If you had done such blind tests, you would have reached a different conclusion. Or, in the alternative, your hearing is orders of magnitude "better" than anyone else ever tested.
I think you're confusing lossless vs lossy with 192khz vs 44.1khz - in that case I agree with you, no percievable difference.
I can also hear differences between lossless/lossy encodings. If I tweak encoding parameters until I don't notice a difference, there is usually no real space saving afterwards - so why not go with lossess instead?
I'm not confusing these matters. I'm specifically talking about lossless vs lossy. The key point is I'm taking about nominally transparent lossy which for codecs like AAC and Opus is around 160-256 kbps depending on the listener. Even at 256 kbps, that's anywhere between half and quarter the bitrate of FLAC. (Which has an average bitrate around 700 kbps but can swing wildly up or down depending on the specific material.)
Audiophiles believe a lot of things with no evidence. How else could you sell them cables costing thousands of dollars? Reminds me of homeopathic medicine. The only reasonable use case for FLAC is archiving music you expect may need to be reencoded later.
Firstly, on a personal note, I must say getting heavily downvoted on a factual statement and not an opinion is a new and confusing experience for me.
My comparisons were made several years ago using LAME 320 CBR, LAME VBR, OGG, lossless (WAV) 16bit 44.1kHz and lossless (WAV) 16bit 48kHz.
I believe at least most professional musicians and sound engineers would be able to identify the difference between all of these; while they might not always be "worse", their sonic character is certainly different.
FWIW I didn't downvote you and I don't think you should be downvoted, but as sjwright points out, if you did indeed make all of these blind comparisons and were able to reliably spot the difference between LAME 320 CBR and lossless and between 44k and 48k, and were able to hear the difference so clearly that you would find the lossy formats jarring or painful to listen to, then given all published research on this topic you would have to have superhuman hearing as most professional musicians and sound engineers in fact can not... so to put it very bluntly there's a concern that you might be selling bullshit.
Exactly. Given how much we know about psychoacoustics, and considering how often people who claim to hear dramatic differences end up failing the most basic ABX tests, it's just not a credible assertion without robust supporting evidence.
ABX tests are putting sensors and short-term memory under stress, while users are reporting about their long-term feelings about music. It's like trying to spot difference between fruits of same kind while consumers have problem with lack of a nutrient.
Why to bother with various tradeoffs if you can get the best?(i.e lossless). You can make the same argument on video technologies(i.e HDR). The truth is that people usually adapt so "painful" audio or video quality stops being painful after a while.
If you will fail an ABX test then you don't feel a difference due to an actual difference in quality almost by definition. Maybe you feel a difference because outside an ABX test you know when you are playing lossless files? That's fine but it's not the same thing.
