The author explains that it's a psychoacoustic model and then demonstrates how various artifacts in various waveforms are the result of compromises within this model. As an aside, I don't understand why people take the position that lossy transcodes are indistinguishable from one another when, right out of the gate, it's well-understand that compromises are being made in the highs, well within the range of human hearing. In fact, CDs can only replicate frequencies below 22kHz and even that's within the hearable range of many (mostly younger) people.
I just really don't understand this widespread need to believe "lossy" doesn't really mean "lossy." It's a psychoacoustic model and people are different, and further you can (as demonstrated by the article) even show where various encoding artifacts are feasibly audible to plenty of people. I just don't get it.
I just really don't understand this widespread need to believe "lossy" doesn't really mean "lossy." It's a psychoacoustic model and people are different, and further you can (as demonstrated by the article) even show where various encoding artifacts are feasibly audible to plenty of people. I just don't get it.