to a charger, so I don't care, but some people will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797161</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges - Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "Sky has launched a subscription-music service called Sky Songs, but its streaming-audio bit-rate is much lower than Spotify's free service. The question is, can anyone actually tell the difference? We put it to the test."</p><p>People can't hear codecs or bit rates, only sound and that is exactly what they were trying to find out, can people detect a difference in the product (sound), not the manufacturing (codecs and bit rates). Therefore they did test apples to apples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Sky has launched a subscription-music service called Sky Songs , but its streaming-audio bit-rate is much lower than Spotify 's free service .
The question is , can anyone actually tell the difference ?
We put it to the test .
" People ca n't hear codecs or bit rates , only sound and that is exactly what they were trying to find out , can people detect a difference in the product ( sound ) , not the manufacturing ( codecs and bit rates ) .
Therefore they did test apples to apples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "Sky has launched a subscription-music service called Sky Songs, but its streaming-audio bit-rate is much lower than Spotify's free service.
The question is, can anyone actually tell the difference?
We put it to the test.
"People can't hear codecs or bit rates, only sound and that is exactly what they were trying to find out, can people detect a difference in the product (sound), not the manufacturing (codecs and bit rates).
Therefore they did test apples to apples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796347</id>
	<title>Of the 16 people tested</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1255976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Of the 16 people tested"</p><p>Good-bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Of the 16 people tested " Good-bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Of the 16 people tested"Good-bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1255980360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate? I would have to assume so. A question though, is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed? I can't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs. I want the smallest file that's good enough quality where I wouldn't notice playing on an iPod. Just asking, because you seem to be an expert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate ?
I would have to assume so .
A question though , is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed ?
I ca n't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs .
I want the smallest file that 's good enough quality where I would n't notice playing on an iPod .
Just asking , because you seem to be an expert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate?
I would have to assume so.
A question though, is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed?
I can't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs.
I want the smallest file that's good enough quality where I wouldn't notice playing on an iPod.
Just asking, because you seem to be an expert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29808923</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sound is just like art, not everyones ears are designed to hear exactly identical as anothers, same goes for vision. The problem here is tech people who think they are scientist and it doesn't work that way. The way audio waves are understood by the human brain is a 2 part question, 1) What enviroment has the ears been subject to for the vast amount of time and 2) how much training has been given to understanding sound with assoication.</p><p>A monk, who spends 30 years of his life in a temple high up in the mountian tops and very rarely hears sounds other then nature and possiblely his own voice will have a totally didn't processing then say a 22 year old who spent thier entire life growing up in manhatten, ny. With those factors in the puzzel, you now have personal choice, hence why almost all stereos/radios/winamp have something called AN EQUALIZER!, to allow people to adject the wave lengths to there choice, it's not just for BASS.</p><p>Nothing new here, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sound is just like art , not everyones ears are designed to hear exactly identical as anothers , same goes for vision .
The problem here is tech people who think they are scientist and it does n't work that way .
The way audio waves are understood by the human brain is a 2 part question , 1 ) What enviroment has the ears been subject to for the vast amount of time and 2 ) how much training has been given to understanding sound with assoication.A monk , who spends 30 years of his life in a temple high up in the mountian tops and very rarely hears sounds other then nature and possiblely his own voice will have a totally did n't processing then say a 22 year old who spent thier entire life growing up in manhatten , ny .
With those factors in the puzzel , you now have personal choice , hence why almost all stereos/radios/winamp have something called AN EQUALIZER ! , to allow people to adject the wave lengths to there choice , it 's not just for BASS.Nothing new here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sound is just like art, not everyones ears are designed to hear exactly identical as anothers, same goes for vision.
The problem here is tech people who think they are scientist and it doesn't work that way.
The way audio waves are understood by the human brain is a 2 part question, 1) What enviroment has the ears been subject to for the vast amount of time and 2) how much training has been given to understanding sound with assoication.A monk, who spends 30 years of his life in a temple high up in the mountian tops and very rarely hears sounds other then nature and possiblely his own voice will have a totally didn't processing then say a 22 year old who spent thier entire life growing up in manhatten, ny.
With those factors in the puzzel, you now have personal choice, hence why almost all stereos/radios/winamp have something called AN EQUALIZER!, to allow people to adject the wave lengths to there choice, it's not just for BASS.Nothing new here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796333</id>
	<title>Apples vs. Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're entirely different compression schemes, the numbers may as well be different units.  "Participants couldn't tell the difference between of 10 miles per hour and 50,000 feet per hour!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're entirely different compression schemes , the numbers may as well be different units .
" Participants could n't tell the difference between of 10 miles per hour and 50,000 feet per hour !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're entirely different compression schemes, the numbers may as well be different units.
"Participants couldn't tell the difference between of 10 miles per hour and 50,000 feet per hour!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796415</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, the summary makes it sounds like their comparing bitrates when it's codecs they're comparing.

So, in effect, by mixing codecs and bitrates, the test proves exactly nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , the summary makes it sounds like their comparing bitrates when it 's codecs they 're comparing .
So , in effect , by mixing codecs and bitrates , the test proves exactly nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, the summary makes it sounds like their comparing bitrates when it's codecs they're comparing.
So, in effect, by mixing codecs and bitrates, the test proves exactly nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804999</id>
	<title>As low as 1/3 ? Surprising.</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1256029500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still looking for monophonic audio equipment. I've never been able to tell the difference between mono and stereo, and can't see the reason for paying for the doubled bandwidth, second amplifier etc. Total waste of time. But then again, we're talking about music, so we started at "total waste of time", and haven't gone anywhere uphill from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still looking for monophonic audio equipment .
I 've never been able to tell the difference between mono and stereo , and ca n't see the reason for paying for the doubled bandwidth , second amplifier etc .
Total waste of time .
But then again , we 're talking about music , so we started at " total waste of time " , and have n't gone anywhere uphill from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still looking for monophonic audio equipment.
I've never been able to tell the difference between mono and stereo, and can't see the reason for paying for the doubled bandwidth, second amplifier etc.
Total waste of time.
But then again, we're talking about music, so we started at "total waste of time", and haven't gone anywhere uphill from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797733</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on what you're used to hearing</title>
	<author>Haidon</author>
	<datestamp>1255981620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say a lot of this is dependent on what people are 'used to' as far as their music listening goes.

I've heard the song "Rooster" by Alice in Chains hundreds of times on the radio... enjoy that song immensely.  Downloaded it on Rock Band 2 the other day, which uses the original recording, supposedly.  It sounded awful to me, at first.  I had to listen to it 5 or 6 more times before I got used to all the 'new' stuff I hadn't been able to hear before on the FM band.

If you're used to compressed, or otherwise limited music, hearing a cleaner version is just too unfamiliar to be right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say a lot of this is dependent on what people are 'used to ' as far as their music listening goes .
I 've heard the song " Rooster " by Alice in Chains hundreds of times on the radio... enjoy that song immensely .
Downloaded it on Rock Band 2 the other day , which uses the original recording , supposedly .
It sounded awful to me , at first .
I had to listen to it 5 or 6 more times before I got used to all the 'new ' stuff I had n't been able to hear before on the FM band .
If you 're used to compressed , or otherwise limited music , hearing a cleaner version is just too unfamiliar to be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say a lot of this is dependent on what people are 'used to' as far as their music listening goes.
I've heard the song "Rooster" by Alice in Chains hundreds of times on the radio... enjoy that song immensely.
Downloaded it on Rock Band 2 the other day, which uses the original recording, supposedly.
It sounded awful to me, at first.
I had to listen to it 5 or 6 more times before I got used to all the 'new' stuff I hadn't been able to hear before on the FM band.
If you're used to compressed, or otherwise limited music, hearing a cleaner version is just too unfamiliar to be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798151</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1255983000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, different codecs are, in fact, different. (Tautology time!)</p><p>
What they need to do is figure out what information different codecs strip out of the music, and test <b>that stripping</b> at different levels.</p><p>
Because with modern VBR stuff, you can't absolutely say 'X will be removed.' What you can say is that 'one of the things that encoding X does is smooth this waveform, let us call that transformation X1. X1 is statistically noticed by 10\% at this level, and 40\% at this level, etc.'.</p><p>
This is, in fact, how the compressions were made in the first place, although in a more hypothetical sense of what the human ear and brain should be capable of hearing, and not 'People don't actually care about that sound'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , different codecs are , in fact , different .
( Tautology time !
) What they need to do is figure out what information different codecs strip out of the music , and test that stripping at different levels .
Because with modern VBR stuff , you ca n't absolutely say 'X will be removed .
' What you can say is that 'one of the things that encoding X does is smooth this waveform , let us call that transformation X1 .
X1 is statistically noticed by 10 \ % at this level , and 40 \ % at this level , etc.' .
This is , in fact , how the compressions were made in the first place , although in a more hypothetical sense of what the human ear and brain should be capable of hearing , and not 'People do n't actually care about that sound' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, different codecs are, in fact, different.
(Tautology time!
)
What they need to do is figure out what information different codecs strip out of the music, and test that stripping at different levels.
Because with modern VBR stuff, you can't absolutely say 'X will be removed.
' What you can say is that 'one of the things that encoding X does is smooth this waveform, let us call that transformation X1.
X1 is statistically noticed by 10\% at this level, and 40\% at this level, etc.'.
This is, in fact, how the compressions were made in the first place, although in a more hypothetical sense of what the human ear and brain should be capable of hearing, and not 'People don't actually care about that sound'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800313</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1255947660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The different formats is the whole point of the test. Digital radio broadcasts using DAB+ use AAC+ and the whole reason they use this codec is that it's claimed to deliver vastly superior sound to other codecs at low bitrates.<br>I listen to some radio on DAB+ and the broadcasters have a fixed amount of bandwidth to share between a number of stations. As a result, the premium stations use 64kbs as a "high" bitrate and I have to say that on a half-decent piece of equipment, it actually sounds quite good.</p><p>The test was not to determine if 64kbs and 160kbs sounds different (it does) the test was to determine which of the two people preferred to listen to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The different formats is the whole point of the test .
Digital radio broadcasts using DAB + use AAC + and the whole reason they use this codec is that it 's claimed to deliver vastly superior sound to other codecs at low bitrates.I listen to some radio on DAB + and the broadcasters have a fixed amount of bandwidth to share between a number of stations .
As a result , the premium stations use 64kbs as a " high " bitrate and I have to say that on a half-decent piece of equipment , it actually sounds quite good.The test was not to determine if 64kbs and 160kbs sounds different ( it does ) the test was to determine which of the two people preferred to listen to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The different formats is the whole point of the test.
Digital radio broadcasts using DAB+ use AAC+ and the whole reason they use this codec is that it's claimed to deliver vastly superior sound to other codecs at low bitrates.I listen to some radio on DAB+ and the broadcasters have a fixed amount of bandwidth to share between a number of stations.
As a result, the premium stations use 64kbs as a "high" bitrate and I have to say that on a half-decent piece of equipment, it actually sounds quite good.The test was not to determine if 64kbs and 160kbs sounds different (it does) the test was to determine which of the two people preferred to listen to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802059</id>
	<title>2/3.. cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2/3 of all people prefer 160kps audio over 48?  Who would have guessed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2/3 of all people prefer 160kps audio over 48 ?
Who would have guessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2/3 of all people prefer 160kps audio over 48?
Who would have guessed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>qortra</author>
	<datestamp>1255979580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be true, except that even crappy computer speakers these days can produce high frequencies just fine.  Consider the following speakers that are among <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16836664001" title="newegg.com">the least expensive on Newegg</a> [newegg.com].  They have an advertised frequency response of 100hz to 20,000khz, plenty of range to reveal encoding flaws.  Yes, the actual frequency response might not be as good as advertised, but if they're anywhere close, they will not have any trouble revealing encoding flaws.<br> <br>
In my experience, medium-high frequency reproduction is probably the chief problem with poorly encoded music.  From the article, "Some also noted that cymbals, hi hats and vocals in particular sounded better" (referring to the better encoded stream). Cymbals and hi-hats are dead on - they end up sounding like 60s sci-fi if encoded badly. Even the most modest of computer speakers and earbuds will reproduce a cymbal frequency range without breaking a sweat.
<br> <br>
The grandparent is dead on here - sound reproduction is not a chain, it's a relay race.  Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be true , except that even crappy computer speakers these days can produce high frequencies just fine .
Consider the following speakers that are among the least expensive on Newegg [ newegg.com ] .
They have an advertised frequency response of 100hz to 20,000khz , plenty of range to reveal encoding flaws .
Yes , the actual frequency response might not be as good as advertised , but if they 're anywhere close , they will not have any trouble revealing encoding flaws .
In my experience , medium-high frequency reproduction is probably the chief problem with poorly encoded music .
From the article , " Some also noted that cymbals , hi hats and vocals in particular sounded better " ( referring to the better encoded stream ) .
Cymbals and hi-hats are dead on - they end up sounding like 60s sci-fi if encoded badly .
Even the most modest of computer speakers and earbuds will reproduce a cymbal frequency range without breaking a sweat .
The grandparent is dead on here - sound reproduction is not a chain , it 's a relay race .
Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be true, except that even crappy computer speakers these days can produce high frequencies just fine.
Consider the following speakers that are among the least expensive on Newegg [newegg.com].
They have an advertised frequency response of 100hz to 20,000khz, plenty of range to reveal encoding flaws.
Yes, the actual frequency response might not be as good as advertised, but if they're anywhere close, they will not have any trouble revealing encoding flaws.
In my experience, medium-high frequency reproduction is probably the chief problem with poorly encoded music.
From the article, "Some also noted that cymbals, hi hats and vocals in particular sounded better" (referring to the better encoded stream).
Cymbals and hi-hats are dead on - they end up sounding like 60s sci-fi if encoded badly.
Even the most modest of computer speakers and earbuds will reproduce a cymbal frequency range without breaking a sweat.
The grandparent is dead on here - sound reproduction is not a chain, it's a relay race.
Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</id>
	<title>let's be clear</title>
	<author>Vorpix</author>
	<datestamp>1255976520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this summary is misleading.  they were asked to choose which they thought sounded better.  the listeners DID notice a difference between the two, and for some reason 1/3 of the participants enjoyed the lower bitrate version better.  perhaps it had less harsh high tones or something about it was more pleasurable to them...  that doesn't mean that the higher bitrate didn't honestly sound more accurate to the source material.  Perhaps uncompressed audio should have also been incorporated into the test.  If they still choose the lower bitrate over uncompressed, then it's clear that some listeners prefer the song with the changes inherent to compression.</p><p>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this summary is misleading .
they were asked to choose which they thought sounded better .
the listeners DID notice a difference between the two , and for some reason 1/3 of the participants enjoyed the lower bitrate version better .
perhaps it had less harsh high tones or something about it was more pleasurable to them... that does n't mean that the higher bitrate did n't honestly sound more accurate to the source material .
Perhaps uncompressed audio should have also been incorporated into the test .
If they still choose the lower bitrate over uncompressed , then it 's clear that some listeners prefer the song with the changes inherent to compression.this was a very unscientific study , with a very small sample size , and really should n't be front page on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this summary is misleading.
they were asked to choose which they thought sounded better.
the listeners DID notice a difference between the two, and for some reason 1/3 of the participants enjoyed the lower bitrate version better.
perhaps it had less harsh high tones or something about it was more pleasurable to them...  that doesn't mean that the higher bitrate didn't honestly sound more accurate to the source material.
Perhaps uncompressed audio should have also been incorporated into the test.
If they still choose the lower bitrate over uncompressed, then it's clear that some listeners prefer the song with the changes inherent to compression.this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796357</id>
	<title>data reported is misleading</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1255976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Based on TFS, 33\% answered that the 48kbps sounded better than 160kbps.  I have a assume that some percentage of the people who said that the 160kbps were guessing and got lucky to pick the "right" answer.

</p><p>Also, it may be because they are using a music sample that actually sounds pretty good with 48kbps instead of (for example) spoken word which makes a bigger difference when you compress the hell out of it.

