So, you could be a judge in an altercation concerning if we can hear the difference between fake files and the original ones, and WAV/(true) FLAC vs mp3@320... And dithering effects, of course.
Since I believe I could be too, you're on my side.

 

That must be it.

 

It seems don't understand how hearing measurement works. If you have ever went to check out your hearing, what the doctor does is simply put headphones on your head and then play back signals. They pick a sinewave (or play back nothing at all) and ask you if you can hear it. It doesn't matter if you can distinct 18khz from 18.1khz, because whoever performs the test on you sets the frequency. So when someone says "I can hear 18.1khz", it likely means their hearing has been tested this particular way. It also might mean she did the test herself, although I hope not because testing it yourself isn't really definitive enough for such a claim for a few reasons.

There is another layer to this which is not meant to measure only how high or low you can hear, but more specifically map out the spectrum and whenever you have any significant concaves in your hearing. This is useful for for various purposes, such as calibrating devices meant to aid with hearing loss. Andrew Huang for instance uses one of these devices and has praised it quite a bit, as his hearing has been seriously bad.

And young people can actually hear higher frequencies than 17khz, on the average. The falloff of hearing range comes around once you're an adult and it depends on individuals - hearing decay in general is very much individual thing; for some people it can set in way earlier than others even without doing anything that would logically lead to it (i.e. work in high noise environments such as various factories). It also depends on the monitoring setup too; sometimes playback devices cannot necessarily replicate signals that high with enough amplitude for it to be audible or alternatively the background noise overall will simply cut it off.

There is no fakery, it's just how these things are.

 

A fake is a fake (like fake money). It's just a matter how much they prevail on Internet. My rough estimate is 60-75%.
Faking is a sign of cheating, bad behaviour or being stupid.
Just beware of fakes. If you can not hear the difference you are still wasting your disk space because of some idiots.

 

There's no proof that she hears anything. Nobody said how, where and by whom she was tested. And 18.1 kHz 'result' is ridiculously 'precise'.
Although it is not of much importance, except for evaluating the seriousness and expertise of the author of this video.
A test using a single person is statistically irrelevant, as you well know. As well as a test session using less than a dozen of examples, and on a single occassion.
This video is a proof of nothing, and it's fakery saying that it shows 'testing' of human ability to hear the difference between mp3 and WAV files.

 

You're right in your skepticism. The thing is though, most of us don't really feel like there's much gained by Rick Beato to talk about this topic and debunk it given all the haters (such as yourself). So you know, reasonable people will simply choose to trust him rather than some rando on the internet (such as yourself).

You've mostly shown that you do not really understand anything about the topics you like to discuss as far as this thread (and the other thread linked to earlier) go. So, when your trustworthiness is compared with Rick Beato, who really wins here? Him of course - and dude, I don't even like Rick Beato.

 

A hater who loves WAVs?
And all of this dropped to 'me and you level'? Showdown, and you keep winning, because your'e a pro Judge Parker, the hanging judge?
P. S. So far I didn't notice you like anybody except 'Fourier'.
And no likes on your posts.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2020

So, can you hear the difference here?