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

[Locus M]

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.

Yeah...and no brain, no pain ...and obviously no gain!

(btw: You should try those "change-blindness" video exercises I posted, there is your proof. Now you should always take the evidence for a claim into account before barking, just to make sure and not make a fool out of yourself, cognitive psychology is actually the fuel of cognitive science in general whether brain-damage research or artificial intelligence..)

[rifftrax]

are people forgetting that all but the most expensive converters in the world turn into pieces of jittery-shit when recording at 192khz anyway? Do you think it's just a piece a cake to sample a waveform at a rate of a 5th of a million times every single second without screwing with the timing of the conversion? Good luck.

you're just a little better off using a $2000 clock converting at 44.1 than a $100 baloney break-out box sampling your way up to audiophile 192khz heaven... (cough, understatement)

[tony tony chopper]

In what way does this contradict my saying?

Mmmh ok, I suppose you're talking about this:

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

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


Interesting:
A peer-reviewed study in 2006 seemed to confirm the second of these options, by testing the different effect of HFCs when presented via loudspeakers or via headphones. The hypersonic effect did not occur when the HFCs were presented via earphones.

which may mean it's not detected by the ear at all. Could be interesting to test this on deaf people.

cognitive psychology

I'm not talking about cognitive psychology, I'm talking about perception. Before assuming things about what your brain does with ultrasonics, you first have to prove that they are detected by your brain in some way. Well, so far I can only see a couple (2?) tests, and no technical explanation behind. I don't think it's enough to believe in it, and certainly little enough to doubt.

[rifftrax]

just like I said before - talking about the stupid "hyper-sonic effect" which is nothing more than a couple of EXTREMELY experimental white papers with no actual ability to quantify the brain's represented stimulus or lack thereof in unit types (which therefore makes it absolutely impossible to create calculations with) is completely different than talking about audible sound.

if you can't hear something - it's not audible. I think we should all check the dictionary again for stuff like that, no?

[Arksun]

In what way does this contradict my saying?

Mmmh ok, I suppose you're talking about this:

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

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


Interesting:
A peer-reviewed study in 2006 seemed to confirm the second of these options, by testing the different effect of HFCs when presented via loudspeakers or via headphones. The hypersonic effect did not occur when the HFCs were presented via earphones.

which may mean it's not detected by the ear at all. Could be interesting to test this on deaf people.

cognitive psychology

I'm not talking about cognitive psychology, I'm talking about perception. Before assuming things about what your brain does with ultrasonics, you first have to prove that they are detected by your brain in some way. Well, so far I can only see a couple (2?) tests, and no technical explanation behind. I don't think it's enough to believe in it, and certainly little enough to doubt.

I was just reading up on that test, they've employed some very steep filters indeed to seperate the different versions. I can't help but wonder if those filters themselves adversly affected the quality of the sound in the audible range when it was enabled to filter off above 20khz, we have no idea how that might have affected phase relationships below that level.

If this is the case, its not surprising the listeners preferred the fully open version with no filtering applied.

And rifftrax is spot on. Most cheaper soundcards, whilst seemingly capable of running at 96 or 192, actually can't handle those higher rates very well, in terms of clock stability and D/A conversion.

[eduardo_b]

IMO you leave out a key element which also debunks the notion of poor acoustic memory, the "sweet spot", which varies greatly between listeners.

Hmm. I don't think the sweep spot is an issue actually. It's true that every properly set up music system has one, but it would be the same location regardless of who is sitting in it. And, of course, anywhere outside that spot will have different sound (frequency) characteristics.

But...even if one is not sitting in the sweet spot, as long as location isn't changed, the comparisons of equipment would still be valid.

And, acoustic memory is a valid issue. There's no debunking it. It's a human characteristic, and unreliable as hell.

[tony tony chopper]

I was just reading up on that test, they've employed some very steep filters indeed to seperate the different versions.

Yes, the filter is one of the things that can be wrong in such tests. I'll start believing in it when there will be more tests, and good explanations. Until that, let's consider that the human hearing range is 20khz at best for biological reasons.

[eduardo_b]

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.

Actually, the differences are not particularly obvious except for what you refer to as cheap (and not brand name) CD (now actually DVD) players. The D/A thing has been argued for well over two decades, but tests have never demonstrated an obvious sonic difference that could be reliably chosen.