</p><p>There is no magic bullet... for many people lower bitrates are just as good as high-fidelity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on TFS , 33 \ % answered that the 48kbps sounded better than 160kbps .
I have a assume that some percentage of the people who said that the 160kbps were guessing and got lucky to pick the " right " answer .
Also , it may be because they are using a music sample that actually sounds pretty good with 48kbps instead of ( for example ) spoken word which makes a bigger difference when you compress the hell out of it .
There is no magic bullet... for many people lower bitrates are just as good as high-fidelity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Based on TFS, 33\% answered that the 48kbps sounded better than 160kbps.
I have a assume that some percentage of the people who said that the 160kbps were guessing and got lucky to pick the "right" answer.
Also, it may be because they are using a music sample that actually sounds pretty good with 48kbps instead of (for example) spoken word which makes a bigger difference when you compress the hell out of it.
There is no magic bullet... for many people lower bitrates are just as good as high-fidelity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797289</id>
	<title>48 Kbps HE AAC sounds quite good</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1255979760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no news here. The HE AAC codec (called AAC+ in the Coding Technologies implementation, and now called Dolby Pulse after Dolby's acquisition) is a highly advanced spectral band replication codec, and can be pretty darn transparent down to around 48 Kbps. That there was about a 2:1 preference for the high bitrate Ogg in a highly nonscientific small sample size test like this is a yawner.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE\_AAC" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE\_AAC</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no news here .
The HE AAC codec ( called AAC + in the Coding Technologies implementation , and now called Dolby Pulse after Dolby 's acquisition ) is a highly advanced spectral band replication codec , and can be pretty darn transparent down to around 48 Kbps .
That there was about a 2 : 1 preference for the high bitrate Ogg in a highly nonscientific small sample size test like this is a yawner .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE \ _AAC [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no news here.
The HE AAC codec (called AAC+ in the Coding Technologies implementation, and now called Dolby Pulse after Dolby's acquisition) is a highly advanced spectral band replication codec, and can be pretty darn transparent down to around 48 Kbps.
That there was about a 2:1 preference for the high bitrate Ogg in a highly nonscientific small sample size test like this is a yawner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE\_AAC [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799337</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>Jerry Coffin</author>
	<datestamp>1255943640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to TFA, they did at least attempt to deal with this particular problem by providing all the listeners with a pair of quite decent Denon headphones. While you can (and some certainly do) argue about whether they're as good as the best you can get from Grado or Sennheiser (IMO, even the somewhat less expensive Sennheiser 650's are distinctly better), they're still <i>way</i> out of the league of speakers most people connect to computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to TFA , they did at least attempt to deal with this particular problem by providing all the listeners with a pair of quite decent Denon headphones .
While you can ( and some certainly do ) argue about whether they 're as good as the best you can get from Grado or Sennheiser ( IMO , even the somewhat less expensive Sennheiser 650 's are distinctly better ) , they 're still way out of the league of speakers most people connect to computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to TFA, they did at least attempt to deal with this particular problem by providing all the listeners with a pair of quite decent Denon headphones.
While you can (and some certainly do) argue about whether they're as good as the best you can get from Grado or Sennheiser (IMO, even the somewhat less expensive Sennheiser 650's are distinctly better), they're still way out of the league of speakers most people connect to computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</id>
	<title>It depends on what you're used to hearing</title>
	<author>whyde</author>
	<datestamp>1255976940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl.</p><p>I firmly believe that you prefer what you're accustomed to hearing in the first place. Most kids today have grown up hearing nothing better than highly-compressed FM or low-bitrate MP3 music. They don't know anything better, and given the option of hearing better music, perhaps even uncompressed, with a much larger dynamic range and noise floor, they'll gravitate to what their ears and brain have been trained to appreciate.</p><p>Tomorrow's world will have "128Kbps MP3 Afficionado" publications extolling the virtues, "warmth", and "naturalness" of the low-bitrate MP3. And audiophiles will pay top-dollar for crippled hardware and overcompressed, undersampled music tracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow 's vinyl.I firmly believe that you prefer what you 're accustomed to hearing in the first place .
Most kids today have grown up hearing nothing better than highly-compressed FM or low-bitrate MP3 music .
They do n't know anything better , and given the option of hearing better music , perhaps even uncompressed , with a much larger dynamic range and noise floor , they 'll gravitate to what their ears and brain have been trained to appreciate.Tomorrow 's world will have " 128Kbps MP3 Afficionado " publications extolling the virtues , " warmth " , and " naturalness " of the low-bitrate MP3 .
And audiophiles will pay top-dollar for crippled hardware and overcompressed , undersampled music tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl.I firmly believe that you prefer what you're accustomed to hearing in the first place.
Most kids today have grown up hearing nothing better than highly-compressed FM or low-bitrate MP3 music.
They don't know anything better, and given the option of hearing better music, perhaps even uncompressed, with a much larger dynamic range and noise floor, they'll gravitate to what their ears and brain have been trained to appreciate.Tomorrow's world will have "128Kbps MP3 Afficionado" publications extolling the virtues, "warmth", and "naturalness" of the low-bitrate MP3.
And audiophiles will pay top-dollar for crippled hardware and overcompressed, undersampled music tracks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800005</id>
	<title>Spotify gives you 320kbps ogg</title>
	<author>Albert Sandberg</author>
	<datestamp>1255946340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... if you are premium user. (ok not for all songs yet I think but on many, many, many)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... if you are premium user .
( ok not for all songs yet I think but on many , many , many )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... if you are premium user.
(ok not for all songs yet I think but on many, many, many)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796855</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously, the test was flawed</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1255978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, it had to have been the cable.</p><p>There is some wisdom in their story though.  Personaly, their data is a bit extreme.  I've encoded not at 48Kbps before but certainly at 64Kbps (if you honestly want to know, when ripping "adult" movies from DVD and trying to keep the file a certain size, it makes more sense to give the video extra bitrate and the audio less . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.), and I could certainly tell the difference between 64 and 128Kbps (which is what I rip most regular video's audio track at).  Now I've always ripped audio-only tracks at 192Kbps just because it doesn't take too much extra space, but truthfully once you get above 128Kbps I certainly can't tell the difference between the compressed and original anymore.  And truthfully, I'd wager than MOST "audiophiles" can't tell either.</p><p>A lot of it in my mind is just pure elitism.  Hell I love music and I still just don't get it.  Having taken up electric guitar lately, it's gotten even worse with guitarists describing the sound of a particular instrument.  I kid you not, you can use ANY adjective you want when describing a sound to these people and they won't think anything of it.  Walk up to one and say "I just put these new pickups in my guitar.  They sound a bit buttery.  A little on the salty side but not too lazy.  On the low end though they are TOTALLY dark and shiny.".  Your test subject isn't likely to even bat an eye before agreeing but recommending that you switch to XYZ if you'd like your sound a bit more flimsy and dry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , it had to have been the cable.There is some wisdom in their story though .
Personaly , their data is a bit extreme .
I 've encoded not at 48Kbps before but certainly at 64Kbps ( if you honestly want to know , when ripping " adult " movies from DVD and trying to keep the file a certain size , it makes more sense to give the video extra bitrate and the audio less .
. .
) , and I could certainly tell the difference between 64 and 128Kbps ( which is what I rip most regular video 's audio track at ) .
Now I 've always ripped audio-only tracks at 192Kbps just because it does n't take too much extra space , but truthfully once you get above 128Kbps I certainly ca n't tell the difference between the compressed and original anymore .
And truthfully , I 'd wager than MOST " audiophiles " ca n't tell either.A lot of it in my mind is just pure elitism .
Hell I love music and I still just do n't get it .
Having taken up electric guitar lately , it 's gotten even worse with guitarists describing the sound of a particular instrument .
I kid you not , you can use ANY adjective you want when describing a sound to these people and they wo n't think anything of it .
Walk up to one and say " I just put these new pickups in my guitar .
They sound a bit buttery .
A little on the salty side but not too lazy .
On the low end though they are TOTALLY dark and shiny. " .
Your test subject is n't likely to even bat an eye before agreeing but recommending that you switch to XYZ if you 'd like your sound a bit more flimsy and dry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, it had to have been the cable.There is some wisdom in their story though.
Personaly, their data is a bit extreme.
I've encoded not at 48Kbps before but certainly at 64Kbps (if you honestly want to know, when ripping "adult" movies from DVD and trying to keep the file a certain size, it makes more sense to give the video extra bitrate and the audio less .
. .
), and I could certainly tell the difference between 64 and 128Kbps (which is what I rip most regular video's audio track at).
Now I've always ripped audio-only tracks at 192Kbps just because it doesn't take too much extra space, but truthfully once you get above 128Kbps I certainly can't tell the difference between the compressed and original anymore.
And truthfully, I'd wager than MOST "audiophiles" can't tell either.A lot of it in my mind is just pure elitism.
Hell I love music and I still just don't get it.
Having taken up electric guitar lately, it's gotten even worse with guitarists describing the sound of a particular instrument.
I kid you not, you can use ANY adjective you want when describing a sound to these people and they won't think anything of it.
Walk up to one and say "I just put these new pickups in my guitar.
They sound a bit buttery.
A little on the salty side but not too lazy.
On the low end though they are TOTALLY dark and shiny.".
Your test subject isn't likely to even bat an eye before agreeing but recommending that you switch to XYZ if you'd like your sound a bit more flimsy and dry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797599</id>
	<title>48kbps sucks</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1255981020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True audiophiles know that it's only past 120kbps that Bob Dylan speaks coherent English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True audiophiles know that it 's only past 120kbps that Bob Dylan speaks coherent English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True audiophiles know that it's only past 120kbps that Bob Dylan speaks coherent English.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796605</id>
	<title>If 1/3 got the answer wrong, then..</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1255977300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't the number who can't tell the difference actually be higher?</p><p>If you have two choices, and you don't know the answer, you randomly choose between the two. That means that in a random sample, the number of people who don't know the answer should split evenly between the right and wrong answer. This would mean that as many as 2/3 of the sample couldn't tell the difference between the two services.</p><p>Of course, it wouldn't be that high because some people honestly prefer a lower quality sound. There are people who still prefer the sound of vinyl records to the sound of digitally "perfect" CDs, but even so, a substantial portion of the listening public cannot tell the difference. I'd also be willing to bet that a substantial number of the ones who can tell the difference wouldn't care all that much.</p><p>To me this suggests that it would be a better business plan to stream at the lower cost, lower bit rate and put your money into other features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the number who ca n't tell the difference actually be higher ? If you have two choices , and you do n't know the answer , you randomly choose between the two .
That means that in a random sample , the number of people who do n't know the answer should split evenly between the right and wrong answer .
This would mean that as many as 2/3 of the sample could n't tell the difference between the two services.Of course , it would n't be that high because some people honestly prefer a lower quality sound .
There are people who still prefer the sound of vinyl records to the sound of digitally " perfect " CDs , but even so , a substantial portion of the listening public can not tell the difference .
I 'd also be willing to bet that a substantial number of the ones who can tell the difference would n't care all that much.To me this suggests that it would be a better business plan to stream at the lower cost , lower bit rate and put your money into other features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the number who can't tell the difference actually be higher?If you have two choices, and you don't know the answer, you randomly choose between the two.
That means that in a random sample, the number of people who don't know the answer should split evenly between the right and wrong answer.
This would mean that as many as 2/3 of the sample couldn't tell the difference between the two services.Of course, it wouldn't be that high because some people honestly prefer a lower quality sound.
There are people who still prefer the sound of vinyl records to the sound of digitally "perfect" CDs, but even so, a substantial portion of the listening public cannot tell the difference.
I'd also be willing to bet that a substantial number of the ones who can tell the difference wouldn't care all that much.To me this suggests that it would be a better business plan to stream at the lower cost, lower bit rate and put your money into other features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851</id>
	<title>That would be why...</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1255978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was all excited that my new car came with a satellite radio reciever, then bitterly disappointed with the sound quality and didn't subscribe. I'm considering replacing it with an HD reciever, once I hear one to find out what "HD" really means. Satellite radio is utter crap for sound quality.</p><p>CD quality mp3 is 320kbps.I can understand not being able to tell 48kbps from 160kbps (especially when a different codec is used for each, the quality of the codec and the configuration of it is key). It's hard to tell the difference between crap and sh*t. The test is only meaningful as a bitrate test if the same codec and encoding settings are used. Otherwise it's apples to oranges. The bitrate isn't nearly as important as how it's encoded unless both streams are done exactly the same way (except for bitrate).</p><p>This test smacks of Apple fanboism. Do a real bitrate test using the same codec and settings (outside of bitrate) and I guarantee you'll get better listener accuracy.</p><p>Why on earth would you do a bitrate test with two different codecs unless the test was really marketing propaganda for one of the codecs?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/filed in the Apple marketing bullshit drawer</p><p>This is a codec test, not a bitrate test. As a "can a user tell the difference between these bitrates" test, the results are completely worthless. It's more like a "AAC rulez! look a 48k AAC stream sounds as good as a 160kbps Ogg stream!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/barf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was all excited that my new car came with a satellite radio reciever , then bitterly disappointed with the sound quality and did n't subscribe .
I 'm considering replacing it with an HD reciever , once I hear one to find out what " HD " really means .
Satellite radio is utter crap for sound quality.CD quality mp3 is 320kbps.I can understand not being able to tell 48kbps from 160kbps ( especially when a different codec is used for each , the quality of the codec and the configuration of it is key ) .
It 's hard to tell the difference between crap and sh * t. The test is only meaningful as a bitrate test if the same codec and encoding settings are used .
Otherwise it 's apples to oranges .
The bitrate is n't nearly as important as how it 's encoded unless both streams are done exactly the same way ( except for bitrate ) .This test smacks of Apple fanboism .
Do a real bitrate test using the same codec and settings ( outside of bitrate ) and I guarantee you 'll get better listener accuracy.Why on earth would you do a bitrate test with two different codecs unless the test was really marketing propaganda for one of the codecs ?
/filed in the Apple marketing bullshit drawerThis is a codec test , not a bitrate test .
As a " can a user tell the difference between these bitrates " test , the results are completely worthless .
It 's more like a " AAC rulez !
look a 48k AAC stream sounds as good as a 160kbps Ogg stream !
" /barf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was all excited that my new car came with a satellite radio reciever, then bitterly disappointed with the sound quality and didn't subscribe.
I'm considering replacing it with an HD reciever, once I hear one to find out what "HD" really means.
Satellite radio is utter crap for sound quality.CD quality mp3 is 320kbps.I can understand not being able to tell 48kbps from 160kbps (especially when a different codec is used for each, the quality of the codec and the configuration of it is key).
It's hard to tell the difference between crap and sh*t. The test is only meaningful as a bitrate test if the same codec and encoding settings are used.
Otherwise it's apples to oranges.
The bitrate isn't nearly as important as how it's encoded unless both streams are done exactly the same way (except for bitrate).This test smacks of Apple fanboism.
Do a real bitrate test using the same codec and settings (outside of bitrate) and I guarantee you'll get better listener accuracy.Why on earth would you do a bitrate test with two different codecs unless the test was really marketing propaganda for one of the codecs?
/filed in the Apple marketing bullshit drawerThis is a codec test, not a bitrate test.
As a "can a user tell the difference between these bitrates" test, the results are completely worthless.
It's more like a "AAC rulez!
look a 48k AAC stream sounds as good as a 160kbps Ogg stream!
" /barf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797513</id>
	<title>Scientific?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not read through all of the responses so far so I may be duplicating some points.<br>What people think sounds better well... sounds better to them.  You can't argue that. Try telling someone that there favorite color is not blue and it should be red.  Comparison testing for sound quality is hard to do because it really comes down to just your own perception.  People have a natural tendency to confuse sound quality with sound volume.  Meaning, in most tests, the louder track will usually be considered the better sounding track. A more efficient speaker usually will always beat a less efficient speaker in tests unless the overall SPL can be made the same, every audio salesman from back in the day when they were relavent knew that and used that to their advantage.  Sound quality takes a more scientific approach that is just not there at the store or at your computer when you pushing A/B buttons for speakers or comparing different codecs.  I'm getting slightly off track here but the quality of the source material makes a huge difference as well.  Highly compressed and high average level recordings that have been the norm for the last 10 years do not sound good anyway and never will so trying to compare the final product on different equipment is almost useless.  Basically, the weak link is the source so it doesnt matter how good your equipment or codec is, it can not make it any better than the original.  An example, Whole Lotta Love from Led Zeppelin, tune into around 3:10-3:25 of the song, the master recording track for the guitar/drum beats are distorted with drops crackles.  I've listened to the remastered version and regular version of the CD, the original vinly and all have it there.  You can never get rid of that and on a decent stereo, it stands out as a huge flaw and is very noticeable.  With cheap headphones, stereo or crappy MP3 rip, you would probably never notice it making the cheap system sound as good as the nice system or even better.</p><p>Bottom line, I like reading and looking at sound test results but often, the do not reflect what I notice or what I like which is back to my first statement.  What people think sounds better well... sounds better to them, you can't argue that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not read through all of the responses so far so I may be duplicating some points.What people think sounds better well... sounds better to them .
You ca n't argue that .
Try telling someone that there favorite color is not blue and it should be red .
Comparison testing for sound quality is hard to do because it really comes down to just your own perception .
People have a natural tendency to confuse sound quality with sound volume .
Meaning , in most tests , the louder track will usually be considered the better sounding track .
A more efficient speaker usually will always beat a less efficient speaker in tests unless the overall SPL can be made the same , every audio salesman from back in the day when they were relavent knew that and used that to their advantage .
Sound quality takes a more scientific approach that is just not there at the store or at your computer when you pushing A/B buttons for speakers or comparing different codecs .
I 'm getting slightly off track here but the quality of the source material makes a huge difference as well .
Highly compressed and high average level recordings that have been the norm for the last 10 years do not sound good anyway and never will so trying to compare the final product on different equipment is almost useless .
Basically , the weak link is the source so it doesnt matter how good your equipment or codec is , it can not make it any better than the original .
An example , Whole Lotta Love from Led Zeppelin , tune into around 3 : 10-3 : 25 of the song , the master recording track for the guitar/drum beats are distorted with drops crackles .
I 've listened to the remastered version and regular version of the CD , the original vinly and all have it there .
You can never get rid of that and on a decent stereo , it stands out as a huge flaw and is very noticeable .
With cheap headphones , stereo or crappy MP3 rip , you would probably never notice it making the cheap system sound as good as the nice system or even better.Bottom line , I like reading and looking at sound test results but often , the do not reflect what I notice or what I like which is back to my first statement .
What people think sounds better well... sounds better to them , you ca n't argue that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not read through all of the responses so far so I may be duplicating some points.What people think sounds better well... sounds better to them.
You can't argue that.
Try telling someone that there favorite color is not blue and it should be red.
Comparison testing for sound quality is hard to do because it really comes down to just your own perception.
People have a natural tendency to confuse sound quality with sound volume.
Meaning, in most tests, the louder track will usually be considered the better sounding track.
A more efficient speaker usually will always beat a less efficient speaker in tests unless the overall SPL can be made the same, every audio salesman from back in the day when they were relavent knew that and used that to their advantage.
Sound quality takes a more scientific approach that is just not there at the store or at your computer when you pushing A/B buttons for speakers or comparing different codecs.
I'm getting slightly off track here but the quality of the source material makes a huge difference as well.
Highly compressed and high average level recordings that have been the norm for the last 10 years do not sound good anyway and never will so trying to compare the final product on different equipment is almost useless.
Basically, the weak link is the source so it doesnt matter how good your equipment or codec is, it can not make it any better than the original.
An example, Whole Lotta Love from Led Zeppelin, tune into around 3:10-3:25 of the song, the master recording track for the guitar/drum beats are distorted with drops crackles.
I've listened to the remastered version and regular version of the CD, the original vinly and all have it there.
You can never get rid of that and on a decent stereo, it stands out as a huge flaw and is very noticeable.
With cheap headphones, stereo or crappy MP3 rip, you would probably never notice it making the cheap system sound as good as the nice system or even better.Bottom line, I like reading and looking at sound test results but often, the do not reflect what I notice or what I like which is back to my first statement.
What people think sounds better well... sounds better to them, you can't argue that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797423</id>
	<title>Next Time use an orchestra recording</title>
	<author>VisiX</author>
	<datestamp>1255980300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Billie Jean is already highly compressed pop music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billie Jean is already highly compressed pop music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billie Jean is already highly compressed pop music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799007</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1255985760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would be more impressed if the same encoding format was used. I think both samples should have been ogg or aac and not a mix. If comparing aac at 48 and 160 are the results different? Same goes for ogg at 48 and 160?</p></div><p>That would only make any sense if the point of the test was to compare a particular bitrate and codec to another.</p><p>If you had read the article, or even the summary, you will see they are comparing one online music service to another online music service.</p><p>In THAT test, using any bitrate and codec combination that is NOT used by the online service you are comparing would not make any sense.</p><p>Service one uses one codec at one bitrate.   Service two uses another codec at another bitrate.<br>To compare those two services, you must compare the exact codec and bitrate each uses.</p><p>So yes, you are correct in that they did not perform the test you want.  That hardly makes their results pointless, especially as it is a perfect comparison for the test they were doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be more impressed if the same encoding format was used .
I think both samples should have been ogg or aac and not a mix .
If comparing aac at 48 and 160 are the results different ?
Same goes for ogg at 48 and 160 ? That would only make any sense if the point of the test was to compare a particular bitrate and codec to another.If you had read the article , or even the summary , you will see they are comparing one online music service to another online music service.In THAT test , using any bitrate and codec combination that is NOT used by the online service you are comparing would not make any sense.Service one uses one codec at one bitrate .
Service two uses another codec at another bitrate.To compare those two services , you must compare the exact codec and bitrate each uses.So yes , you are correct in that they did not perform the test you want .
That hardly makes their results pointless , especially as it is a perfect comparison for the test they were doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be more impressed if the same encoding format was used.
I think both samples should have been ogg or aac and not a mix.
If comparing aac at 48 and 160 are the results different?
Same goes for ogg at 48 and 160?That would only make any sense if the point of the test was to compare a particular bitrate and codec to another.If you had read the article, or even the summary, you will see they are comparing one online music service to another online music service.In THAT test, using any bitrate and codec combination that is NOT used by the online service you are comparing would not make any sense.Service one uses one codec at one bitrate.
Service two uses another codec at another bitrate.To compare those two services, you must compare the exact codec and bitrate each uses.So yes, you are correct in that they did not perform the test you want.
That hardly makes their results pointless, especially as it is a perfect comparison for the test they were doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802597</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1255960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>128Kbps for what codec?  AAC, 128Kbps is good.  MP3?  128Kbps sucks for cymbals and similar sounds and is much better at 160Kbps or 192Kbps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>128Kbps for what codec ?
AAC , 128Kbps is good .
MP3 ? 128Kbps sucks for cymbals and similar sounds and is much better at 160Kbps or 192Kbps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>128Kbps for what codec?
AAC, 128Kbps is good.
MP3?  128Kbps sucks for cymbals and similar sounds and is much better at 160Kbps or 192Kbps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798639</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the sound is clean</title>
	<author>NathanWoodruff</author>
	<datestamp>1255984560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Most people can't. When I used to go to church on a weekly basis, there was this guy in his middle to late 60's running the PA system for the church.

