44.1 vs 96khz music - double blind study conducted...

[Radek]

Audiophiles are idiots. They're more worried about the 'clearity' and 'reproduction' of a sound...why can't they just listen to the music? A good song coming out of crappy speakers is still a good song, I don't care who you are.

The most funny thing is about our ears - they aren't perfect to brain converters anyway. Quality of equipment is important but there is a point where it starts to reach nonsense. And no speaker really can reproduce vibrations of whole acoustic instruments like a piano or a violin.
(if pursuing the "reproduction" goal as much as possible nothing will beat the reality)

[metamorphosis]

+1 to Sascha.
m@

[donkey tugger]

And I can promise you that ALL people recording acoustic instruments digitally are using 24bit these days,

[mauseoleum]

The difference can be heard even through +192kbps MP3 conversion, and it was verified here as well.

The difference could be heard (speaking in past tense) even on multimedia-targeted 96k encodes (for flash player audio). I've personally done that to death in my "multimedia" days and have settled for 88,2kHz mixdown rate personally.

The difference in 88'2k delivered mixdown, converted to 44,1kHz versus 44,1 kHz delivered mixdown was clearly perceivable on _laptop_ speakers and/or tiny speakers built-in into computer monitors (or even computer headphones).

There's a difference between _mixdown_ and a _playback_ media. Worlds apart.When generalizing, you must take that into account as well.

But I don't care what you think.

[NAD]

There's a difference between _mixdown_ and a _playback_ media. Worlds apart.When generalizing, you must take that into account as well.

Could you please elaborate on that? I had a feeling there was something about that.

[metamorphosis]

And I can promise you that ALL people recording acoustic instruments digitally are using 24bit these days,

What are you about?
m@

[DWb]

There's a difference between _mixdown_ and a _playback_ media. Worlds apart.When generalizing, you must take that into account as well.

Could you please elaborate on that? I had a feeling there was something about that.

The basic point is that taking a completed mix and then restricting it to 44.1k for playback only cuts out frequencies above 22k, which the human ear can't detect anyway. In other words, it makes no difference.

Restricting your mixdown to 44.1k may[1] not only cut out frequencies above 22k but also alter the content below 22k,[2] creating an audible difference.

Out of interest, would including a bunch of stuff only dogs can hear also be a waste of power and make your stuff sound quieter, in the same way as having a load of sub 20Hz rumble?

[1] depending on the plugins (or whatever) that you use
[2] in ways that are reasonably well understood if a little hard to explain

[Sascha Franck]

And I can promise you that ALL people recording acoustic instruments digitally are using 24bit these days,

Yeah, I know, I know...

[THREAD KILLER]

Quick, to the tweeter store!

[foosnark]

And I can promise you that ALL people recording acoustic instruments digitally are using 24bit these days,

What are you about?
m@

The Zoom H4 in interface mode actually just does 16 bits.

[7kilo]

working at higher rates simply means there's more information to work with, it's all about what you do with that extra information. 9 pages !!1

[sjm]

I don't get the whole bruhaha about "the listening environments were inferior" or whatever. If Joe Bloggs sitting at home can't hear a difference on his consumer speakers between 44.1 and 96 KHz, there's no point in delivering consumer goods at such a high bit rate. Tbh, no one gives a damn anyway, as it's the music that's important - that's why tape players were popular back in the day and mp3s are today.

Whether Maximumus Aurus, the supreme superhuman audiophile claims to hear a minute difference when placed in a million dollar sound-treated room is largely irrelevant to the subject up for discussion (i.e. delivery format for consumer products). Especially if the aforementioned super-audiophile can only hear the difference in such an idealised setting, and can't even hear a difference in an environment that's probably far superior to Joe Bloggs' car/living room etc.

Somehow I can't help feeling that it would be a lot more constructive if people actually read and understood the article before posting about totally unrelated subjects.

[Jafo]

At the risk of being flamed for my naiveté, might I suggest we do some of our own tests? We could test recording bit rate and depth, and also mixing bit rate and depth. We'd need to eliminate variable, so perhaps a softsynth with a loopback recording? If everything is synthesized, we can eliminate all questions of reproducing performances, as well as bit depth of samples. I'd suggest doing both single instruments and full mixes. Also, I'm pretty sure we can just set the final results to 44.1/16, since we seem to be in agreement about that, and download size won't provide clues. So, anybody up for it?

[Jafo]

And fwiw, I believe that 44.1/24 is more than sufficient, and developing your skills is your best bet.

[UltraJv]

Tests have been done to death. It all proves nothing. Those who believe that higher than 44.1 is better will carry on regardless. The tests that started this thread prove that. I started a similar thread months ago that showed vstis/fx to be non linear with different sampling rates. You cant use them in any test like this. It has to be purely acoustic. The best simplest test for high frequency reproduction is to jangle keys round a mic!