Speakers the same. Again, not the cheapest, no-name brands, but any decent 2-way bookshelf can be just as neutral and flat in response (given that flat is a relative term) as far more expensive speakers that are also neutral and flat. Bigger, more expensive speakers are for playing at high volumes in large spaces. No other inherent advantage. Drivers and cross-overs only need to be so good to be excellent. Beyond that it's a world of rapidly diminishing returns.

I get your point, but I think most of what pases for audiophile quality really is largely an illusion. A very expensive one, at that.

[Locus M]

Mmmh ok, I suppose you're talking about this:

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

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

Not quite: "but ultrasonic sinusoids as high as 120 kHz have been reported as successfully perceived."

In these phenomena, the subjects apparently "report" that they hear it.

In subliminal perception the task dependent actions of the subject show that they somehow "know" or are effected by stimulation, that they say they do not percieve.

But it does not have to be a surprise if ultra sonic hearing exist. The brain is one hell of a computer, just think about the job it does making you keeping balance, breathing, working, digesting. Further more it makes a good deal of work making the stimulation of the world sensible to you, so you first and foremost can go for some food, fun (endorphins) and reproductive actions. Finally getting wit of body wastes and keeping you from ending up as someone's dinner. Otherwise its will serve as your dedicated tool in making music or whatever you like beyond its "own" interests. That is a whole lot of processing going on.

Interesting:
A peer-reviewed study in 2006 seemed to confirm the second of these options, by testing the different effect of HFCs when presented via loudspeakers or via headphones. The hypersonic effect did not occur when the HFCs were presented via earphones.

which may mean it's not detected by the ear at all. Could be interesting to test this on deaf people.

Blindness or deafness are seldomly total phenomena, there are many degrees. Just like the forementioned "blind-sight" study, its possible that stimulation of which the subject can not report consciously can be confirmed to have an impact on for instance their abilities to "guess" the location of stimuli a good deal above chance.

However, when stating the hypothis I said that freqs above 20-22 Khz "might" have an impact on preference, but not that it HAS. But even so, my main points in the post was rather about it being worth being a normal hearing audiophile with the possible expenses of using all conscious capacity to attend to the sound quality instead of the gestalt of the music, if the difference in sound quality is so small and almost non-existent as the test in question suggest. I recognise that audiophily regarding the 44/96 Khz in theory could be trained, but not easily, and I doubt that this distinction will ever be strong enough to make the audiophile dislike a good piece of music to him just because its 44,1 Khz or make him like bad music to him just because its 96 Khz. But this could be a question to be tested of course...

[Hink]

IMO you leave out a key element which also debunks the notion of poor acoustic memory, the "sweet spot", which varies greatly between listeners.

Hmm. I don't think the sweep spot is an issue actually. It's true that every properly set up music system has one, but it would be the same location regardless of who is sitting in it. And, of course, anywhere outside that spot will have different sound (frequency) characteristics.

But...even if one is not sitting in the sweet spot, as long as location isn't changed, the comparisons of equipment would still be valid.

And, acoustic memory is a valid issue. There's no debunking it. It's a human characteristic, and unreliable as hell.

I was going to post a comment about the logic of a sweet spot being the same for everyone but then I read

Bigger, more expensive speakers are for playing at high volumes in large spaces. No other inherent advantage. Drivers and cross-overs only need to be so good to be excellent. Beyond that it's a world of rapidly diminishing returns.

[Locus M]

I'm not talking about cognitive psychology, I'm talking about perception.

So am I and cognitive psychology have studied perception for 150 years

Before assuming things about what your brain does with ultrasonics, you first have to prove that they are detected by your brain in some way.

You posted the phenomenon of ultrasonic hearing yourself. Thus the human brain can in extreme and rare cases detect or react to stimulation outside "normal" range. Same applies to memory (iconic memory, or "flashbulb" memories) and visual perception. The "normal range" of humans is a product of the adoption to a certain environment, but human brain has a great range in adoption to other environments too. Just enter a dark room, first you cannot see a thing, then you adopt and the brain uses the info of light that it CAN detect and outline the spatial characteristics for you.

There will be physiological limitations though but do not be surprised if some people easily detects freqs as high as 23-24 Khz, that need not be interpreted as ultrasonic. Hearing range is normally a phenomena tested with psychological and not physiological means (would unethical to apply the method of brainstem auditory evoked potentials for instance), see

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

Its based on conscious reports. Subliminal perception is beyond conscious reports.

However, remember that this was just meant not to rule out the possibility of 44,1/96 Khz audiophilia. With or without subliminal perceptive elements, I still believe it can be trained. Take the test subjects and train them for a month in the present experiment, and the rate of correct reponses will probably increase, but this at high cost of attention to the music I predict. Not worth it.