He was horrible as he couldn't hear the high pitched feedback as the preacher walked in front of the speakers with the mic. The feedback was horribly loud and I would have to cover my ears.

One Sunday morning I was running late and got there about 15 min late. As soon as I opened the door to the church I could hear the high pitch constant squeel. As I opened the door to the auditorium, it was almost deafening. I cover my ears and walk in. I sit down in the back of the church. I look up and the 200 to 300 people sitting there were all fine and good.

I look around to notice that of all the people sitting there there were only 4 or 5 people with fingers in their ears. So, as only 1/2 of a percent or so of people can hear that high of frequency, I'm not surprised of these findings.

 I stopped going not long after that. But, it had nothing to do with the old guy running the PA board.

Nathan</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people ca n't .
When I used to go to church on a weekly basis , there was this guy in his middle to late 60 's running the PA system for the church .
He was horrible as he could n't hear the high pitched feedback as the preacher walked in front of the speakers with the mic .
The feedback was horribly loud and I would have to cover my ears .
One Sunday morning I was running late and got there about 15 min late .
As soon as I opened the door to the church I could hear the high pitch constant squeel .
As I opened the door to the auditorium , it was almost deafening .
I cover my ears and walk in .
I sit down in the back of the church .
I look up and the 200 to 300 people sitting there were all fine and good .
I look around to notice that of all the people sitting there there were only 4 or 5 people with fingers in their ears .
So , as only 1/2 of a percent or so of people can hear that high of frequency , I 'm not surprised of these findings .
I stopped going not long after that .
But , it had nothing to do with the old guy running the PA board .
Nathan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Most people can't.
When I used to go to church on a weekly basis, there was this guy in his middle to late 60's running the PA system for the church.
He was horrible as he couldn't hear the high pitched feedback as the preacher walked in front of the speakers with the mic.
The feedback was horribly loud and I would have to cover my ears.
One Sunday morning I was running late and got there about 15 min late.
As soon as I opened the door to the church I could hear the high pitch constant squeel.
As I opened the door to the auditorium, it was almost deafening.
I cover my ears and walk in.
I sit down in the back of the church.
I look up and the 200 to 300 people sitting there were all fine and good.
I look around to notice that of all the people sitting there there were only 4 or 5 people with fingers in their ears.
So, as only 1/2 of a percent or so of people can hear that high of frequency, I'm not surprised of these findings.
I stopped going not long after that.
But, it had nothing to do with the old guy running the PA board.
Nathan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797925</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on what you're used to hearing</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255982280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl.</i></p><p>Hardly. Vinyl had its advantages and disadvantages; it had a superior frequency response and no alias distortion, but lower dynamic range (even though today's engineers use less range than vinyl was capable of) and noise. This only applies to vinyl made with 100\% analog; vinyl from a digital master has the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.</p><p>OTOH compressed audio's only advantage over a CD or FLAC is it's smaller file size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow 's vinyl.Hardly .
Vinyl had its advantages and disadvantages ; it had a superior frequency response and no alias distortion , but lower dynamic range ( even though today 's engineers use less range than vinyl was capable of ) and noise .
This only applies to vinyl made with 100 \ % analog ; vinyl from a digital master has the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.OTOH compressed audio 's only advantage over a CD or FLAC is it 's smaller file size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl.Hardly.
Vinyl had its advantages and disadvantages; it had a superior frequency response and no alias distortion, but lower dynamic range (even though today's engineers use less range than vinyl was capable of) and noise.
This only applies to vinyl made with 100\% analog; vinyl from a digital master has the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.OTOH compressed audio's only advantage over a CD or FLAC is it's smaller file size.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796361</id>
	<title>Age Dependent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the people I know that appreciate the quality of their music and acknowledge when I play a good quality flac recording of a particular song for them are over 30.  I think it could be an age dependent thing, with regards to the mix quality of music put out today and how young people listen to it.  In my personal opinion, the advent of limewire and such have supported the spreading of lower quality mp3s, and teens these days seem to accept that as the "standard" of music quality.  As a little anecdotal evidence supporting my theory, my 17 year old sister is constantly downloading and playing low quality music and throwing it on her iPod.  She doesn't seem to care about the quality, as long as she can listen to her hits and what ever volume she cares (even if I can hear it coming from her headphones from all the way across the room.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the people I know that appreciate the quality of their music and acknowledge when I play a good quality flac recording of a particular song for them are over 30 .
I think it could be an age dependent thing , with regards to the mix quality of music put out today and how young people listen to it .
In my personal opinion , the advent of limewire and such have supported the spreading of lower quality mp3s , and teens these days seem to accept that as the " standard " of music quality .
As a little anecdotal evidence supporting my theory , my 17 year old sister is constantly downloading and playing low quality music and throwing it on her iPod .
She does n't seem to care about the quality , as long as she can listen to her hits and what ever volume she cares ( even if I can hear it coming from her headphones from all the way across the room .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the people I know that appreciate the quality of their music and acknowledge when I play a good quality flac recording of a particular song for them are over 30.
I think it could be an age dependent thing, with regards to the mix quality of music put out today and how young people listen to it.
In my personal opinion, the advent of limewire and such have supported the spreading of lower quality mp3s, and teens these days seem to accept that as the "standard" of music quality.
As a little anecdotal evidence supporting my theory, my 17 year old sister is constantly downloading and playing low quality music and throwing it on her iPod.
She doesn't seem to care about the quality, as long as she can listen to her hits and what ever volume she cares (even if I can hear it coming from her headphones from all the way across the room.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801825</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm...Low E on a guitar (not even close to a "low" instrument) is 72hz. Good luck with your tin can radio!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm...Low E on a guitar ( not even close to a " low " instrument ) is 72hz .
Good luck with your tin can radio !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...Low E on a guitar (not even close to a "low" instrument) is 72hz.
Good luck with your tin can radio!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29806407</id>
	<title>WTF /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF 2/3 did hear the difference, which proves there is a difference , so how can you use this clear result to argue the opposite is true, sjeesh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF 2/3 did hear the difference , which proves there is a difference , so how can you use this clear result to argue the opposite is true , sjeesh / .
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF 2/3 did hear the difference, which proves there is a difference , so how can you use this clear result to argue the opposite is true, sjeesh /.
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797155</id>
	<title>As long as I remain to have a choice</title>
	<author>strstr</author>
	<datestamp>1255979220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter what other people prefer, I'll stick with my WMA Lossless and FLAC anyday. I'm very sensitive, maybe it's just my set up (Zune 120 + Westone 3 earphones).</p><p>The worst of the worst lossy compression I've ever heard was with QuickTime/iTunes AAC encoder, it cuts all the low frequencies and leaves the bass really dull.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what other people prefer , I 'll stick with my WMA Lossless and FLAC anyday .
I 'm very sensitive , maybe it 's just my set up ( Zune 120 + Westone 3 earphones ) .The worst of the worst lossy compression I 've ever heard was with QuickTime/iTunes AAC encoder , it cuts all the low frequencies and leaves the bass really dull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what other people prefer, I'll stick with my WMA Lossless and FLAC anyday.
I'm very sensitive, maybe it's just my set up (Zune 120 + Westone 3 earphones).The worst of the worst lossy compression I've ever heard was with QuickTime/iTunes AAC encoder, it cuts all the low frequencies and leaves the bass really dull.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29812273</id>
	<title>Semantics, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate it when they put it like that.  It should be "1/3 of people AREN'T PERCEPTIVE ENOUGH to tell the difference..."  The difference is there; it's fact.  Just because you haven't developed your perception enough to tell doesn't mean it doesn't matter and that there is no difference. (people who say the same about framerates drive me mad as well)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate it when they put it like that .
It should be " 1/3 of people ARE N'T PERCEPTIVE ENOUGH to tell the difference... " The difference is there ; it 's fact .
Just because you have n't developed your perception enough to tell does n't mean it does n't matter and that there is no difference .
( people who say the same about framerates drive me mad as well )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate it when they put it like that.
It should be "1/3 of people AREN'T PERCEPTIVE ENOUGH to tell the difference..."  The difference is there; it's fact.
Just because you haven't developed your perception enough to tell doesn't mean it doesn't matter and that there is no difference.
(people who say the same about framerates drive me mad as well)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804267</id>
	<title>ATRAC</title>
	<author>TheBilgeRat</author>
	<datestamp>1255975380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>at 292kbs sounds great-faithfully reproduces the "artifacts" on my vinyl cleanly without clipping or distortion, and gives me hours of listening enjoyment, even if I "encode" at LP2 or even LP4.  my portable MD player lasts days without charging the battery and does exactly what I want it to do-play music.<br> <br> Now, git offah mah lawn!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>at 292kbs sounds great-faithfully reproduces the " artifacts " on my vinyl cleanly without clipping or distortion , and gives me hours of listening enjoyment , even if I " encode " at LP2 or even LP4 .
my portable MD player lasts days without charging the battery and does exactly what I want it to do-play music .
Now , git offah mah lawn !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at 292kbs sounds great-faithfully reproduces the "artifacts" on my vinyl cleanly without clipping or distortion, and gives me hours of listening enjoyment, even if I "encode" at LP2 or even LP4.
my portable MD player lasts days without charging the battery and does exactly what I want it to do-play music.
Now, git offah mah lawn!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802027</id>
	<title>Re:I stopped at</title>
	<author>melatonin</author>
	<datestamp>1255956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's a pretty useless test. An "empty" song with one vocal and one instrument (I'm not talking about Billie Jean, I'm just stating a metric) wouldn't sound that wrong at a low bitrate. However, if you use a song with several distinct instruments, spanning high trebles and deep, smooth bass, and add in a clear voice, 48kbps will totally fall apart.</p><p>Basically, if you have content with detail &amp; range at the same time, you require a higher bitrate. As far as how good it sounds, well, if the music requires a higher bitrate, it'll sound bad no matter what. If a codec is designed to make low bitrates sound "pleasing" vs. "accurate when possible," well, people might like the fact that it sounds pleasing. I don't know if AAC is designed to sound just pleasing at low bitrates, but it's not a bad idea since it can't sound accurate anyway.</p><p>It's like vinyl. People like vinyl because the process of converting vinyl waveforms to play on speakers is pretty easy, and purely analog. If you're going to listen to a CD with high quality speakers, you absolutely must have a great digital-to-audio converter somewhere in the chain. With an ordinary DAC, good speakers will just make the music sound very "discrete" and digital (cheap speakers won't reproduce that level of detail, but will probably sound better playing records than they do playing CDs).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's a pretty useless test .
An " empty " song with one vocal and one instrument ( I 'm not talking about Billie Jean , I 'm just stating a metric ) would n't sound that wrong at a low bitrate .
However , if you use a song with several distinct instruments , spanning high trebles and deep , smooth bass , and add in a clear voice , 48kbps will totally fall apart.Basically , if you have content with detail &amp; range at the same time , you require a higher bitrate .
As far as how good it sounds , well , if the music requires a higher bitrate , it 'll sound bad no matter what .
If a codec is designed to make low bitrates sound " pleasing " vs. " accurate when possible , " well , people might like the fact that it sounds pleasing .
I do n't know if AAC is designed to sound just pleasing at low bitrates , but it 's not a bad idea since it ca n't sound accurate anyway.It 's like vinyl .
People like vinyl because the process of converting vinyl waveforms to play on speakers is pretty easy , and purely analog .
If you 're going to listen to a CD with high quality speakers , you absolutely must have a great digital-to-audio converter somewhere in the chain .
With an ordinary DAC , good speakers will just make the music sound very " discrete " and digital ( cheap speakers wo n't reproduce that level of detail , but will probably sound better playing records than they do playing CDs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's a pretty useless test.
An "empty" song with one vocal and one instrument (I'm not talking about Billie Jean, I'm just stating a metric) wouldn't sound that wrong at a low bitrate.
However, if you use a song with several distinct instruments, spanning high trebles and deep, smooth bass, and add in a clear voice, 48kbps will totally fall apart.Basically, if you have content with detail &amp; range at the same time, you require a higher bitrate.
As far as how good it sounds, well, if the music requires a higher bitrate, it'll sound bad no matter what.
If a codec is designed to make low bitrates sound "pleasing" vs. "accurate when possible," well, people might like the fact that it sounds pleasing.
I don't know if AAC is designed to sound just pleasing at low bitrates, but it's not a bad idea since it can't sound accurate anyway.It's like vinyl.
People like vinyl because the process of converting vinyl waveforms to play on speakers is pretty easy, and purely analog.
If you're going to listen to a CD with high quality speakers, you absolutely must have a great digital-to-audio converter somewhere in the chain.
With an ordinary DAC, good speakers will just make the music sound very "discrete" and digital (cheap speakers won't reproduce that level of detail, but will probably sound better playing records than they do playing CDs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796905</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to say I have no idea why they would compare entirely different codecs here. Not to mention that lots of people are simply not audiophiles or not folks with extremely discerning ears to quality. Plenty of people show that <a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38792" title="hydrogenaudio.org"> AAC/Vorbis is situational and sometimes one can work better or vice versa. </a> [hydrogenaudio.org]</p><p>As a musician, I've had lots of times where irrespective of my quality that I play people think everything is amazing/fantastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say I have no idea why they would compare entirely different codecs here .
Not to mention that lots of people are simply not audiophiles or not folks with extremely discerning ears to quality .
Plenty of people show that AAC/Vorbis is situational and sometimes one can work better or vice versa .
[ hydrogenaudio.org ] As a musician , I 've had lots of times where irrespective of my quality that I play people think everything is amazing/fantastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say I have no idea why they would compare entirely different codecs here.
Not to mention that lots of people are simply not audiophiles or not folks with extremely discerning ears to quality.
Plenty of people show that  AAC/Vorbis is situational and sometimes one can work better or vice versa.
[hydrogenaudio.org]As a musician, I've had lots of times where irrespective of my quality that I play people think everything is amazing/fantastic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799375</id>
	<title>Re:Relevant ?</title>
	<author>warkda rrior</author>
	<datestamp>1255943820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the article: "We dragged 16 people", I'm no stats engineer but isn't that far too low ?</p></div><p>Actually that's a typo. The original article mentioned that "[they] dr<b>u</b>gged 16 people."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " We dragged 16 people " , I 'm no stats engineer but is n't that far too low ? Actually that 's a typo .
The original article mentioned that " [ they ] drugged 16 people .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "We dragged 16 people", I'm no stats engineer but isn't that far too low ?Actually that's a typo.
The original article mentioned that "[they] drugged 16 people.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796929</id>
	<title>Re:not particularly surprising</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1255978500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most people only really have broad demands on how their music sounds. Give them fairly deep bass, no obvious crackle at the high end, and they'll pretty much be happy with anything in between.</i></p><p>If by "music" you exclude most jazz, classical, and choral, among other, then probably yes.</p><p>I still blast pop music from time to time, but most of my recordings are classical in nature, and then are primarily solo instruments.  Classical guitar recordings, for example, encoded with low bitrates are basically unlistenable, while higher bitrates are iffy.</p><p>When I hear "It sounds OK to me", I'm tempted to picture someone who grew up eating a regular diet of fast food commenting on the quality of food sold at farmer's markets, or on the menu choices of a good restaurant.  Some people can't tell the difference simply because they never learned how.  That's not to say you need to be a farmer or gourmet chef to know what good food is, or that you need to be an audiophile to discern a bad reproduction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people only really have broad demands on how their music sounds .
Give them fairly deep bass , no obvious crackle at the high end , and they 'll pretty much be happy with anything in between.If by " music " you exclude most jazz , classical , and choral , among other , then probably yes.I still blast pop music from time to time , but most of my recordings are classical in nature , and then are primarily solo instruments .
Classical guitar recordings , for example , encoded with low bitrates are basically unlistenable , while higher bitrates are iffy.When I hear " It sounds OK to me " , I 'm tempted to picture someone who grew up eating a regular diet of fast food commenting on the quality of food sold at farmer 's markets , or on the menu choices of a good restaurant .
Some people ca n't tell the difference simply because they never learned how .
That 's not to say you need to be a farmer or gourmet chef to know what good food is , or that you need to be an audiophile to discern a bad reproduction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people only really have broad demands on how their music sounds.
Give them fairly deep bass, no obvious crackle at the high end, and they'll pretty much be happy with anything in between.If by "music" you exclude most jazz, classical, and choral, among other, then probably yes.I still blast pop music from time to time, but most of my recordings are classical in nature, and then are primarily solo instruments.
Classical guitar recordings, for example, encoded with low bitrates are basically unlistenable, while higher bitrates are iffy.When I hear "It sounds OK to me", I'm tempted to picture someone who grew up eating a regular diet of fast food commenting on the quality of food sold at farmer's markets, or on the menu choices of a good restaurant.
Some people can't tell the difference simply because they never learned how.
That's not to say you need to be a farmer or gourmet chef to know what good food is, or that you need to be an audiophile to discern a bad reproduction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</id>
	<title>bad comparison?</title>
	<author>MacColossus</author>
	<datestamp>1255976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be more impressed if the same encoding format was used. I think both samples should have been ogg or aac and not a mix. If comparing aac at 48 and 160 are the results different? Same goes for ogg at 48 and 160?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be more impressed if the same encoding format was used .
I think both samples should have been ogg or aac and not a mix .
If comparing aac at 48 and 160 are the results different ?
Same goes for ogg at 48 and 160 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be more impressed if the same encoding format was used.
I think both samples should have been ogg or aac and not a mix.
If comparing aac at 48 and 160 are the results different?
Same goes for ogg at 48 and 160?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797343</id>
	<title>not surprising for voice only mono</title>
	<author>darthcamaro</author>
	<datestamp>1255979940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>with single speaker mono there isn't much of a difference - but try the same test with multiple speakers and there is a clear difference</htmltext>
<tokenext>with single speaker mono there is n't much of a difference - but try the same test with multiple speakers and there is a clear difference</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with single speaker mono there isn't much of a difference - but try the same test with multiple speakers and there is a clear difference</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799477</id>
	<title>very misleading</title>
	<author>tisch</author>
	<datestamp>1255944240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>would have been a relevant survey if it was the same audio codec.</htmltext>
<tokenext>would have been a relevant survey if it was the same audio codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would have been a relevant survey if it was the same audio codec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796509</id>
	<title>OGG v AAC+ compression</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1255977000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression</i>"<br> <br>
HOW do the compression efficiency of both compare and what royalties patent rights apply to either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service , whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC + compression " HOW do the compression efficiency of both compare and what royalties patent rights apply to either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression" 
HOW do the compression efficiency of both compare and what royalties patent rights apply to either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796243</id>
	<title>Bad Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 1/3 thought the lower quality was superior, but 1/2 of people who can't tell still guess correctly, then that means 2/3 of people can't tell</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 1/3 thought the lower quality was superior , but 1/2 of people who ca n't tell still guess correctly , then that means 2/3 of people ca n't tell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 1/3 thought the lower quality was superior, but 1/2 of people who can't tell still guess correctly, then that means 2/3 of people can't tell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804139</id>
	<title>time period of the test?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over what period of time did the participants make this judgement?</p><p>I have to say I struggle to tell the difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s, at least on first listen.  Though I would have thought I could tell 48 from 160.</p><p>But there's a big difference between picking one or the other after a single 3 minute track of each and sustained listening over a period of time to one or the other.  I mean like several days of having them on your mp3 player.</p><p>Back when I had a minidisk I tried recording stuff with atrac3plus on the higher compression (their LP4 mode) and on first listen I'd think, "oh, it sounds good enough".  But after a day or so  of listening to MDs so encoded, it got very annoying and it became quite obvious it was inferior to the LP2 mode (which was 132kb/s) .  It can take a while to notice, at least if you aren't a super-aware hi-fi buff.  A short comparison test doesn't mean much.</p><p>PS if you hi-fi fanatics are wondering why people don't buy true hi-fi any more, its because we can't afford the large houses to put them in!  If you can only afford a tiny flat with no sound-insulation there's not a lot of point in expensive hifi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over what period of time did the participants make this judgement ? I have to say I struggle to tell the difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s , at least on first listen .
Though I would have thought I could tell 48 from 160.But there 's a big difference between picking one or the other after a single 3 minute track of each and sustained listening over a period of time to one or the other .
I mean like several days of having them on your mp3 player.Back when I had a minidisk I tried recording stuff with atrac3plus on the higher compression ( their LP4 mode ) and on first listen I 'd think , " oh , it sounds good enough " .
But after a day or so of listening to MDs so encoded , it got very annoying and it became quite obvious it was inferior to the LP2 mode ( which was 132kb/s ) .
It can take a while to notice , at least if you are n't a super-aware hi-fi buff .
A short comparison test does n't mean much.PS if you hi-fi fanatics are wondering why people do n't buy true hi-fi any more , its because we ca n't afford the large houses to put them in !
If you can only afford a tiny flat with no sound-insulation there 's not a lot of point in expensive hifi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over what period of time did the participants make this judgement?I have to say I struggle to tell the difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s, at least on first listen.
Though I would have thought I could tell 48 from 160.But there's a big difference between picking one or the other after a single 3 minute track of each and sustained listening over a period of time to one or the other.
I mean like several days of having them on your mp3 player.Back when I had a minidisk I tried recording stuff with atrac3plus on the higher compression (their LP4 mode) and on first listen I'd think, "oh, it sounds good enough".
But after a day or so  of listening to MDs so encoded, it got very annoying and it became quite obvious it was inferior to the LP2 mode (which was 132kb/s) .
It can take a while to notice, at least if you aren't a super-aware hi-fi buff.
A short comparison test doesn't mean much.PS if you hi-fi fanatics are wondering why people don't buy true hi-fi any more, its because we can't afford the large houses to put them in!
If you can only afford a tiny flat with no sound-insulation there's not a lot of point in expensive hifi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801497</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1255953540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't agree. AAC+ is designed for low-bitrate use, and uses a bunch of techniques targeted at that. Vorbis doesn't.</p><p>There is no one codec that is good at all bitrates, unless it incorporates a variety of techniques.</p><p>Using the best tool for the job is a perfectly valid comparison, IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree .
AAC + is designed for low-bitrate use , and uses a bunch of techniques targeted at that .
Vorbis does n't.There is no one codec that is good at all bitrates , unless it incorporates a variety of techniques.Using the best tool for the job is a perfectly valid comparison , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree.
AAC+ is designed for low-bitrate use, and uses a bunch of techniques targeted at that.
Vorbis doesn't.There is no one codec that is good at all bitrates, unless it incorporates a variety of techniques.Using the best tool for the job is a perfectly valid comparison, IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798587</id>
	<title>I can definitely tell the difference...</title>
	<author>Mr\_Congeniality</author>
	<datestamp>1255984440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can definitely tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio completely.

