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

[Locus M]

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

But Tony, this just explanes you have to cell reacts in general it does not say anything about the range of freqs these cells repons to. So yes you are reading it wrongly. If this method could determine the conscious range of hearing, that would be the methods of choice in determining hearing range which it is not, go read

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

The only method beyond conscious reports are those of subliminal perception and one -only one- physiological test, namely brainstem auditory evoked potentials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem_ ... potentials

However, this method can not be used on humans for ethical reason, no one really think it is fair to open up the skulls of people of put eletrodes in their brains for research or just the fun of it!

Whether we are talking about the eyes or the ears, in the first stadium of stimulation the product is close to "chaos". With respect to vision, a famous psychologist by the name of David Marr modelled a computer image of what picture would arise from the data based on visuals receptors alone. That image is all grey and blurred and thus have to be processes by the V-areas in visual cortex where specialised cells will start to calculate egdes, shapes, colours and movement, and sorting out the relevant information. If you do still doubt that the brain does not present "all it recieves" then go try those changeblindes videos, they are fun too.

In the beginning you will find it very hard to spot the "change", even though some changes are dramatical, but seeing them again and again you will be still better to see what has changed. Now in the whole process, the stimulation is constant from a technical point of view, so its the processing of your brain which account for the changes in your perception. In my field this knowledge about perception is simply taken for granted and never really questioned. It is much more of interest what the brain leaves out and why! Why can some poeple in some culture hear 1/4 tones and other not? Why do some people claim that 96Khz matters and other do not, ect.?

[tony tony chopper]

But Tony, this just explanes you have to cell reacts in general it does not say anything about the range of freqs these cells repons to

It says that those cells are specialized to a freq range. Since the number of those cells is limited & fixed, how can you hear ultrasonics with the same cells?

Besides, those articles about ultrasonic perception themselves seem to state that they aren't transmitted by the ear.

In the beginning you will find it very hard to spot the "change", even though some changes are dramatical, but seeing them again and again you will be still better to see what has changed.

blah blah but you keep talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the problem

Why do some people claim that 96Khz matters and other do not, ect.?

you don't need to be a nobel prize to answer that. I'd say: superstition, marketing (96khz matters when you want to sell audio DVD's), and the grammy-award-winning-friend syndrome.

[tony tony chopper]

another article, that I don't see how to combine with what you're claiming:

http://www.hearingaidscentral.com/howth ... sPage2.asp

[nollock]

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.

Do you have a citation for this?

However, this method can not be used on humans for ethical reason, no one really think it is fair to open up the skulls of people of put eletrodes in their brains for research or just the fun of it!

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

If you do still doubt that the brain does not present "all it recieves" then go try those changeblindes videos, they are fun too.

Or take some LSD.

That said, that the brain "filters sense information" isnt a convincing argument for it recieving information above 20khz. The later just isnt a logical conclusion of the former.

Cant find those "changeblinde" things, but do they actualy show that the eyes can pick up a wider range of the visible spectrum? Or just that they pick up more detail that we usualy percieve?

Why do some people claim that 96Khz matters and other do not, ect.?

Why do some people claim they have been abducted by Aliens. Or that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Or that black cats are bad luck. Of that they can talk to the dead?

Placebo, wishful thinking, insanity?

If you want to prove that people can hear the difference, do a scientific study, with results that can be repeated by other researchers.

[Rangtangtang]

What do we hear, its quite a big dynamic range and then there are the cues of the sound we don't hear. I don't think its just simply 20k to 20khz in a dynamic range of 96db? I think there is higher frequency content in the sound that help shape it, even though we don't hear it? We only hear part of the spectrum?

[Locus M]

It says that those cells are specialized to a freq range. Since the number of those cells is limited & fixed, how can you hear ultrasonics with the same cells?

It does not say that the cells DO NOT react to ultrasonics, a freq range might as well include ultrasonics. You have absolutely NOTHING here. They do not say that the cells only reacts within normal "hearing range" and in fact they higly likely react to ultrasonics cause the cells are active ALL THE TIME and therefore it is very hard to determine which freq register they respond to, therefore human ear range is determined by VERBAL REPORTS and not the reaction of the cells, but you just WILL not get it, right? That is indeed a very "scientific" attitude to the problem...

