>>110122393
Are people that do audio mastering even aware of this?

>>110122393
>>110122393
>audio quality
What is your personal definition of this?

>>110122393
It's pointless for music because the actual experience of listening to music is subjective. Audiotards will still swear up and down that records are better because of the "warmth" of the sound (literally distortion).

Thing is they aren't even technically wrong because maybe they enjoy listening to that. There are whole genres of music based on intentionally producing low quality audio signals.

Much more interesting for scientific pursuits, which few people on message boards know about or care about.

>>110123543

There's been a lot of research into this stuff recently for the purposes of measuring compression performance for audio/video. Netflix has a thing called VMAF which they created a decade or so ago which is fairly objective as far as video quality goes.

I have no idea if actual mastering engineers care about this stuff, mostly because of the above mentioned subjectivity to the whole thing.

>>110126946
>audio quality
What is your personal definition of this?

>>110122393
>Why does this board NEVER talk about objective audio metrics? It's always audiophile, left right test shitflinging, how about some objective data then?
>Now as any benchmark they no metric is actually objective but this cope stops at N=1000 where you should be testing if you want to talk about audio quality seriously.
audiosciencereview is over there --> OUT OUT OUT go away you poser LARPing as scientist

actual audio scientists laugh at ASR

Harman Curve is goat

people might not remember bbc monitor to have like 1.3 boomy curve

>>110122393
>>objective audio metrics
>24bit flac as source, kHz doesnt really matter
>192 kbps opus as the mobile copy
>however nuch money you want to spend on gear
All the thinking you need to so about the topic

>>110122393
ok just tell me what bitrate should i use