320kbps and Lossless can be a gray line sometimes, but I can definitely tell 256kbps and 192kbps between lossless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can definitely tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio completely .
320kbps and Lossless can be a gray line sometimes , but I can definitely tell 256kbps and 192kbps between lossless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can definitely tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio completely.
320kbps and Lossless can be a gray line sometimes, but I can definitely tell 256kbps and 192kbps between lossless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796483</id>
	<title>Speakers</title>
	<author>Talavis</author>
	<datestamp>1255976880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's quite a bit about the quality of your speakers. I couldn't hear any difference between the qualities until I got my $200+ speakers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's quite a bit about the quality of your speakers .
I could n't hear any difference between the qualities until I got my $ 200 + speakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's quite a bit about the quality of your speakers.
I couldn't hear any difference between the qualities until I got my $200+ speakers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796343</id>
	<title>compared to what ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say the only valid comparison is listening to the live music, vs the digital format. This way you compare to the original and your not just saying which sounds better (which is subjective). I once worked with a audio system designer and everything was tested using analogue formats with various types of music preferably classical because of it's  range in sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say the only valid comparison is listening to the live music , vs the digital format .
This way you compare to the original and your not just saying which sounds better ( which is subjective ) .
I once worked with a audio system designer and everything was tested using analogue formats with various types of music preferably classical because of it 's range in sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say the only valid comparison is listening to the live music, vs the digital format.
This way you compare to the original and your not just saying which sounds better (which is subjective).
I once worked with a audio system designer and everything was tested using analogue formats with various types of music preferably classical because of it's  range in sound.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797195</id>
	<title>Umm. No.</title>
	<author>rmcgehee</author>
	<datestamp>1255979340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title wrongly assumes that anyone who prefers the lower quality recording can't tell the difference between the recordings. That's clearly not correct. Perhaps these one third can tell the difference but just prefer lossy recordings or AAC+ compression over OGG compression.</p><p>You can't ask people what their opinion is and then tell them they are either wrong or have no opinion because you don't share it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title wrongly assumes that anyone who prefers the lower quality recording ca n't tell the difference between the recordings .
That 's clearly not correct .
Perhaps these one third can tell the difference but just prefer lossy recordings or AAC + compression over OGG compression.You ca n't ask people what their opinion is and then tell them they are either wrong or have no opinion because you do n't share it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title wrongly assumes that anyone who prefers the lower quality recording can't tell the difference between the recordings.
That's clearly not correct.
Perhaps these one third can tell the difference but just prefer lossy recordings or AAC+ compression over OGG compression.You can't ask people what their opinion is and then tell them they are either wrong or have no opinion because you don't share it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796515</id>
	<title>Big deal!</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1255977000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the big deal? Two thirds of the people can't even tell decent music from out of tune shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal ?
Two thirds of the people ca n't even tell decent music from out of tune shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal?
Two thirds of the people can't even tell decent music from out of tune shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798253</id>
	<title>Ear pops?</title>
	<author>Magic Field Index</author>
	<datestamp>1255983360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>48 vs 160 Kbps does not fully describe the difference of what went into their ears, it depends on the music as well. How about the actual frequency range/distribution of each of the samples for example?

Other questions to ask: did the participants fly or experience any other drastic change in altitude (ear-popping) shortly before the test? Did they have their coffee yet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>48 vs 160 Kbps does not fully describe the difference of what went into their ears , it depends on the music as well .
How about the actual frequency range/distribution of each of the samples for example ?
Other questions to ask : did the participants fly or experience any other drastic change in altitude ( ear-popping ) shortly before the test ?
Did they have their coffee yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>48 vs 160 Kbps does not fully describe the difference of what went into their ears, it depends on the music as well.
How about the actual frequency range/distribution of each of the samples for example?
Other questions to ask: did the participants fly or experience any other drastic change in altitude (ear-popping) shortly before the test?
Did they have their coffee yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796411</id>
	<title>And you point is?</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1255976580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One third of the US population cant tell "shit from shineola".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One third of the US population cant tell " shit from shineola " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One third of the US population cant tell "shit from shineola".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797137</id>
	<title>Ogg v AAC is an INVALID TEST</title>
	<author>drumcat</author>
	<datestamp>1255979160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is stupid.  As someone who deals with these all day long, and I get paid to do so, this is absolutely an invalid conclusion.

Logically, if you tested ogg 48 vs ogg 160, or AAC 48 vs AAC 160, great.  You have a scientific test.

If you test a codec that really is DESIGNED to perform best at low rates, specifically AAC HEv2 @ 48k, you'll find that it's such a good codec that it's unsurprising that 1/3 of any group couldn't tell.  The reason is that AAC @ 48 is full human-hearing spectrum, unlike many other codecs including the venerable mp3.

It's just not fair.  AAC HE at 48 is equivalent in quality roughly to solid FM radio, mostly through psycho-acoustic "tricks" with the way it handles channels and reconstructs the spectrum.  It uses more CPU to decode, and makes some very good assumptions in recreating the sounds it is designed for.

What would be interesting is if the same 1/3 couldn't tell the difference between 48k AAC and uncompressed 24-bit 48k sample (those 48's are different, I'm aware).  My guess is that you would still have 1/4 of your people not able to tell.

I love AAC audio, but this is just a fallacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid .
As someone who deals with these all day long , and I get paid to do so , this is absolutely an invalid conclusion .
Logically , if you tested ogg 48 vs ogg 160 , or AAC 48 vs AAC 160 , great .
You have a scientific test .
If you test a codec that really is DESIGNED to perform best at low rates , specifically AAC HEv2 @ 48k , you 'll find that it 's such a good codec that it 's unsurprising that 1/3 of any group could n't tell .
The reason is that AAC @ 48 is full human-hearing spectrum , unlike many other codecs including the venerable mp3 .
It 's just not fair .
AAC HE at 48 is equivalent in quality roughly to solid FM radio , mostly through psycho-acoustic " tricks " with the way it handles channels and reconstructs the spectrum .
It uses more CPU to decode , and makes some very good assumptions in recreating the sounds it is designed for .
What would be interesting is if the same 1/3 could n't tell the difference between 48k AAC and uncompressed 24-bit 48k sample ( those 48 's are different , I 'm aware ) .
My guess is that you would still have 1/4 of your people not able to tell .
I love AAC audio , but this is just a fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid.
As someone who deals with these all day long, and I get paid to do so, this is absolutely an invalid conclusion.
Logically, if you tested ogg 48 vs ogg 160, or AAC 48 vs AAC 160, great.
You have a scientific test.
If you test a codec that really is DESIGNED to perform best at low rates, specifically AAC HEv2 @ 48k, you'll find that it's such a good codec that it's unsurprising that 1/3 of any group couldn't tell.
The reason is that AAC @ 48 is full human-hearing spectrum, unlike many other codecs including the venerable mp3.
It's just not fair.
AAC HE at 48 is equivalent in quality roughly to solid FM radio, mostly through psycho-acoustic "tricks" with the way it handles channels and reconstructs the spectrum.
It uses more CPU to decode, and makes some very good assumptions in recreating the sounds it is designed for.
What would be interesting is if the same 1/3 couldn't tell the difference between 48k AAC and uncompressed 24-bit 48k sample (those 48's are different, I'm aware).
My guess is that you would still have 1/4 of your people not able to tell.
I love AAC audio, but this is just a fallacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796353</id>
	<title>sound quality / music quality</title>
	<author>sous\_rature</author>
	<datestamp>1255976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One reason lower quality playback often sounds better is it smooths out some of the shortcomings in the original recording.  A lot of people prefer lo-def for casual listening because the most authentic sound isn't always the easiest on the ears.

