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

[jupiter8]

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

This debate happens every 3 months.

Yeah and the other two we do digital vs analog synths and analog vs digital summing.

[Per Lichtman]

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

This debate happens every 3 months.

Yeah and the other two we do digital vs analog synths and analog vs digital summing.

Jo visst: varför inte?

[Meffy]

Argumenten utföre ingenting. Den er olycklig. *rycka på axlarna*

[Locus M]

Science is science and the result speak for it self. But even so, there will always be limitations to such studies: At least up to 49,2 % of the responses was correct. These COULD be accidental because they could be achieved by the same principle of flipping a coin. However, leaving the math of statistic significance aside, we do not really KNOW if they were accidental, pure guessing, or whether the subjects actually heard a difference in these cases.

I believe in the results though, but for reasons, that do not seem to have been included in the interpretations of them:

Some general laws of perception will limit even the most dedicated audiophile. It is a fact that our brain does pick up some parts of a measurable stimulation and ignore other parts by virtue of filtering and attention. Further more it unites this stimulation into gestalts, where it "closes" the potential gabs (e.g. parts or milliseconds with no stimulation at all) to present it as a "whole" to the subject.

http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/t ... tprinc.htm

The reason for this is probably that the short-term stores of our sense modalities are rather limited (about 0.5s for visual info and 2s for auditory info) and so is our capacity to keep track of many things that happens at the same time in our short term memory (STM). The brain has to make up for this. Since George Miller it has been said that we are only capable of having 7+/- 2 "units" in our STM, where units can refer to letters, words, figures or even distinct sounds. Further investigations suggest that this might be much less, e.g. about 3 or 4 units. Even when trained we can not expand those limits, but we can learn to organise our knowledge according to the limits, therefore a "chess-master" can not hold more units than everybody else in mind, but he can "chunk", that is, he can make 20 "moves" into a single unit and thus keep it in mind. This is probably one of the reasons why we DO NOT hear a piece of music as a "collection" of different parallel sounds, but simply as a "whole".

When hearing a piece of music, there are some unavoidable illusive effects rising. For instance we do not recall the beginning of the music while hearing the end of the music, but the brain still presents it as a whole piece of music even though the info at the beginning of the music has faded long time ago in our STM. This is called "retention" and denotes the fact that conscious events will include a kind of "echo" or "trace" of the past even though the info technically is no longer available in our sensory stores or STM. How the brain does this, nobody really knows.

Taken together with the test results -no statistical significance for a general difference - this places extremely high demands on a "true" audiophile. He would have to PREVENT his brain from emphasising the gestalt of the music at the cost of the quality of the sound instead and other "irrelevant" factors. In a test like the presented one, he will further more have to force his brain to ignore all the common factors between the same sound played at 44,1 and 96 Khz and make it attend to the differences only and thus PREVENT it from presenting a gestalt in which these differences actually are "smoothed out" by the brain in favour of keeping the gestalt as whole and constant as possible. We know this "smoothing out" from the phenomena of "change-blindness".

http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~rensink/flicker/download/
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html
http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/busey ... sBlur.html

Go try them!

However, nothing suggests that this cannot be achieved by training, after all, the brain is highly adaptive, and further more, from studies of so called "subliminal perception"

http://www.google.dk/search?hl=da&q=sub ... ning&meta=

we know that stimulation that we do not report to be conscious of, still can have an impact on our preferences. Therefore there might be an effect of stimulation above 20-22 Khz to some people. But taking the test into account it is highly questionable whether this can be achieved without consciously or non-consciously ignoring a whole lot of other factors in the sound due to the STM limitations such as the gestalt of the music, the gestalt of the average sound as a product of all the instruments present at a given time, and further more, the audiophile will have to filter out the many emotions that are raised by the music and attend to those raised by the difference in sound quality only. Seems to me that this could take years of training by "active listening" by virtue of voluntary focused attention and that is hard and tiresome training for all I know.

What I would like to know at this point is: Is this really worth it to be audiophile at these costs? At least, if attending to the sound quality comes at the cost of enjoying the musical gestalts it seems rather pointless to me. A sound we might like can be played at 44,1 Khz and one we do not like can be played at 96 Khz. Now, do any of you believe that playing the sound we do not like at the higher quality will make us "change our minds" and begin to like it? If the differences are so small that this test suggests, I doubt there will be a measurable effect in our initial preferences.