In some sense I think the whole test is "wrong" even though I find its conclusions valid. The subjects were biased to concentrate on the sound quality and not the music. In a true blind test they would not know what they were testing. Experimenter could drop the A/B comparison and tell them:

E: I am going to play different pieces of music for you, please evaluate what you hear...

S: Eh...what?...in which way should I evalutate it?

E: Anyway you like..whatever you want to say about it, just tell me...


Now if a subject at any time in the trail when playing a 44,1 Khz says "hmm.. I liked this piece of music but not its sound quality" and/or when playing at 96Khz says "I liked the sound quality but not the music" I could be convinced that we have a true audiophile...

[tony tony chopper]

You posted the phenomenon of ultrasonic hearing yourself.

I posted a link to something that hasn't been tested enough to be considered as a given, and hasn't been explained at all. I don't doubt about the test results, I would rather doubt about the validity of the test itself. Especially if it was tested ok with speakers, but not headphones, so I would first doubt about the hardware.

Just enter a dark room, first you cannot see a thing, then you adopt and the brain uses the info of light that it CAN detect and outline the spatial characteristics for you.

I really don't understand the analogy. If your hearing range is limited by the hair cells, which are specialized to a freq range (if I understood things correctly), your brain is out of the equation, it will not adapt to ultrasonics since the ear won't send signals for them in the first place.

So again, before assuming what your brain can do with something, you first have to prove that it can receive that something. Then we can debate further.

I would even say, if the brain can really perceive ultrasonics in some way, then this alone would be a good reason to store music at above 44khz. It's not about 'good enough', but 'perfect'.

[Locus M]

If your hearing range is limited by the hair cells, which are specialized to a freq range (if I understood things correctly), your brain is out of the equation, it will not adapt to ultrasonics since the ear won't send signals for them in the first place.

Where have you got this idea from? Your hair-cells and your eardrum will basically react to anything, tempature, air, small vibrations and could even react at a microscopical level hard to be detected. Again, human ear range is determined by psychological means not physiological, thus you can not rule out the possibilites of a broad range of detection. In visual stimulation we know the the eye cells (of abes) detect much more than what it can distingiush by behavioral responses and learning, and that the information is heavily processed and selected in specific areas of the brain.

So again, before assuming what your brain can do with something, you first have to prove that it can receive that something.

No, cause I do not go for a prove but a hypothesis based on analogies from other fields of perceptions. Better than nothing. Subliminal effect within the range of hearing but below conscious treshold has already been proved, but yes, its an open question whether subliminal phenomena beyond hearing range effects our preferences, all I say: Possible in theory! Yet to be tested of course, and this can be done by right means.

I would even say, if the brain can really perceive ultrasonics in some way, then this alone would be a good reason to store music at above 44khz. It's not about 'good enough', but 'perfect'.

Maybe! Then make an experiment and ask people to "scale" the music to their liking, for instance 1-7. If they scale the music at 96 Khz as being perfect, this would make sense, otherwise not.

[Sequoia_user]

I havent read the whole thread so if I am rpeating someone I apologize..

would this type of test idea work??

so you get 2 groups of people..go thru say 2 generations in each group, have 1 group listen to 44.1 quality and the other group listen to 96. Now after a generation or 2 or 3...have'm then switch, and find out if they can tell a difference..

this will also prove environmental variables have impact on genes..which is nothing new..

It's just like breeding show dogs..you can continue the line once you get started..so in this way I think you could "breed" people to hear 96K vs. 44.1....look at the mp3 generation...

[tony tony chopper]

Where have you got this idea from?

different sources seemed to explain it that way:

http://www.dspguide.com/ch22/1.htm

Contained within the cochlea is the basilar membrane, the supporting structure for about 12,000 sensory cells forming the cochlear nerve. The basilar membrane is stiffest near the oval window, and becomes more flexible toward the opposite end, allowing it to act as a frequency spectrum analyzer. When exposed to a high frequency signal, the basilar membrane resonates where it is stiff, resulting in the excitation of nerve cells close to the oval window. Likewise, low frequency sounds excite nerve cells at the far end of the basilar membrane. This makes specific fibers in the cochlear nerve respond to specific frequencies. This organization is called the place principle, and is preserved throughout the auditory pathway into the brain.

So if what you say is true, that would mean that those hair cells "close to the oval window" can adapt their specific freq range?

Again, human ear range is determined by psychological means not physiological

either I'm reading it wrong, or what's written above contradicts what you're saying