NYT article on this a while back, but couldn't find it immediately...</htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason lower quality playback often sounds better is it smooths out some of the shortcomings in the original recording .
A lot of people prefer lo-def for casual listening because the most authentic sound is n't always the easiest on the ears .
NYT article on this a while back , but could n't find it immediately.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason lower quality playback often sounds better is it smooths out some of the shortcomings in the original recording.
A lot of people prefer lo-def for casual listening because the most authentic sound isn't always the easiest on the ears.
NYT article on this a while back, but couldn't find it immediately...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796539</id>
	<title>Personally, I'm holding out for</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1255977060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the dupe of the article, titled, "2/3 of People Can Tell 48Kps Audio From 160Kps"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the dupe of the article , titled , " 2/3 of People Can Tell 48Kps Audio From 160Kps "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the dupe of the article, titled, "2/3 of People Can Tell 48Kps Audio From 160Kps"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800895</id>
	<title>Re:Preferences</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1255950300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because the real life equivalent will 'subsume' the lower quality muddy bass speakers every time. In other words, the better speakers can do everything the crappier speakers can, but not vice versa. So if the listener prefers muddy bass, then that can be 'emulated' perfectly with the better speakers by adjusting the original mp3/WAV data.</p><p>Then it can be up to the composer or bass/treble controls what sound is desired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because the real life equivalent will 'subsume ' the lower quality muddy bass speakers every time .
In other words , the better speakers can do everything the crappier speakers can , but not vice versa .
So if the listener prefers muddy bass , then that can be 'emulated ' perfectly with the better speakers by adjusting the original mp3/WAV data.Then it can be up to the composer or bass/treble controls what sound is desired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because the real life equivalent will 'subsume' the lower quality muddy bass speakers every time.
In other words, the better speakers can do everything the crappier speakers can, but not vice versa.
So if the listener prefers muddy bass, then that can be 'emulated' perfectly with the better speakers by adjusting the original mp3/WAV data.Then it can be up to the composer or bass/treble controls what sound is desired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435</id>
	<title>Preferences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to sell audio equipment as a teenager and I recall different people had different ideas about what constituted quality audio.  Some people liked deep muddy base, other people liked loud midranges, etc..  I think the study's conclusion is all wrong... it's not that people can't tell the difference, it's that people sometimes prefer the lower quality bitrate.  Personally, I just want things to sound representative of the real-life equivalent.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to sell audio equipment as a teenager and I recall different people had different ideas about what constituted quality audio .
Some people liked deep muddy base , other people liked loud midranges , etc.. I think the study 's conclusion is all wrong... it 's not that people ca n't tell the difference , it 's that people sometimes prefer the lower quality bitrate .
Personally , I just want things to sound representative of the real-life equivalent .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to sell audio equipment as a teenager and I recall different people had different ideas about what constituted quality audio.
Some people liked deep muddy base, other people liked loud midranges, etc..  I think the study's conclusion is all wrong... it's not that people can't tell the difference, it's that people sometimes prefer the lower quality bitrate.
Personally, I just want things to sound representative of the real-life equivalent.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797607</id>
	<title>Re:The number should be doubled.</title>
	<author>xanderrs</author>
	<datestamp>1255981080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the 50\% that guessed wrong may already be included in the 1/3, so you can't just add the two numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the 50 \ % that guessed wrong may already be included in the 1/3 , so you ca n't just add the two numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the 50\% that guessed wrong may already be included in the 1/3, so you can't just add the two numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that most of the compression gained from mp3 is gained by removing frequencies we can't hear anyway, speakers with poor frequency response absolutely 100\% do mask this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that most of the compression gained from mp3 is gained by removing frequencies we ca n't hear anyway , speakers with poor frequency response absolutely 100 \ % do mask this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that most of the compression gained from mp3 is gained by removing frequencies we can't hear anyway, speakers with poor frequency response absolutely 100\% do mask this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796707</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1255977720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ogg makes a huge difference too.  A 128kbps VBR ogg sounds about as good as a 160-192k VBR MP3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg makes a huge difference too .
A 128kbps VBR ogg sounds about as good as a 160-192k VBR MP3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg makes a huge difference too.
A 128kbps VBR ogg sounds about as good as a 160-192k VBR MP3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796299</id>
	<title>Relevant ?</title>
	<author>Jerome H</author>
	<datestamp>1255976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: "We dragged 16 people", I'm no stats engineer but isn't that far too low ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " We dragged 16 people " , I 'm no stats engineer but is n't that far too low ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "We dragged 16 people", I'm no stats engineer but isn't that far too low ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796305</id>
	<title>OGG vs CNET</title>
	<author>janeuner</author>
	<datestamp>1255976220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OGG isn't a audio codec.<br>CNET isn't a tech news site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OGG is n't a audio codec.CNET is n't a tech news site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OGG isn't a audio codec.CNET isn't a tech news site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29813467</id>
	<title>How much of this is the Loudness War?</title>
	<author>SuiteSisterMary</author>
	<datestamp>1256029500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how much of this is the Loudness War and GIGO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much of this is the Loudness War and GIGO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much of this is the Loudness War and GIGO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799763</id>
	<title>Re:bad comparison?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255945260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't even "plain old AAC", it's AAC+, also known as HE-AAC. This codec is more CPU-intensive, less compatible (probably licensing royalties), but it is extremely impressive at lower bitrates. I think it was said that 48kbps HE-AAC is roughly equivalent in quality to 128 kbps MP3, but don't quote me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't even " plain old AAC " , it 's AAC + , also known as HE-AAC .
This codec is more CPU-intensive , less compatible ( probably licensing royalties ) , but it is extremely impressive at lower bitrates .
I think it was said that 48kbps HE-AAC is roughly equivalent in quality to 128 kbps MP3 , but do n't quote me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't even "plain old AAC", it's AAC+, also known as HE-AAC.
This codec is more CPU-intensive, less compatible (probably licensing royalties), but it is extremely impressive at lower bitrates.
I think it was said that 48kbps HE-AAC is roughly equivalent in quality to 128 kbps MP3, but don't quote me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796899</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.</p></div><p>Another thing is that majority of people actually have quite crappy speakers, atleast on computers. Lower bitrate sounds "better" on cheap speakers because it dumbs down highest frequency changes in the song.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.Another thing is that majority of people actually have quite crappy speakers , atleast on computers .
Lower bitrate sounds " better " on cheap speakers because it dumbs down highest frequency changes in the song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better.Another thing is that majority of people actually have quite crappy speakers, atleast on computers.
Lower bitrate sounds "better" on cheap speakers because it dumbs down highest frequency changes in the song.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796545</id>
	<title>in other news</title>
	<author>SafeMode</author>
	<datestamp>1255977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people hear things differently than others.  Also in the 5 o'clock hour we'll talk about how some people see better than other people.  And dont miss this week's special report on the varying ability of people to grasp sarcasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people hear things differently than others .
Also in the 5 o'clock hour we 'll talk about how some people see better than other people .
And dont miss this week 's special report on the varying ability of people to grasp sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people hear things differently than others.
Also in the 5 o'clock hour we'll talk about how some people see better than other people.
And dont miss this week's special report on the varying ability of people to grasp sarcasm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799085</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1255942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC, or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG, and you might have something meaningful.</p></div><p>Have something meaningful?  Such a test would fully destroy the results they are looking for!</p><p>They are comparing online service one, which uses only 48k AAC, with online service two which only uses 160k OGG.  Let me repeat and stress that.   They are comparing TWO ONLINE SERVICES.</p><p>Why on earth would you compare 48k OGG or 160k AAC against anything, when neither of those two online services provide those codecs and bitrates?</p><p>They are comparing two existing services.  Not one existing service and your imagination, or worse two services from your imagination.  Nor are they comparing codecs or bitrates.</p><p>I'm sorry to sound like a jerk, but how hard could this possibly be?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC , or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG , and you might have something meaningful.Have something meaningful ?
Such a test would fully destroy the results they are looking for ! They are comparing online service one , which uses only 48k AAC , with online service two which only uses 160k OGG .
Let me repeat and stress that .
They are comparing TWO ONLINE SERVICES.Why on earth would you compare 48k OGG or 160k AAC against anything , when neither of those two online services provide those codecs and bitrates ? They are comparing two existing services .
Not one existing service and your imagination , or worse two services from your imagination .
Nor are they comparing codecs or bitrates.I 'm sorry to sound like a jerk , but how hard could this possibly be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it with 48kbps AAC vs. 160kbps AAC, or 48kbps OGG vs. 160kbps OGG, and you might have something meaningful.Have something meaningful?
Such a test would fully destroy the results they are looking for!They are comparing online service one, which uses only 48k AAC, with online service two which only uses 160k OGG.
Let me repeat and stress that.
They are comparing TWO ONLINE SERVICES.Why on earth would you compare 48k OGG or 160k AAC against anything, when neither of those two online services provide those codecs and bitrates?They are comparing two existing services.
Not one existing service and your imagination, or worse two services from your imagination.
Nor are they comparing codecs or bitrates.I'm sorry to sound like a jerk, but how hard could this possibly be?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798771</id>
	<title>terrible headline</title>
	<author>illuminaut</author>
	<datestamp>1255984980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a terrible headline. Not even the "study" authors claim this was in any way scientific, yet slashdot chooses to use a sweeping general statement as the headline. Besides not being newsworthy, the statement is also blatantly false. The actual outcome of this unrepresentative study is that 5 of 16 people liked a song encoded at a lower bitrate and using a completely different codec "better". If that's in any way noteworthy it must be an awfully slow news day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a terrible headline .
Not even the " study " authors claim this was in any way scientific , yet slashdot chooses to use a sweeping general statement as the headline .
Besides not being newsworthy , the statement is also blatantly false .
The actual outcome of this unrepresentative study is that 5 of 16 people liked a song encoded at a lower bitrate and using a completely different codec " better " .
If that 's in any way noteworthy it must be an awfully slow news day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a terrible headline.
Not even the "study" authors claim this was in any way scientific, yet slashdot chooses to use a sweeping general statement as the headline.
Besides not being newsworthy, the statement is also blatantly false.
The actual outcome of this unrepresentative study is that 5 of 16 people liked a song encoded at a lower bitrate and using a completely different codec "better".
If that's in any way noteworthy it must be an awfully slow news day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29815571</id>
	<title>Re:Summary misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256037420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, knowledge and experiance that don't rely on "I have tried this lots of times and i feel like i am right".</p><p>For "bigger" ABX testing of codecs look into: http://www.soundexpert.info/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , knowledge and experiance that do n't rely on " I have tried this lots of times and i feel like i am right " .For " bigger " ABX testing of codecs look into : http : //www.soundexpert.info/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, knowledge and experiance that don't rely on "I have tried this lots of times and i feel like i am right".For "bigger" ABX testing of codecs look into: http://www.soundexpert.info/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804851</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256070240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I object to the notion of additivity of the distortions, especially now that you claim that the components are orthogonal. Adding two aligned distortional components of 3 and 4 gives 7, while adding two orthogonal components gives 5 by the famous Pythagorean thesis. One could argue that the difference of 2 is "masked".</p><p>I object equally to the concept of beelsebob who claims that speakers with poor frequency response mask the frequencies removed by the mp3 compression, it is like claiming that the vector of 4 completely covers the vector of 3, which is actually true if they have the same origin and are aligned (actually, one could shift the vector of 3 a bit along the vector of 4).</p><p>However, I think that those distortion components are not orthogonal nor aligned. There will be 4 kinds of components in the original sound signal: The component that one hears playing the mp3 over those poor speakers, the component that both is stripped by the mp3 compression, and could not be played by the speakers, the component that is stripped by the mp3 compression but could have been played by the speakers, and the component that is included in the mp3, but cannot be rendered by the speakers. The existence of the first two components is acknowledged by both parent and GP, for the other components I provide examples: an example of the third component is the famous mp3-sizzle that one can hear on even piss-poor speakers, an example of the fourth component is the lacking base on said speakers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I object to the notion of additivity of the distortions , especially now that you claim that the components are orthogonal .
Adding two aligned distortional components of 3 and 4 gives 7 , while adding two orthogonal components gives 5 by the famous Pythagorean thesis .
One could argue that the difference of 2 is " masked " .I object equally to the concept of beelsebob who claims that speakers with poor frequency response mask the frequencies removed by the mp3 compression , it is like claiming that the vector of 4 completely covers the vector of 3 , which is actually true if they have the same origin and are aligned ( actually , one could shift the vector of 3 a bit along the vector of 4 ) .However , I think that those distortion components are not orthogonal nor aligned .
There will be 4 kinds of components in the original sound signal : The component that one hears playing the mp3 over those poor speakers , the component that both is stripped by the mp3 compression , and could not be played by the speakers , the component that is stripped by the mp3 compression but could have been played by the speakers , and the component that is included in the mp3 , but can not be rendered by the speakers .
The existence of the first two components is acknowledged by both parent and GP , for the other components I provide examples : an example of the third component is the famous mp3-sizzle that one can hear on even piss-poor speakers , an example of the fourth component is the lacking base on said speakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I object to the notion of additivity of the distortions, especially now that you claim that the components are orthogonal.
Adding two aligned distortional components of 3 and 4 gives 7, while adding two orthogonal components gives 5 by the famous Pythagorean thesis.
One could argue that the difference of 2 is "masked".I object equally to the concept of beelsebob who claims that speakers with poor frequency response mask the frequencies removed by the mp3 compression, it is like claiming that the vector of 4 completely covers the vector of 3, which is actually true if they have the same origin and are aligned (actually, one could shift the vector of 3 a bit along the vector of 4).However, I think that those distortion components are not orthogonal nor aligned.
There will be 4 kinds of components in the original sound signal: The component that one hears playing the mp3 over those poor speakers, the component that both is stripped by the mp3 compression, and could not be played by the speakers, the component that is stripped by the mp3 compression but could have been played by the speakers, and the component that is included in the mp3, but cannot be rendered by the speakers.
The existence of the first two components is acknowledged by both parent and GP, for the other components I provide examples: an example of the third component is the famous mp3-sizzle that one can hear on even piss-poor speakers, an example of the fourth component is the lacking base on said speakers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29816345</id>
	<title>Re:That would be why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256041500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I had heard of HD Radio (use to sell it, but we only had one radio that could tune it in, and only the one station broadcasting in it).. it sounded like a poor streaming audio on the internet. When the hosts talked it was horrid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I had heard of HD Radio ( use to sell it , but we only had one radio that could tune it in , and only the one station broadcasting in it ) .. it sounded like a poor streaming audio on the internet .
When the hosts talked it was horrid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I had heard of HD Radio (use to sell it, but we only had one radio that could tune it in, and only the one station broadcasting in it).. it sounded like a poor streaming audio on the internet.
When the hosts talked it was horrid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225</id>
	<title>There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if 99\% of the population cant tell the difference between the two, I can and I want all my audio to be 320Kbps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if 99 \ % of the population cant tell the difference between the two , I can and I want all my audio to be 320Kbps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if 99\% of the population cant tell the difference between the two, I can and I want all my audio to be 320Kbps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798693</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255984740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that using two different codecs is just bad methodology, but can't we agree that AAC at 48 kbps should sound worse/less like the original sound than OGG at 160 kbps and that therefore it means that some people can't hear the artifacts produced by low rate AAC encoding or even enjoy them?