Sorry the length of this post, just thought that the psychology of perception should have a saying on this issue and this saying is quite compatible with the overall conclusion of the present test.

[Sascha Franck]

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

Not true.

I do of course know.
But then, most people do anyways. For the very good reasons being explained in this thread.

[eduardo_b]

Some general laws of perception will limit even the most dedicated audiophile. It is a fact that our brain does pick up some parts of a measurable stimulation and ignore other parts by virtue of filtering and attention.

This seems quite true on the basis of other testing done on a variety of audio equipment ranging from CD players (mass market versus expensive audiophile) to cables (and we know what those threads are like). Even with A/B testing in which the switching was instantaneous and levels were identical, it has consistently proved impossible for audiophiles to reliably choose among the equipment being tested. For the reasons you've noted, and simply how poor our acoustic memories really are, much of what audiophiles believe they hear is more psychological than real, even with so-called "golden ears" with much experience. The differences are either too subtle to detect or simply don't exist. But this won't change the buying habits of audiophiles, because much of the appeal is the rarity, cost and uniqueness of the gear. Nothing really wrong with that per se.

[Locus M]

Even with A/B testing in which the switching was instantaneous and levels were identical, it has consistently proved impossible for audiophiles to reliably choose among the equipment being tested

Especially on a A/B comparison where the same music is played on different system, that is, the change is made, while the music goes on, and where the "interruption" in the switch only will be indicated with some milliseconds of silence or a small "click", the audiophile is in for some big figths with his brain, because it will probably do anything to make him perceive the music as a whole and thus ignoring the differences as long as the common denominators exceeds those of the differences. However, if the differences do cross a certain threshold (which can be individual and trained) the brain will actually start to emphasise the differences: On tanned people, otherwise "yellow" teeth appear "white" and so forth...

The brain is much more dynamical than many of these tests can take into account, though they are good for suggestions. Any kind of environmental background noises can subliminally change the pattern of the overall perception, at least in theory. Also our own temper and mood can change our perception and especially evaluation of the music. Do anyone know the feeling that the fantastic music you made around midnight sounds boring or even like sh.t in the morning? That the perfect mix you made the other day constantly are revised after all? This actually makes sense in this approach....

[Hink]

Some general laws of perception will limit even the most dedicated audiophile. It is a fact that our brain does pick up some parts of a measurable stimulation and ignore other parts by virtue of filtering and attention.

This seems quite true on the basis of other testing done on a variety of audio equipment ranging from CD players (mass market versus expensive audiophile) to cables (and we know what those threads are like). Even with A/B testing in which the switching was instantaneous and levels were identical, it has consistently proved impossible for audiophiles to reliably choose among the equipment being tested. For the reasons you've noted, and simply how poor our acoustic memories really are, much of what audiophiles believe they hear is more psychological than real, even with so-called "golden ears" with much experience. The differences are either too subtle to detect or simply don't exist. But this won't change the buying habits of audiophiles, because much of the appeal is the rarity, cost and uniqueness of the gear. Nothing really wrong with that per se.

IMO you leave out a key element which also debunks the notion of poor acoustic memory, the "sweet spot", which varies greatly between listeners. I'm not supporting the "golden ears" concept because it all is perception based, but the sweet spot is an important factor in this. I believe that many people have excellent acoustic memory when it comes to the sweet spot. I'm quite anal about this whether it be playing guitar on stage, at my DAW, listening to music or just watching tv.

My DAW sits between my home entertainment speakers and I have a nice big chair with a high back for it. When not working at my DAW my chair is often removed, mostly at times like now when I'm kicking back listening to tunes. It does not block the speakers at all but I do notice a difference when it's there and it does interfere with my sweet spot. (I'm sure I do not have to explain the reasons why).

If I'm watching tv it depends on what I'm watching if I leave the chair in the room, generally I leave the chair though. I also constructed my own speaker stands to achieve my sweet spot and get the speakers off the floor (neighbors downstairs). It's not exactly that I can define what my sweet spot sounds like, it's more like I know when I'm in it or when something is interfering with it.


