Contrasting opinions on quality
 

http://www.distortionofsound.com/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...lity/index.htm

The two articles are about two different subjects aren't they?

The Distortion of Sound video is produced by Harman, and if you scroll down on the website you'll see they are promoting a new line of speakers and a software technology called "Clari-Fi" which is supposed to undo some of the sonic effects of digital compression. But the information is gone before it gets to Clari-Fi, so I'm not sure what it does other than to introduce a new illusion.

The graphics used in the video are not really representational, and seem to confuse dynamic range (amplitude) compression with data compression. Dynamic range compression has been used for years for radio and recording purposes.

I am pretty sad about amplitude compression and general lo-fi tendencies of the music industry. I'd rather buy a well-mastered uncompressed high-dynamic-range CD than the download version of some piece of music. But this video isn't promoting that kind of thing very directly. It doesn't say explicitly, "hey, buy the FLAC [uncompressed] download verson", "tell your radio station to quit squashing the dynamic range to sound louder", etc. That would be more of a public service; this is a muddy-message marketing video.

Sorry, I'm a little grouchy after 20 minutes of not very much information.

Both are more about reducing file size with lossy compression (not amplitude compression). Both links discuss whether that makes an audible difference. An interesting contrast of opinion I think.

Actually I don't think there is that much contrast
What the first video is talking about is the significant file compression into and below 128 bit 64 bit etc. coupled with the smashing of the dynamics. And focused on quantity not quality. Which was and still is prototypical if for no other reason than, until fairly recently (with the increase in storage size) was the only file size possible for portable MP3 players and have any kind of quantity.

What the consumer reports article is talking 256 bit and higher and they are talking specifically about listening in an auto which brings into play significant additional listening limitations. The ambient noise present in an auto (i.e. inherent distortion masking) makes the difference between a 256 or 320 file and a cd much less noticeable

That is pretty much it. Though below 256 is still pretty prevalent on download sites the increasing prevalence of increased bandwidth is gradually changing that. Youtube does have a way to go though IMO.