</p><p>OGG at 160 kbps probably has very few audible artifacts anyway, and I'd wager that MP3, OGG and AAC produce about the same type of artifacts at their lowest bitrates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that using two different codecs is just bad methodology , but ca n't we agree that AAC at 48 kbps should sound worse/less like the original sound than OGG at 160 kbps and that therefore it means that some people ca n't hear the artifacts produced by low rate AAC encoding or even enjoy them ?
OGG at 160 kbps probably has very few audible artifacts anyway , and I 'd wager that MP3 , OGG and AAC produce about the same type of artifacts at their lowest bitrates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that using two different codecs is just bad methodology, but can't we agree that AAC at 48 kbps should sound worse/less like the original sound than OGG at 160 kbps and that therefore it means that some people can't hear the artifacts produced by low rate AAC encoding or even enjoy them?
OGG at 160 kbps probably has very few audible artifacts anyway, and I'd wager that MP3, OGG and AAC produce about the same type of artifacts at their lowest bitrates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796881</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on what you're used to hearing</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255978320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>highly-compressed FM</p></div></blockquote><p>WTF is that exactly?  HD radio or something (of which I've never seen in use by anyone)?</p><p>Standard FM isn't compressed, it simply has a limited bandwidth.  It effectively has a low pass filter, but there is no compression in any sense of the word.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>highly-compressed FMWTF is that exactly ?
HD radio or something ( of which I 've never seen in use by anyone ) ? Standard FM is n't compressed , it simply has a limited bandwidth .
It effectively has a low pass filter , but there is no compression in any sense of the word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>highly-compressed FMWTF is that exactly?
HD radio or something (of which I've never seen in use by anyone)?Standard FM isn't compressed, it simply has a limited bandwidth.
It effectively has a low pass filter, but there is no compression in any sense of the word.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802535</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>LBt1st</author>
	<datestamp>1255959600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subject and the summery are completely misleading.<br>If you RTFA is says that two different audio codecs are being compared. Not just bitrates. This is apples and oranges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subject and the summery are completely misleading.If you RTFA is says that two different audio codecs are being compared .
Not just bitrates .
This is apples and oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subject and the summery are completely misleading.If you RTFA is says that two different audio codecs are being compared.
Not just bitrates.
This is apples and oranges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798555</id>
	<title>Re:Preferences</title>
	<author>Lije Baley</author>
	<datestamp>1255984320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you miss driving the white van?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you miss driving the white van ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you miss driving the white van?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325</id>
	<title>I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1255976340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats strange, I find it trivial to identify differing qualities of compression when listening to my music files.
<br> <br>
You look down at the UI, and it tells you what the bitrate is.
<br> <br>
(Joking aside, I have advocated 128 kbps for years, not because of sound quality issues, but rather because most people own cheap computer speakers and/or headphones. You only get quality as good as the weakest link in the system.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats strange , I find it trivial to identify differing qualities of compression when listening to my music files .
You look down at the UI , and it tells you what the bitrate is .
( Joking aside , I have advocated 128 kbps for years , not because of sound quality issues , but rather because most people own cheap computer speakers and/or headphones .
You only get quality as good as the weakest link in the system .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats strange, I find it trivial to identify differing qualities of compression when listening to my music files.
You look down at the UI, and it tells you what the bitrate is.
(Joking aside, I have advocated 128 kbps for years, not because of sound quality issues, but rather because most people own cheap computer speakers and/or headphones.
You only get quality as good as the weakest link in the system.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797243</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only we could mark it inaccurate... oh wait, we're in 2000 rocking some Perl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only we could mark it inaccurate... oh wait , we 're in 2000 rocking some Perl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only we could mark it inaccurate... oh wait, we're in 2000 rocking some Perl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796579</id>
	<title>It's the cheapo speaker syndrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Through the '80's, people bought stereo components and understood good sound. Starting in the '90's people went for packaged systems that didn't have the ability to produce accurate sound. Now the majority is used to crappy headphones and earbuds that have more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas, and people are used to overequalized processing. I'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference, but they're a dying breed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Through the '80 's , people bought stereo components and understood good sound .
Starting in the '90 's people went for packaged systems that did n't have the ability to produce accurate sound .
Now the majority is used to crappy headphones and earbuds that have more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas , and people are used to overequalized processing .
I 'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference , but they 're a dying breed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Through the '80's, people bought stereo components and understood good sound.
Starting in the '90's people went for packaged systems that didn't have the ability to produce accurate sound.
Now the majority is used to crappy headphones and earbuds that have more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas, and people are used to overequalized processing.
I'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference, but they're a dying breed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797151</id>
	<title>Think in the future</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1255979220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In space, no one can hear your OGG</htmltext>
<tokenext>In space , no one can hear your OGG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In space, no one can hear your OGG</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799681</id>
	<title>Fatal flaw: bandwidth and streaming</title>
	<author>rollingcalf</author>
	<datestamp>1255944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higher-bitrate video or audio is more likely to have hiccups in a live stream when using a slow connection or internet traffic is high.  When I view online videos at a site that gives a range of resolutions, sometimes the lower-resolution one looks better because the higher-resolution version gets pixelated as it struggles to maintain the higher data rate.</p><p>For this to be a valid comparison, they should have the listeners completely download each track, then listen, so bandwidth hiccups don't influence the result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher-bitrate video or audio is more likely to have hiccups in a live stream when using a slow connection or internet traffic is high .
When I view online videos at a site that gives a range of resolutions , sometimes the lower-resolution one looks better because the higher-resolution version gets pixelated as it struggles to maintain the higher data rate.For this to be a valid comparison , they should have the listeners completely download each track , then listen , so bandwidth hiccups do n't influence the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher-bitrate video or audio is more likely to have hiccups in a live stream when using a slow connection or internet traffic is high.
When I view online videos at a site that gives a range of resolutions, sometimes the lower-resolution one looks better because the higher-resolution version gets pixelated as it struggles to maintain the higher data rate.For this to be a valid comparison, they should have the listeners completely download each track, then listen, so bandwidth hiccups don't influence the result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798633</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255984560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell the difference.  That's all that matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell the difference .
That 's all that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell the difference.
That's all that matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798143</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1255983000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Variable bitrate produces a file where the <i>average</i> is the given bitrate, but it changes the bitrate at any given point based on need. So for example, any parts of the song that are silence will be encoded at very low bitrates, and complicated parts will be encoded at higher bitrates. If you encode with a fixed bitrate, you're wasting space encoding simple parts and not encoding the complicated parts as high as you should.<br>
<br>
So for your second question we should turn it around into "is 128 kbps VBR better than 192 kbps fixed?", and the answer is that it depends on the song, but you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. A more interesting question is "is 128 kbps VBR better than 128 kpbs fixed" and the answer is <b>yes, <i>always.</i> </b> <br>
<br>
Of course, unless you're some kind of audio god (and I mean, completely inhuman), you probably can't guess what bitrate you need anyway, which is where quality-based encoders come in. If you want to encode a file in ogg vorbis, you just say what quality you want, and it figures out what the average bitrate needs to be to encode it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Variable bitrate produces a file where the average is the given bitrate , but it changes the bitrate at any given point based on need .
So for example , any parts of the song that are silence will be encoded at very low bitrates , and complicated parts will be encoded at higher bitrates .
If you encode with a fixed bitrate , you 're wasting space encoding simple parts and not encoding the complicated parts as high as you should .
So for your second question we should turn it around into " is 128 kbps VBR better than 192 kbps fixed ?
" , and the answer is that it depends on the song , but you probably would n't be able to tell the difference anyway .
A more interesting question is " is 128 kbps VBR better than 128 kpbs fixed " and the answer is yes , always .
Of course , unless you 're some kind of audio god ( and I mean , completely inhuman ) , you probably ca n't guess what bitrate you need anyway , which is where quality-based encoders come in .
If you want to encode a file in ogg vorbis , you just say what quality you want , and it figures out what the average bitrate needs to be to encode it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Variable bitrate produces a file where the average is the given bitrate, but it changes the bitrate at any given point based on need.
So for example, any parts of the song that are silence will be encoded at very low bitrates, and complicated parts will be encoded at higher bitrates.
If you encode with a fixed bitrate, you're wasting space encoding simple parts and not encoding the complicated parts as high as you should.
So for your second question we should turn it around into "is 128 kbps VBR better than 192 kbps fixed?
", and the answer is that it depends on the song, but you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.
A more interesting question is "is 128 kbps VBR better than 128 kpbs fixed" and the answer is yes, always.
Of course, unless you're some kind of audio god (and I mean, completely inhuman), you probably can't guess what bitrate you need anyway, which is where quality-based encoders come in.
If you want to encode a file in ogg vorbis, you just say what quality you want, and it figures out what the average bitrate needs to be to encode it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798419</id>
	<title>Re:It's the cheapo speaker syndrome</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1255983840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Through the '80's, people bought stereo components and understood good sound. Starting in the '90's people went for packaged systems that didn't have the ability to produce accurate sound. Now the majority is used to crappy headphones and earbuds that have more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas, and people are used to overequalized processing. I'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference, but they're a dying breed.</p></div><p>

A big part of the problem these days (aside from apathy) is the grotesquely inflated price of stereo equipment. Most people just do not have it in their budgets to spend thousands of dollars on high quality amps and speakers -- the only reason I have the killer system I have is that I was able to wrangle up some nice vintage speakers for next to nothing (I had a coworker at my last job who had a drug problem -- 'nuff said), making it worth it for me to bite the bullet and buy a nice receiver and sub. If it wasn't for this, I would likely still be using the speakers in my TV, or a set of crappy bookshelf speakers connected to a cheap, shitty amp, just to avoid the obscene cost of admission into the hi-fi club.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Through the '80 's , people bought stereo components and understood good sound .
Starting in the '90 's people went for packaged systems that did n't have the ability to produce accurate sound .
Now the majority is used to crappy headphones and earbuds that have more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas , and people are used to overequalized processing .
I 'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference , but they 're a dying breed .
A big part of the problem these days ( aside from apathy ) is the grotesquely inflated price of stereo equipment .
Most people just do not have it in their budgets to spend thousands of dollars on high quality amps and speakers -- the only reason I have the killer system I have is that I was able to wrangle up some nice vintage speakers for next to nothing ( I had a coworker at my last job who had a drug problem -- 'nuff said ) , making it worth it for me to bite the bullet and buy a nice receiver and sub .
If it was n't for this , I would likely still be using the speakers in my TV , or a set of crappy bookshelf speakers connected to a cheap , shitty amp , just to avoid the obscene cost of admission into the hi-fi club .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Through the '80's, people bought stereo components and understood good sound.
Starting in the '90's people went for packaged systems that didn't have the ability to produce accurate sound.
Now the majority is used to crappy headphones and earbuds that have more peaks and valleys than the Himalayas, and people are used to overequalized processing.
I'll bet you that real stereophiles can tell the difference, but they're a dying breed.
A big part of the problem these days (aside from apathy) is the grotesquely inflated price of stereo equipment.
Most people just do not have it in their budgets to spend thousands of dollars on high quality amps and speakers -- the only reason I have the killer system I have is that I was able to wrangle up some nice vintage speakers for next to nothing (I had a coworker at my last job who had a drug problem -- 'nuff said), making it worth it for me to bite the bullet and buy a nice receiver and sub.
If it wasn't for this, I would likely still be using the speakers in my TV, or a set of crappy bookshelf speakers connected to a cheap, shitty amp, just to avoid the obscene cost of admission into the hi-fi club.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797163</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously, the test was flawed</title>
	<author>NotOverHere</author>
	<datestamp>1255979220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you tease Denon about their connection products?  The reviews I've found show it has sooooooo many off-label uses, it must be worth every penny<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000I1X6PM/ref=cm\_cr\_pr\_link\_1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000I1X6PM/ref=cm\_cr\_pr\_link\_1</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you tease Denon about their connection products ?
The reviews I 've found show it has sooooooo many off-label uses , it must be worth every pennyhttp : //www.amazon.com/review/product/B000I1X6PM/ref = cm \ _cr \ _pr \ _link \ _1 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you tease Denon about their connection products?
The reviews I've found show it has sooooooo many off-label uses, it must be worth every pennyhttp://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000I1X6PM/ref=cm\_cr\_pr\_link\_1 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1255976940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, just the headline is massively misleading.</p><p>The article actually states that people (a) could hear the difference (b) thought the lower bit rate stuff sounded better.</p><p>The key being that the two were encoded with two totally different codecs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , just the headline is massively misleading.The article actually states that people ( a ) could hear the difference ( b ) thought the lower bit rate stuff sounded better.The key being that the two were encoded with two totally different codecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, just the headline is massively misleading.The article actually states that people (a) could hear the difference (b) thought the lower bit rate stuff sounded better.The key being that the two were encoded with two totally different codecs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797119</id>
	<title>Re:let's be clear</title>
	<author>albedoa</author>
	<datestamp>1255979100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary is complete crap. It is wrong and manages to contradict itself multiple times in just a few sentences.

It's just awful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is complete crap .
It is wrong and manages to contradict itself multiple times in just a few sentences .
It 's just awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is complete crap.
It is wrong and manages to contradict itself multiple times in just a few sentences.
It's just awful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802047</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously, the test was flawed</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1255956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This gets posted in most "audiophile" threads and it still blows my mind every time.
<br> <br>
Seriously, is there not limit to the bullshit people will believe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This gets posted in most " audiophile " threads and it still blows my mind every time .
Seriously , is there not limit to the bullshit people will believe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This gets posted in most "audiophile" threads and it still blows my mind every time.
Seriously, is there not limit to the bullshit people will believe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798153</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1255983000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate? I would have to assume so. A question though, is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed? I can't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs. I want the smallest file that's good enough quality where I wouldn't notice playing on an iPod. Just asking, because you seem to be an expert.</p></div><p>At equivalent (max) bitrates, VBR is slightly worse than fixed bitrate.  At equivalent file sizes, VBR is substantially better than fixed bitrate.  192kbps VBR is a heck of a lot better than 128kbps fixed.  Just not as good as 192kbps fixed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate ?
I would have to assume so .
A question though , is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed ?
I ca n't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs .
I want the smallest file that 's good enough quality where I would n't notice playing on an iPod .
Just asking , because you seem to be an expert.At equivalent ( max ) bitrates , VBR is slightly worse than fixed bitrate .
At equivalent file sizes , VBR is substantially better than fixed bitrate .
192kbps VBR is a heck of a lot better than 128kbps fixed .
Just not as good as 192kbps fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate?
I would have to assume so.
A question though, is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed?
I can't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs.
I want the smallest file that's good enough quality where I wouldn't notice playing on an iPod.
Just asking, because you seem to be an expert.At equivalent (max) bitrates, VBR is slightly worse than fixed bitrate.
At equivalent file sizes, VBR is substantially better than fixed bitrate.
192kbps VBR is a heck of a lot better than 128kbps fixed.
Just not as good as 192kbps fixed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797253</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To elaborate: in my testing, I took a couple of random tracks (two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks, both FLAC), and encoded them at 96k, 128k, 160k, and 192k ogg vorbis, then played them each into their own wav file, then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac (all with randomized filenames) to the people who wanted to take part in the test.  There was a statistically significant (although not universal) recognition that the 96k was the worst.  There was a correlation on the 128k track, but not a statistically significant one (I may want to do this again with a larger sample size).  And the 160k, 192k, and original tracks were as good as random.</p><p>Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?"  But that's really a stereotype from the olden days.  There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg.  VBR makes a *huge* difference.</p></div><p>Hey, but you're using Vorbis. With MP3, the difference is much larger. Since the general rule is that Vorbis does twice as good (bitrate\quality wise) as MP3, 96k Vorbis can be considered equivilent to 192k MP3, and 128k Vorbis to 256k MP3. Very few people are going to be able to tell the difference!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To elaborate : in my testing , I took a couple of random tracks ( two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks , both FLAC ) , and encoded them at 96k , 128k , 160k , and 192k ogg vorbis , then played them each into their own wav file , then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac ( all with randomized filenames ) to the people who wanted to take part in the test .
There was a statistically significant ( although not universal ) recognition that the 96k was the worst .
There was a correlation on the 128k track , but not a statistically significant one ( I may want to do this again with a larger sample size ) .
And the 160k , 192k , and original tracks were as good as random.Most people hear 128k and think , " How can a person possibly not get * that * ?
" But that 's really a stereotype from the olden days .
There 's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg .
VBR makes a * huge * difference.Hey , but you 're using Vorbis .
With MP3 , the difference is much larger .
Since the general rule is that Vorbis does twice as good ( bitrate \ quality wise ) as MP3 , 96k Vorbis can be considered equivilent to 192k MP3 , and 128k Vorbis to 256k MP3 .
Very few people are going to be able to tell the difference !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To elaborate: in my testing, I took a couple of random tracks (two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks, both FLAC), and encoded them at 96k, 128k, 160k, and 192k ogg vorbis, then played them each into their own wav file, then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac (all with randomized filenames) to the people who wanted to take part in the test.
There was a statistically significant (although not universal) recognition that the 96k was the worst.
There was a correlation on the 128k track, but not a statistically significant one (I may want to do this again with a larger sample size).
And the 160k, 192k, and original tracks were as good as random.Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?
"  But that's really a stereotype from the olden days.
There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg.
VBR makes a *huge* difference.Hey, but you're using Vorbis.
With MP3, the difference is much larger.
Since the general rule is that Vorbis does twice as good (bitrate\quality wise) as MP3, 96k Vorbis can be considered equivilent to 192k MP3, and 128k Vorbis to 256k MP3.
Very few people are going to be able to tell the difference!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796403</id>
	<title>shut up you fool!</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1255976580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i just felt sandvine stock go up!  <br> <br>

besides cancustomers afford to have their connection become anymore comcastic than it already is!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i just felt sandvine stock go up !
besides cancustomers afford to have their connection become anymore comcastic than it already is !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i just felt sandvine stock go up!
besides cancustomers afford to have their connection become anymore comcastic than it already is!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799659</id>
	<title>Audio Satisfaction</title>
	<author>PokeYouInDaEye</author>
	<datestamp>1255944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall reading an article about the quantifiable (brain chem) satisfaction derived from listening to higher quality music... why else would people spend hundreds of thousands on audiophile gear?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall reading an article about the quantifiable ( brain chem ) satisfaction derived from listening to higher quality music... why else would people spend hundreds of thousands on audiophile gear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall reading an article about the quantifiable (brain chem) satisfaction derived from listening to higher quality music... why else would people spend hundreds of thousands on audiophile gear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797553</id>
	<title>Not my lover..</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1255980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So umm.. Billy Jean?  I am not sure if it is in anyone's library of reference tracks for testing audio equipment.</p><p>In any case why is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article trying to draw a conclusion that the original article did not.  They were not comparing peoples ability to distinguish bit rates, they were comparing two music services.  Would be nice if the people submitting stories would RTFA,  I imagine if they wanted to compare bit rates they would use a source where they would take a single source and encode at various bit rates and try to eliminate the 50 variables present in their existing methodology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So umm.. Billy Jean ?
I am not sure if it is in anyone 's library of reference tracks for testing audio equipment.In any case why is the / .
article trying to draw a conclusion that the original article did not .
They were not comparing peoples ability to distinguish bit rates , they were comparing two music services .
Would be nice if the people submitting stories would RTFA , I imagine if they wanted to compare bit rates they would use a source where they would take a single source and encode at various bit rates and try to eliminate the 50 variables present in their existing methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So umm.. Billy Jean?
I am not sure if it is in anyone's library of reference tracks for testing audio equipment.In any case why is the /.
article trying to draw a conclusion that the original article did not.
They were not comparing peoples ability to distinguish bit rates, they were comparing two music services.
Would be nice if the people submitting stories would RTFA,  I imagine if they wanted to compare bit rates they would use a source where they would take a single source and encode at various bit rates and try to eliminate the 50 variables present in their existing methodology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802645</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>bikehorn</author>
	<datestamp>1255960380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they think 48kbps sounds better, that right there is grounds to objectively say....they're a bunch of idiots. Not much more to read into.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they think 48kbps sounds better , that right there is grounds to objectively say....they 're a bunch of idiots .
Not much more to read into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they think 48kbps sounds better, that right there is grounds to objectively say....they're a bunch of idiots.
Not much more to read into.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797277</id>
	<title>Re:Of the 16 people tested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up.