I do honestly believe that there are far too many people out there who will shell out big bucks to get the sound they want when often it can be achieved by simply how you speakers are set up. Also a similar problem is many casual listeners spend a lot only to put speakers in bad spots. They are not as cognizant of the sound as a more critical listener like myself may be and they end up not getting the full potential out of their system and they really do not know and often do not care about what they are missing.

Again imo the biggest issue is that of perception, then priorities and you don't have to be an audiophile to have good acoustic memory. But tbh I think I prefer the term acoustic recall over memory.

[tony tony chopper]

In a test like the presented one, he will further more have to force his brain to ignore all the common factors between the same sound played at 44,1 and 96 Khz

So what you basically pretend is, the human hearing freq range isn't limited technically by the human ear, but his brain, and that he can train his brain to hear beyond that range?

I suck at biology, but (by the lack of listening at school) I'd rather trust other more reliable sources.
This seems to contradict what you're saying:

http://www.dosits.org/animals/produce/terr.htm

[tony tony chopper]

And I have other valid elements to add to this: drunkness & full moon.

People in white blouses have demonstrated that a full moon attracts alcohol located in your inner ear, causing a normal human ear to hear up to 60khz signals. This syndrome, called 'superear syndrome' was discovered in 1928 by doctor A. Schmidth. Discovery later endorsed by the FBI & CIA.

[DuX]

And what about just drunkness? You mean drunkness+full moon, or just full moon? From your post it looks like drunkness+full moon .

When I'm drunk, I noticed I hear frequencies just fine - maybe a bit of less highs, but the perception of dynamics is somehow different and lazy... so never compress or limit under influence .

Cheers!

[mauseoleum]

And what about just drunkness? You mean drunkness+full moon, or just full moon? From your post it looks like drunkness+full moon .

When I'm drunk, I noticed I hear frequencies just fine - maybe a bit of less highs, but the perception of dynamics is somehow different and lazy... so never compress or limit under influence .

Cheers!

I think "air", verbs and delays are even more prone to error under circumstances.

[tony tony chopper]

And what about just drunkness? You mean drunkness+full moon, or just full moon? From your post it looks like drunkness+full moon

drunkness+full moon

drunkness alone makes everything sounds good, you don't care if it's 22, 44 or 96khz when you're drunk

[hifiboom]

This seems quite true on the basis of other testing done on a variety of audio equipment ranging from CD players (mass market versus expensive audiophile) to cables (and we know what those threads are like). Even with A/B testing in which the switching was instantaneous and levels were identical, it has consistently proved impossible for audiophiles to reliably choose among the equipment being tested. For the reasons you've noted, and simply how poor our acoustic memories really are, much of what audiophiles believe they hear is more psychological than real, even with so-called "golden ears" with much experience. The differences are either too subtle to detect or simply don't exist. But this won't change the buying habits of audiophiles, because much of the appeal is the rarity, cost and uniqueness of the gear. Nothing really wrong with that per se.

depends on what you talk about,

when it comes to 100 or 1000-bucks cables, i think the differences cannot be heard.

BUT:
more expensive CD players do sound by a large better than cheaper cd players, mainly because of better D/A stages and additional analog parts behind the D/A chain which make huge differences... believe it or not, but this is a fact.

you can buy a cheap cd-player and connect via D/D connection, but then you need a good quality amp with a quality D/A stage inside.

The same apllies to better speakers...
so you cannot generalize the statement and say all hifi entusiast or audihiles are illusionists...

I agree there is a line, that if you pass you can spend an endless amount of money without any serious + value.

[Locus M]

I suck at biology, but (by the lack of listening at school) I'd rather trust other more reliable sources.
This seems to contradict what you're saying:

http://www.dosits.org/animals/produce/terr.htm

In what way does this contradict my saying? These are just some basical anatomical (biological) facts, not psychological and they do not contradict it either. Human ear range is either determined by conscious reports or behaviorlal responses. Subliminal perception (read the article posted)is a prove that stimulation beyond those determinations can effect human judgements of preferences. So yes, the human brain can detect much more than you think and it does proces a whole lot more than it present to you and that you can report consciously. There are some phenomena of brain-damage that prove this too, try "blindsight"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight