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

[eduardo_b]

Tests prove that true believers will never let tests get in the way of their beliefs. It doesn't matter the limits of human hearing, the variables of equipment and rooms or the sources of material. Beliefs trump all.

Better to be happy with the music than to worry that some minute aspect has been lost to insufficient bits or frequencies. It's the music and always will be.

[tony tony chopper]

Why is it that average joe's in a forum think they can doubt about something (human hearing range) everyone knows for.. I don't know, certainly way over 50 years?

Can we get a topic about the world is flat?

[7kilo]

because we are the music makers ?

the world isn't flat , space is just hollow.. surrounded with magnetic fields that keep everything together and in balance. what's behind that at the end? that would be the beginning, it's hollow and magnetic, the beginning is the end and visa versa ?

[UltraJv]

Only on KVR could a double blind study turn into Philosophy

[metamorphosis]

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.

Er yeah - that'd scare me too ... ?
Cheers-

[Per Lichtman]

Part of the problem with the test that started all this is that it wasn't created to meet the needs of two opposing schools of thought. For a test like this to really work, it would need for proponents and detractors of the idea that higher sample rate delivery (beyond 44.1kHz or 48kHz) makes a difference to. It would need for them to both define what it would take for them to be satisfied that the other side was right. Chances are, at least two tests would be required. Then those are the tests that would need to be run. It does no good to run a test that does not satisfy the burden of proof placed by the opposing school of thought.

I can honestly say that I do not know which side is right, but I am growing increasingly interested in finding and helping find the answer. I've talked to one of the other VPs at BBMC about helping put a test in the vein I described together. Tonight I'll be speaking with my boss about the topic: his background in research includes being employed at the national level by several major western governments, including the U.S.

It remains to be seen if we will proceed with this testing, but I can tell you that if we do, it will be very thoroughly thought out, will require participation and input from a lot of people and will involve careful analysis by highly qualified parties as well as full disclosure of the (anonymous) data collected with careful note made of the testing environment.

If we proceed, who wants in? We might have to organize groups in different parts of the country/world but anyone in the L.A. area would be very helpful at the early stages, though we'd welcome input across the world.

[UltraJv]

Part of the problem with the test that started all this is that it wasn't created to meet the needs of two opposing schools of thought. For a test like this to really work, it would need for proponents and detractors of the idea that higher sample rate delivery (beyond 44.1kHz or 48kHz) makes a difference to. It would need for them to both define what it would take for them to be satisfied that the other side was right. Chances are, at least two tests would be required. Then those are the tests that would need to be run. It does no good to run a test that does not satisfy the burden of proof placed by the opposing school of thought.

I can honestly say that I do not know which side is right, but I am growing increasingly interested in finding and helping find the answer. I've talked to one of the other VPs at BBMC about helping put a test in the vein I described together. Tonight I'll be speaking with my boss about the topic: his background in research includes being employed at the national level by several major western governments, including the U.S.

It remains to be seen if we will proceed with this testing, but I can tell you that if we do, it will be very thoroughly thought out, will require participation and input from a lot of people and will involve careful analysis by highly qualified parties as well as full disclosure of the (anonymous) data collected with careful note made of the testing environment.

If we proceed, who wants in? We might have to organize groups in different parts of the country/world but anyone in the L.A. area would be very helpful at the early stages, though we'd welcome input across the world.

The phrase "There are lies, damned lies and then statistics" comes to mind. If the tests are done by equally competent people then you will have a tie. Its a minefield fuelled with Psycho acoustics and math. Im drawn to the analogy of Lawcourts where the best argument wins regardless of the truth

[tonAP]

average joe's

RMS joe?

[intel]

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

Not true.

[Echo Voodoo]

If the tests are done by equally competent people then you will have a tie. Its a minefield fuelled with Psycho acoustics and math.

You seem to imply that the belief of the tester will influence the results. This is possibly true in a poorly-designed test, but a properly-designed double-blind test is intended to remove the bias of the person administering the test and the person being tested (in that neither one will know whether it's normal CD audio or superaudiophile audio at any given time).

As long as the test designers design a good double-blind test, it doesn't really matter what the beliefs of the tester or the tested are.

[tony tony chopper]

Part of the problem with the test that started all this

Sure, as if this was the FIRST TEST, IN 2008, IN A MAGAZINE. And before this magazine test, the human hearing range was known from.. thrown dice?


If you doubt about this, then you doubt about one (or both) of these affirmations:

-human hearing's upper limit is 20khz at very best

-only 2 times the highest frequency is required to store an audio signal


If you do, you can do 2 things, one will give you credit, the other will make you pass as an idiot:

-analysing that this is false through well-defined testing, building up a theory, publishing it in something scientists can read & confirm it

-bring your grain of salt in a mostly musicians forum, with religious, paranoiac or misinformed arguments. This is no different than a bar conversation, I'm surprised that the FBI hasn't been mentionned as a reason why 96khz sounds better.

[Cordelia]

This is no different than a bar conversation, I'm surprised that the FBI hasn't been mentionned as a reason why 96khz sounds better.

Well, a double blind study (two guys in Dallas with their eyes closed) showed that 96khz definitely sounds better from the grassy knoll.

[camsr]

meow

[Per Lichtman]

Part of the problem with the test that started all this

Sure, as if this was the FIRST TEST, IN 2008, IN A MAGAZINE. And before this magazine test, the human hearing range was known from.. thrown dice?


If you doubt about this, then you doubt about one (or both) of these affirmations:

-human hearing's upper limit is 20khz at very best

-only 2 times the highest frequency is required to store an audio signal


If you do, you can do 2 things, one will give you credit, the other will make you pass as an idiot:

-analysing that this is false through well-defined testing, building up a theory, publishing it in something scientists can read & confirm it

-bring your grain of salt in a mostly musicians forum, with religious, paranoiac or misinformed arguments. This is no different than a bar conversation, I'm surprised that the FBI hasn't been mentionned as a reason why 96khz sounds better.

The first one does seem to be more constructive than the second, but working towards the first does not preclude discussion in forums such as this one.

[tony tony chopper]

But if you seriously think that anything will come out of this discussion...

This debate happens every 3 months.