Why hasn't anyone else commented on this? It's like the first thing I noticed in TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Why has n't anyone else commented on this ?
It 's like the first thing I noticed in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Why hasn't anyone else commented on this?
It's like the first thing I noticed in TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796911</id>
	<title>ive encoded 5000 tv recodes</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1255978380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and im proud to say that 48 i can tell 56K i can tell 64 and up i cant<br>so best encodes for me are h264 AVC AAC @ 64Kbps and the recodes come from 350 xvids that become 180-200 meg</p><p>when they cap and throttle you in canada this knowledge is golden and the size for quality is wicked</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and im proud to say that 48 i can tell 56K i can tell 64 and up i cantso best encodes for me are h264 AVC AAC @ 64Kbps and the recodes come from 350 xvids that become 180-200 megwhen they cap and throttle you in canada this knowledge is golden and the size for quality is wicked</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and im proud to say that 48 i can tell 56K i can tell 64 and up i cantso best encodes for me are h264 AVC AAC @ 64Kbps and the recodes come from 350 xvids that become 180-200 megwhen they cap and throttle you in canada this knowledge is golden and the size for quality is wicked</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29810603</id>
	<title>Re:let's be clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.</p></div><p>You must be new here.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this was a very unscientific study , with a very small sample size , and really should n't be front page on slashdot.You must be new here .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.You must be new here.
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796651</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1255977420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, most people will notice a difference if you point out the audio artifacts.<br>Of course, this only works when you have a decent quality sound system, be it headphones or a stereo.</p><p>I'd like to see a test that "primes" listeners by first playing for them just cymbals at the same compression levels as the main test.<br>My theory being that, once primed, they'll notice the way that strong compression murders the high end sounds.</p><p>/also, 16 people is not a statistically significant sample size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , most people will notice a difference if you point out the audio artifacts.Of course , this only works when you have a decent quality sound system , be it headphones or a stereo.I 'd like to see a test that " primes " listeners by first playing for them just cymbals at the same compression levels as the main test.My theory being that , once primed , they 'll notice the way that strong compression murders the high end sounds./also , 16 people is not a statistically significant sample size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, most people will notice a difference if you point out the audio artifacts.Of course, this only works when you have a decent quality sound system, be it headphones or a stereo.I'd like to see a test that "primes" listeners by first playing for them just cymbals at the same compression levels as the main test.My theory being that, once primed, they'll notice the way that strong compression murders the high end sounds./also, 16 people is not a statistically significant sample size.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796753</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1255977900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they're not passing around the MP3s, or never want to upgrade their stereo system 128 is fine.  If you ever want to do either of those, 128kbps MP3s will not be good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they 're not passing around the MP3s , or never want to upgrade their stereo system 128 is fine .
If you ever want to do either of those , 128kbps MP3s will not be good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they're not passing around the MP3s, or never want to upgrade their stereo system 128 is fine.
If you ever want to do either of those, 128kbps MP3s will not be good enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799907</id>
	<title>Re:There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>thahall</author>
	<datestamp>1255945800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say the same thing *except* that I still have mobile phones, iPod nanos and shuffles, etc. where I like to be able to fit a decent little chunk of my collection. (This is even more relevent for video, where BlueRay HD resolution has its appeal but there is no point and you can't even get it to play on my portable devices. I am hovering right around no longer being able to carry my entire collection on a 160GB iPod Classic. I suspect that for the way I work I will always be somewhat reluctance to totally max out my storage, bandwidth and processing power in order to max out my quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the same thing * except * that I still have mobile phones , iPod nanos and shuffles , etc .
where I like to be able to fit a decent little chunk of my collection .
( This is even more relevent for video , where BlueRay HD resolution has its appeal but there is no point and you ca n't even get it to play on my portable devices .
I am hovering right around no longer being able to carry my entire collection on a 160GB iPod Classic .
I suspect that for the way I work I will always be somewhat reluctance to totally max out my storage , bandwidth and processing power in order to max out my quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the same thing *except* that I still have mobile phones, iPod nanos and shuffles, etc.
where I like to be able to fit a decent little chunk of my collection.
(This is even more relevent for video, where BlueRay HD resolution has its appeal but there is no point and you can't even get it to play on my portable devices.
I am hovering right around no longer being able to carry my entire collection on a 160GB iPod Classic.
I suspect that for the way I work I will always be somewhat reluctance to totally max out my storage, bandwidth and processing power in order to max out my quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796253</id>
	<title>Even worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a deaf listening test, 100\% couldn't tell the difference between a 160Kbps OGG file and a cannon. Though 3\% noted the smell of gunpowder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a deaf listening test , 100 \ % could n't tell the difference between a 160Kbps OGG file and a cannon .
Though 3 \ % noted the smell of gunpowder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a deaf listening test, 100\% couldn't tell the difference between a 160Kbps OGG file and a cannon.
Though 3\% noted the smell of gunpowder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797023</id>
	<title>ABX 320 vs 192 and you can tell the difference.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1255978740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using Foobar, I was able to ABX test 128 vs 192 vs 256, vs 320kbps, cbr and vbr.... and I was right all of the time up until 256. I was able to pick 256 most of the time, but i would occasionally be wrong.</p><p>320kbs vs CD audio was very hard, but i did get it right once or twice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using Foobar , I was able to ABX test 128 vs 192 vs 256 , vs 320kbps , cbr and vbr.... and I was right all of the time up until 256 .
I was able to pick 256 most of the time , but i would occasionally be wrong.320kbs vs CD audio was very hard , but i did get it right once or twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using Foobar, I was able to ABX test 128 vs 192 vs 256, vs 320kbps, cbr and vbr.... and I was right all of the time up until 256.
I was able to pick 256 most of the time, but i would occasionally be wrong.320kbs vs CD audio was very hard, but i did get it right once or twice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797679</id>
	<title>Speaking of audio listening tests...</title>
	<author>tomaasz</author>
	<datestamp>1255981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is priceless:</p><p><a href="http://www.bradlinder.net/2009/03/testing-zoom-h4-h4n-and-sony-pcm-d50.html#comment-5287493306135152009" title="bradlinder.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.bradlinder.net/2009/03/testing-zoom-h4-h4n-and-sony-pcm-d50.html#comment-5287493306135152009</a> [bradlinder.net]</p><p>A bunch of audiophiles comment on the subtle (and vast!!) differences in quality between two devices, then somebody discovers that they had been listening to the SAME FILE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is priceless : http : //www.bradlinder.net/2009/03/testing-zoom-h4-h4n-and-sony-pcm-d50.html # comment-5287493306135152009 [ bradlinder.net ] A bunch of audiophiles comment on the subtle ( and vast ! !
) differences in quality between two devices , then somebody discovers that they had been listening to the SAME FILE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is priceless:http://www.bradlinder.net/2009/03/testing-zoom-h4-h4n-and-sony-pcm-d50.html#comment-5287493306135152009 [bradlinder.net]A bunch of audiophiles comment on the subtle (and vast!!
) differences in quality between two devices, then somebody discovers that they had been listening to the SAME FILE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796853</id>
	<title>Bad synopsis</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1255978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1/3 of the participants liked the lower bitrate audio better.  So they could indeed tell the difference.  In fact, I'd bet the majority of the participants could tell the difference between the samples, but about 1/3 found the lower bitrate samples more enjoyable.</p><p>Of course, that 1/3 may have their reasons.  For example, the lower the bitrate the greater the amount of low and high frequency muddyness... which can actually make the lyrics and hook more pronounced.</p><p>I compare low vs high bitrate as the difference between watching a DVD on a TV and on a decent home theater.  Some people just want to watch the movie, and some consider film making an art and want to experience every nuance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1/3 of the participants liked the lower bitrate audio better .
So they could indeed tell the difference .
In fact , I 'd bet the majority of the participants could tell the difference between the samples , but about 1/3 found the lower bitrate samples more enjoyable.Of course , that 1/3 may have their reasons .
For example , the lower the bitrate the greater the amount of low and high frequency muddyness... which can actually make the lyrics and hook more pronounced.I compare low vs high bitrate as the difference between watching a DVD on a TV and on a decent home theater .
Some people just want to watch the movie , and some consider film making an art and want to experience every nuance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1/3 of the participants liked the lower bitrate audio better.
So they could indeed tell the difference.
In fact, I'd bet the majority of the participants could tell the difference between the samples, but about 1/3 found the lower bitrate samples more enjoyable.Of course, that 1/3 may have their reasons.
For example, the lower the bitrate the greater the amount of low and high frequency muddyness... which can actually make the lyrics and hook more pronounced.I compare low vs high bitrate as the difference between watching a DVD on a TV and on a decent home theater.
Some people just want to watch the movie, and some consider film making an art and want to experience every nuance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797471</id>
	<title>Re:As long as the sound is clean</title>
	<author>tunapez</author>
	<datestamp>1255980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto on the clean part, but I can tell the difference in quality(or can I????) and really don't give a chit. It's mostly amplified background noise, IMHO. If I want a live concert experience, I will go to a concert. <i>If</i> I wanted DolbySurround-THX-Skywalker sound so loud my molars rattle, I would go to a theater. I avoid going to some get-togethers because certain "audiophiles" with bastardized surround/system set-ups that are too loud AND too quiet from one moment to the next have ruined many experiences. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate lyrics and melody of a good song, but can do without the "11" factor. Hell, I'd rather see/hear real artists perform with no electrical accouterments, there's where the salt is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto on the clean part , but I can tell the difference in quality ( or can I ? ? ? ?
) and really do n't give a chit .
It 's mostly amplified background noise , IMHO .
If I want a live concert experience , I will go to a concert .
If I wanted DolbySurround-THX-Skywalker sound so loud my molars rattle , I would go to a theater .
I avoid going to some get-togethers because certain " audiophiles " with bastardized surround/system set-ups that are too loud AND too quiet from one moment to the next have ruined many experiences .
Do n't get me wrong , I appreciate lyrics and melody of a good song , but can do without the " 11 " factor .
Hell , I 'd rather see/hear real artists perform with no electrical accouterments , there 's where the salt is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto on the clean part, but I can tell the difference in quality(or can I????
) and really don't give a chit.
It's mostly amplified background noise, IMHO.
If I want a live concert experience, I will go to a concert.
If I wanted DolbySurround-THX-Skywalker sound so loud my molars rattle, I would go to a theater.
I avoid going to some get-togethers because certain "audiophiles" with bastardized surround/system set-ups that are too loud AND too quiet from one moment to the next have ruined many experiences.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate lyrics and melody of a good song, but can do without the "11" factor.
Hell, I'd rather see/hear real artists perform with no electrical accouterments, there's where the salt is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798975</id>
	<title>Re:let's be clear</title>
	<author>the person standing</author>
	<datestamp>1255985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.</p></div><p>you must be new here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this was a very unscientific study , with a very small sample size , and really should n't be front page on slashdot.you must be new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this was a very unscientific study, with a very small sample size, and really shouldn't be front page on slashdot.you must be new here...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797917</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1255982220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; When I switched from ipod ear buds to Sennheiser cx300...<br> <br>

That's a good start. Now go ahead and change your music player too, to something better. I know this post will be downmodded real fast, but if anybody is interested, do a sound comparison of ipod against, say, iriver, with any same earbuds/headphones and hear the difference yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; When I switched from ipod ear buds to Sennheiser cx300.. . That 's a good start .
Now go ahead and change your music player too , to something better .
I know this post will be downmodded real fast , but if anybody is interested , do a sound comparison of ipod against , say , iriver , with any same earbuds/headphones and hear the difference yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; When I switched from ipod ear buds to Sennheiser cx300... 

That's a good start.
Now go ahead and change your music player too, to something better.
I know this post will be downmodded real fast, but if anybody is interested, do a sound comparison of ipod against, say, iriver, with any same earbuds/headphones and hear the difference yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798777</id>
	<title>What's your reference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255984980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There appears to be confusion in some of the postings.  In summary,</p><p>64kbps AAC does not equal 64kbps OGG does not equal 64kbps MP3 (CBR) or does that equal 64kbps MP3 (VBR).</p><p>If you're talking about good old vanialla MP3, you'd have to be tone deaf not to recognise MP3 at 128kbps (CBR) or even MP3 at 164kbps (CBR) even on cheap speakers.  Of the formats listed, MP3 is certaintly the lowest quality.  I get a headache listening to anything MP3 (CBR) at lower than 192kbps - and i'm no golden eared audio-phile.  However, I usually can't tell the difference at 224kbps MP3 (CBR) or higher.</p><p>Going back about eight years ago, I converted several different songs at 128, 164, 192, 224, 256, 320 kbps (CBR)  - and played them back using my US$100 computer speakers for a friend of mine who is a sound engineer.  The test results were consistent for him, regardless of the type track I used (instrumental, rock, ballad, or classical).  He could pick up-to and including 256kbps (CBR) on each of the tracks, although he said each time "it just doesn't quite sound right" when at 224kpbs but couldn't put a finger on it.  I randomised the order in which I named and played the tracks.</p><p>To this day, I am still staggered why people consider 128kbps MP3 (CBR) acceptable for any sort of music, but this quality of encoding rules the p2p networks.</p><p>As one other poster previously said, hard drives are so cheap these days that I keep my collection in FLAC.<br>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There appears to be confusion in some of the postings .
In summary,64kbps AAC does not equal 64kbps OGG does not equal 64kbps MP3 ( CBR ) or does that equal 64kbps MP3 ( VBR ) .If you 're talking about good old vanialla MP3 , you 'd have to be tone deaf not to recognise MP3 at 128kbps ( CBR ) or even MP3 at 164kbps ( CBR ) even on cheap speakers .
Of the formats listed , MP3 is certaintly the lowest quality .
I get a headache listening to anything MP3 ( CBR ) at lower than 192kbps - and i 'm no golden eared audio-phile .
However , I usually ca n't tell the difference at 224kbps MP3 ( CBR ) or higher.Going back about eight years ago , I converted several different songs at 128 , 164 , 192 , 224 , 256 , 320 kbps ( CBR ) - and played them back using my US $ 100 computer speakers for a friend of mine who is a sound engineer .
The test results were consistent for him , regardless of the type track I used ( instrumental , rock , ballad , or classical ) .
He could pick up-to and including 256kbps ( CBR ) on each of the tracks , although he said each time " it just does n't quite sound right " when at 224kpbs but could n't put a finger on it .
I randomised the order in which I named and played the tracks.To this day , I am still staggered why people consider 128kbps MP3 ( CBR ) acceptable for any sort of music , but this quality of encoding rules the p2p networks.As one other poster previously said , hard drives are so cheap these days that I keep my collection in FLAC.AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There appears to be confusion in some of the postings.
In summary,64kbps AAC does not equal 64kbps OGG does not equal 64kbps MP3 (CBR) or does that equal 64kbps MP3 (VBR).If you're talking about good old vanialla MP3, you'd have to be tone deaf not to recognise MP3 at 128kbps (CBR) or even MP3 at 164kbps (CBR) even on cheap speakers.
Of the formats listed, MP3 is certaintly the lowest quality.
I get a headache listening to anything MP3 (CBR) at lower than 192kbps - and i'm no golden eared audio-phile.
However, I usually can't tell the difference at 224kbps MP3 (CBR) or higher.Going back about eight years ago, I converted several different songs at 128, 164, 192, 224, 256, 320 kbps (CBR)  - and played them back using my US$100 computer speakers for a friend of mine who is a sound engineer.
The test results were consistent for him, regardless of the type track I used (instrumental, rock, ballad, or classical).
He could pick up-to and including 256kbps (CBR) on each of the tracks, although he said each time "it just doesn't quite sound right" when at 224kpbs but couldn't put a finger on it.
I randomised the order in which I named and played the tracks.To this day, I am still staggered why people consider 128kbps MP3 (CBR) acceptable for any sort of music, but this quality of encoding rules the p2p networks.As one other poster previously said, hard drives are so cheap these days that I keep my collection in FLAC.AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801885</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255955820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what about people like me, who can hear if a CRT is on with the volume down or off from a completely different room?</p><p>I work with audio on a daily basis, not creating it, but with the installation and tuning of audio equipment. My wife has a ton of MP3's she listens to, and I can tell you in the MP3 format 128kbps sounds awful to me. 160 is an acceptable limit to me. If you played two MP3s of the same song, one in 128kbps and one at 160kbps I could tell the difference. I'm willing to bet I couldn't, or would have a hard time, telling 160 from 192 or above.</p><p>The title to this story is misleading as well. You can't say "1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps" when you're using two different audio codecs. To say that, you'd have to use the same sample encoded in the same format with the same encoder. What it should say is "1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps AAC+ From 160Kbps MP3". Otherwise, the study would be completely flawed as if I were to say "1/3 of People Can't Tell a 2.0L I4 from a 2.6 V6", where the V6 is using a completely different fuel (say ethanol with a lower energy efficiency) to a gas powered I4. It's not the engine size that alone that people can't tell the power difference of, but also the fuel being used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about people like me , who can hear if a CRT is on with the volume down or off from a completely different room ? I work with audio on a daily basis , not creating it , but with the installation and tuning of audio equipment .
My wife has a ton of MP3 's she listens to , and I can tell you in the MP3 format 128kbps sounds awful to me .
160 is an acceptable limit to me .
If you played two MP3s of the same song , one in 128kbps and one at 160kbps I could tell the difference .
I 'm willing to bet I could n't , or would have a hard time , telling 160 from 192 or above.The title to this story is misleading as well .
You ca n't say " 1/3 of People Ca n't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps " when you 're using two different audio codecs .
To say that , you 'd have to use the same sample encoded in the same format with the same encoder .
What it should say is " 1/3 of People Ca n't Tell 48Kbps AAC + From 160Kbps MP3 " .
Otherwise , the study would be completely flawed as if I were to say " 1/3 of People Ca n't Tell a 2.0L I4 from a 2.6 V6 " , where the V6 is using a completely different fuel ( say ethanol with a lower energy efficiency ) to a gas powered I4 .
It 's not the engine size that alone that people ca n't tell the power difference of , but also the fuel being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about people like me, who can hear if a CRT is on with the volume down or off from a completely different room?I work with audio on a daily basis, not creating it, but with the installation and tuning of audio equipment.
My wife has a ton of MP3's she listens to, and I can tell you in the MP3 format 128kbps sounds awful to me.
160 is an acceptable limit to me.
If you played two MP3s of the same song, one in 128kbps and one at 160kbps I could tell the difference.
I'm willing to bet I couldn't, or would have a hard time, telling 160 from 192 or above.The title to this story is misleading as well.
You can't say "1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps" when you're using two different audio codecs.
To say that, you'd have to use the same sample encoded in the same format with the same encoder.
What it should say is "1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps AAC+ From 160Kbps MP3".
Otherwise, the study would be completely flawed as if I were to say "1/3 of People Can't Tell a 2.0L I4 from a 2.6 V6", where the V6 is using a completely different fuel (say ethanol with a lower energy efficiency) to a gas powered I4.
It's not the engine size that alone that people can't tell the power difference of, but also the fuel being used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797495</id>
	<title>It is Ogg, not OGG!</title>
	<author>frambris</author>
	<datestamp>1255980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And title would be better if it said "1/3 of 16 people cannot tell Vorbis from AAC".

Duh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And title would be better if it said " 1/3 of 16 people can not tell Vorbis from AAC " .
Duh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And title would be better if it said "1/3 of 16 people cannot tell Vorbis from AAC".
Duh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796685</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1255977600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whereas I advocate the opposite, as disk space is cheap, and you really don't want to go to the hassle of ripping all of those CD's again. But to each their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas I advocate the opposite , as disk space is cheap , and you really do n't want to go to the hassle of ripping all of those CD 's again .
But to each their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas I advocate the opposite, as disk space is cheap, and you really don't want to go to the hassle of ripping all of those CD's again.
But to each their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799597</id>
	<title>Its a chain</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1255944660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>sound reproduction is not a chain, it's a relay race. Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction.</i>
<br> <br>
Incorrect. If I take a crappy Power amp and crank it until it is fuzzy, $10k professional studio monitors will not fix the problem.
<br> <br>
Everything between the singers mouth and your ears is can only degrade the signal. Every time signal is lost, it cannot be recovered. It can be altered, and possibly in ways that are aesthetically pleasing (compression, reverb, etc.), but it is always a downhill ride.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sound reproduction is not a chain , it 's a relay race .
Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction .
Incorrect. If I take a crappy Power amp and crank it until it is fuzzy , $ 10k professional studio monitors will not fix the problem .
Everything between the singers mouth and your ears is can only degrade the signal .
Every time signal is lost , it can not be recovered .
It can be altered , and possibly in ways that are aesthetically pleasing ( compression , reverb , etc .
) , but it is always a downhill ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sound reproduction is not a chain, it's a relay race.
Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction.
Incorrect. If I take a crappy Power amp and crank it until it is fuzzy, $10k professional studio monitors will not fix the problem.
Everything between the singers mouth and your ears is can only degrade the signal.
Every time signal is lost, it cannot be recovered.
It can be altered, and possibly in ways that are aesthetically pleasing (compression, reverb, etc.
), but it is always a downhill ride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29816499</id>
	<title>Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1256042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of the 16 people tested, six people -- over a third -- thought Sky Songs ('version B') was the higher-quality audio. Conversely, ten people identified Spotify ('version A') as being the higher-quality track.</p> </div><p>That means 16 out of 16 <b>did</b> report a difference, which is a long way from "1/3 of people can't tell the difference". I actually wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 couldn't, though, because practically everyone loses high-frequency hearing as they age, and probably 1/3 of people are old enough to be affected by that.</p><p>Of course, the tiny sample size speaks for itself...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the 16 people tested , six people -- over a third -- thought Sky Songs ( 'version B ' ) was the higher-quality audio .
Conversely , ten people identified Spotify ( 'version A ' ) as being the higher-quality track .
That means 16 out of 16 did report a difference , which is a long way from " 1/3 of people ca n't tell the difference " .
I actually would n't be surprised if 1/3 could n't , though , because practically everyone loses high-frequency hearing as they age , and probably 1/3 of people are old enough to be affected by that.Of course , the tiny sample size speaks for itself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the 16 people tested, six people -- over a third -- thought Sky Songs ('version B') was the higher-quality audio.
Conversely, ten people identified Spotify ('version A') as being the higher-quality track.
That means 16 out of 16 did report a difference, which is a long way from "1/3 of people can't tell the difference".
I actually wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 couldn't, though, because practically everyone loses high-frequency hearing as they age, and probably 1/3 of people are old enough to be affected by that.Of course, the tiny sample size speaks for itself...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799663</id>
	<title>Re:I stopped at</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1255944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the contrary, a popular song from the #1 selling album in the world, widely known and enjoyed in the target demographic, is very likely an excellent song to use to measure consumer audio compression and encoding preferences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , a popular song from the # 1 selling album in the world , widely known and enjoyed in the target demographic , is very likely an excellent song to use to measure consumer audio compression and encoding preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, a popular song from the #1 selling album in the world, widely known and enjoyed in the target demographic, is very likely an excellent song to use to measure consumer audio compression and encoding preferences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798685</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255984740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is wrong, and should not be modded "insightful".</p><p>MP3/4 doesnt compress well because it filters out frequencies &gt; 22KHz. At 128Kbps @ 16 bits per channel, you get 8000 samples per channel, per second. Thats assuming its mono, if stereo your at 4000 samples/second. So yeah if you wanted to listen to music where the frequencies present were   2KHz, you could attain decent "compression" by removing the bulk of meaningful audio data.</p><p>The compression (albeit lossy) is achieved through auditory masking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is wrong , and should not be modded " insightful " .MP3/4 doesnt compress well because it filters out frequencies &gt; 22KHz .
At 128Kbps @ 16 bits per channel , you get 8000 samples per channel , per second .
Thats assuming its mono , if stereo your at 4000 samples/second .
So yeah if you wanted to listen to music where the frequencies present were 2KHz , you could attain decent " compression " by removing the bulk of meaningful audio data.The compression ( albeit lossy ) is achieved through auditory masking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is wrong, and should not be modded "insightful".MP3/4 doesnt compress well because it filters out frequencies &gt; 22KHz.
At 128Kbps @ 16 bits per channel, you get 8000 samples per channel, per second.
Thats assuming its mono, if stereo your at 4000 samples/second.
So yeah if you wanted to listen to music where the frequencies present were   2KHz, you could attain decent "compression" by removing the bulk of meaningful audio data.The compression (albeit lossy) is achieved through auditory masking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796549</id>
	<title>1/3?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1255977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That means that 2/3 can tell.  What's the problem, those 3rd are the ones that still like their little AM radio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That means that 2/3 can tell .
What 's the problem , those 3rd are the ones that still like their little AM radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means that 2/3 can tell.
What's the problem, those 3rd are the ones that still like their little AM radio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797449</id>
	<title>Re:Preferences</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1255980360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm the opposite.  I have seen many bands that sounded far worse live than on CD.  I might even go so far as to say that MOST bands sound worse live than on CD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the opposite .
I have seen many bands that sounded far worse live than on CD .
I might even go so far as to say that MOST bands sound worse live than on CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the opposite.
I have seen many bands that sounded far worse live than on CD.
I might even go so far as to say that MOST bands sound worse live than on CD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1255976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To elaborate: in my testing, I took a couple of random tracks (two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks, both FLAC), and encoded them at 96k, 128k, 160k, and 192k ogg vorbis, then played them each into their own wav file, then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac (all with randomized filenames) to the people who wanted to take part in the test.  There was a statistically significant (although not universal) recognition that the 96k was the worst.  There was a correlation on the 128k track, but not a statistically significant one (I may want to do this again with a larger sample size).  And the 160k, 192k, and original tracks were as good as random.</p><p>Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?"  But that's really a stereotype from the olden days.  There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg.  VBR makes a *huge* difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To elaborate : in my testing , I took a couple of random tracks ( two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks , both FLAC ) , and encoded them at 96k , 128k , 160k , and 192k ogg vorbis , then played them each into their own wav file , then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac ( all with randomized filenames ) to the people who wanted to take part in the test .
There was a statistically significant ( although not universal ) recognition that the 96k was the worst .
There was a correlation on the 128k track , but not a statistically significant one ( I may want to do this again with a larger sample size ) .
And the 160k , 192k , and original tracks were as good as random.Most people hear 128k and think , " How can a person possibly not get * that * ?
" But that 's really a stereotype from the olden days .
There 's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg .
VBR makes a * huge * difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To elaborate: in my testing, I took a couple of random tracks (two Coulton rock tracks and two classical Christmas tracks, both FLAC), and encoded them at 96k, 128k, 160k, and 192k ogg vorbis, then played them each into their own wav file, then distributed the re-encoded wav files and a wav generated straight from the flac (all with randomized filenames) to the people who wanted to take part in the test.
There was a statistically significant (although not universal) recognition that the 96k was the worst.
There was a correlation on the 128k track, but not a statistically significant one (I may want to do this again with a larger sample size).
And the 160k, 192k, and original tracks were as good as random.Most people hear 128k and think, "How can a person possibly not get *that*?
"  But that's really a stereotype from the olden days.
There's a huge difference between a 128kbps fixed-bitrate mp3 and a 128kbps VBR ogg.
VBR makes a *huge* difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804717</id>
	<title>Re:I have perfect codex...</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1256068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close, but the frequency removal occurs at specific points across the entire range, so, if a particular crap speaker happens to perform well even at 2.4 KHz, you might be able to detect a low rate encoding.</p><p>Only on some occasions have I been able to distinguish 192Kbps mp3 from anything higher, so I use Extreme setting Mp3 and I am happy - I love good sound, I have very decent headphone rig and there are so many things that can go wrong before the difference between 192 Kbps and anything higher become perceptible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close , but the frequency removal occurs at specific points across the entire range , so , if a particular crap speaker happens to perform well even at 2.4 KHz , you might be able to detect a low rate encoding.Only on some occasions have I been able to distinguish 192Kbps mp3 from anything higher , so I use Extreme setting Mp3 and I am happy - I love good sound , I have very decent headphone rig and there are so many things that can go wrong before the difference between 192 Kbps and anything higher become perceptible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close, but the frequency removal occurs at specific points across the entire range, so, if a particular crap speaker happens to perform well even at 2.4 KHz, you might be able to detect a low rate encoding.Only on some occasions have I been able to distinguish 192Kbps mp3 from anything higher, so I use Extreme setting Mp3 and I am happy - I love good sound, I have very decent headphone rig and there are so many things that can go wrong before the difference between 192 Kbps and anything higher become perceptible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796771</id>
	<title>Re:I've conducted my own blind tests...</title>
	<author>ottothecow</author>
	<datestamp>1255977960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We had a party recently...the girl in charge of the music gave us an ipod touch and it sounded like CRAP.<p>

We figured the first gen touches must have crappy audio since when we would start the same track on a computer plugged into the same speakers it would sound way better.  I devised a party computer solution using a limited account on an ibook that could only run itunes without a password (and itunes was in presentation mode...hiding the menu bar/dock).  We did this to prevent people from loading shit on youtube where you have to wait for it to buffer (bad when people want to dance) and it usually sounds like crap.  We didn't have time to test out the music so we copied the girls playlist as well as some other party music to the limited accounts itunes library...Still sounded like crap sometimes...but the party had started so we didn't really deal with it.</p><p>

The other day I was cleaning up the account and I noticed none of her mp3's had ID3 tags...just filenames.  I look more closely and they have titles like "Artist - song LYRICS!" or "Artist - Song with captions" or even "New Artist video for Song"...I soon realized these were all ripped from YOUTUBE!  64kbps 22khz mono...no wonder the volume was funky and they sounded shitty on the ipod touch...can't believe anyone finds this acceptable for listening</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a party recently...the girl in charge of the music gave us an ipod touch and it sounded like CRAP .
We figured the first gen touches must have crappy audio since when we would start the same track on a computer plugged into the same speakers it would sound way better .
I devised a party computer solution using a limited account on an ibook that could only run itunes without a password ( and itunes was in presentation mode...hiding the menu bar/dock ) .
We did this to prevent people from loading shit on youtube where you have to wait for it to buffer ( bad when people want to dance ) and it usually sounds like crap .
We did n't have time to test out the music so we copied the girls playlist as well as some other party music to the limited accounts itunes library...Still sounded like crap sometimes...but the party had started so we did n't really deal with it .
The other day I was cleaning up the account and I noticed none of her mp3 's had ID3 tags...just filenames .
I look more closely and they have titles like " Artist - song LYRICS !
" or " Artist - Song with captions " or even " New Artist video for Song " ...I soon realized these were all ripped from YOUTUBE !
64kbps 22khz mono...no wonder the volume was funky and they sounded shitty on the ipod touch...ca n't believe anyone finds this acceptable for listening</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a party recently...the girl in charge of the music gave us an ipod touch and it sounded like CRAP.
We figured the first gen touches must have crappy audio since when we would start the same track on a computer plugged into the same speakers it would sound way better.
I devised a party computer solution using a limited account on an ibook that could only run itunes without a password (and itunes was in presentation mode...hiding the menu bar/dock).
We did this to prevent people from loading shit on youtube where you have to wait for it to buffer (bad when people want to dance) and it usually sounds like crap.
We didn't have time to test out the music so we copied the girls playlist as well as some other party music to the limited accounts itunes library...Still sounded like crap sometimes...but the party had started so we didn't really deal with it.
The other day I was cleaning up the account and I noticed none of her mp3's had ID3 tags...just filenames.
I look more closely and they have titles like "Artist - song LYRICS!
" or "Artist - Song with captions" or even "New Artist video for Song"...I soon realized these were all ripped from YOUTUBE!
64kbps 22khz mono...no wonder the volume was funky and they sounded shitty on the ipod touch...can't believe anyone finds this acceptable for listening</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798319</id>
	<title>Re:Did they use the mosquito sound?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1255983480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it is to decide whether Spotify or Sky Songs is better.  A double blind listening test is a good way to decide that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it is to decide whether Spotify or Sky Songs is better .
A double blind listening test is a good way to decide that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it is to decide whether Spotify or Sky Songs is better.
A double blind listening test is a good way to decide that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796373</id>
	<title>OGG SUCKS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OSS SUCKS</htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS SUCKS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS SUCKS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797143</id>
	<title>Re:There just deaf from blasting their ipods...</title>
	<author>an unsound mind</author>
	<datestamp>1255979160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/320/FLAC/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/320/FLAC/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/320/FLAC/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29803967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29816345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29810603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29807271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29815571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_176209_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29815571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797451
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798153
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801815
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796579
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798971
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796439
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796739
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796629
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804851
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797251
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799597
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801825
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804077
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801885
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804717
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798685
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29804369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796899
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796905
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798151
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29803967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29807271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29800123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29810603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29802931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29816345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29801591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_176209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29796399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29798505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29799907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_176209.29797143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