I am so sorry Tony, but you should have listened at those biology classes after all, you simply have no clue what you are talking about, even though the evidence is posted right at your nose. You are not interested in facts here, but your own prejudices of the issue.

Besides, those articles about ultrasonic perception themselves seem to state that they aren't transmitted by the ear.

Yes they are usually not transmitted in the final production phase of the brain even if detected, but in theory they could be. Again NOTHING!

blah blah but you keep talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the problem

I have posted examples of evidence that your brain does not proces everything present in a stimulation and you constantly deny it. You will not even try them out before barking. You know what that makes you look like from a scientific point of view? You know what that makes you look like from the standpoint of abnormal psychology?

Just forget it Tony, because your own brain will highly likely be resistent to any sensible arguments or empirical evidence anyway, and that just confirms my point: The brain does not proces all that is "out there".

[tony tony chopper]

a freq range might as well include ultrasonics.

which one, since on those 2 graphs, the upper limit, at the base of the duct, is 20khz?

..or are you saying that those cells will trigger signals for ultrasonics as if they were audible sounds, thus you would be able to hear ultrasonics as audible freqs, without any difference?

I have posted examples of evidence that your brain does not proces everything present in a stimulation and you constantly deny it

I don't deny it, I say it's not any important, and has little to do with the problem.
If, as you claim, our brain can perceive ultrasonics in some way, then this fact alone would be a good reason to store music at 96khz. And no need to debate further, I don't see what you're trying to show with your test links. But you seem to think that this ultrasonic hearing is a given fact, I'm sorry but I'm not finding much reliable sources about that, and how you're explaining it conflicts with what I'm finding, even with how those 2 articles about ultrasonic hearing are trying to explain it.

[tony tony chopper]

another:

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


The Greenwood function correlates the position of the hair cells in the inner ear to the frequencies that stimulate their corresponding auditory neurons. Empirically derived in 1961 by Donald D. Greenwood the relationship has shown to be constant throughout mammalian species when scaled to the appropriate cochlear spiral lengths and audible frequency ranges

[Locus M]

another:
Empirically derived in 1961 by Donald D. Greenwood the relationship has shown to be constant throughout mammalian species when scaled to the appropriate cochlear spiral lengths and audible frequency ranges[/i]

Please note: "when scaled to the appropriate cochlear spiral lengths and AUDIBLE frequency ranges"

And another note from the article (my emphasing):

"Georg von Bekesy demonstrated physiologically that different frequencies of sound stimulated different regions of the cochlea (Wilson 2004). Based upon the findings of Bekesy, Greenwood placed four students under the age of 29 with presumably healthy cochleas in isolation chambers and introduced pure tones within the range of AUDIBLE frequencies (20-20,000Hz). Upon application of each tone, he then introduced a second pure tone of the same frequency and then raised and lowered the frequency until it was sufficiently different from the original frequency to become AUDIBLE (Greenwood 1961a). Subjects responded with a handheld device allowing Greenwood to record exactly at what frequency interval the two pitches were AUDIBLE and distinct. Experiments were performed over the entire range of AUDIBLE frequencies (Greenwood 1961a).


Those bases are detemined by the hearable range by verbal reports and the cells coresponding to those. This a called a "correlation study", you correlate behavioral responses or verbal reports with activation of cells and get a fixed amount of cells corresponding to the range heard. Thus you can not correlate the cell-firings to sounds a subject does not report to hear or respond to in other ways. Fact is that if you can not correlate cell firings to any psychological fact, they say nothing and can be sign of any activation of any freq range or tempeture or humidity or movement or even ultrasonics...they are never passive. Thus these scopes do not represent the entire possible range of cell firing. There can be specialised cells way beyond those that deliver the raw material for conscious perception.

But you seem to think that this ultrasonic hearing is a given fact, I'm sorry but I'm not finding much reliable sources about that, and how you're explaining it conflicts with what I'm finding, even with how those 2 articles about ultrasonic hearing are trying to explain it.

I have not said that ultrasonic hearing is a fact, but only a possibility. The whole discussion is way beyond my point, cause that was only that high freqs outside a normal hearing range might have subliminal effects for an audiophile. If this is not the case, FINE, that just confirms my point that audiophilia is worth it. It was just a way of recognizing that in theory freqs above normal hearing range (which might not be so ultra as you suggest, lets say about 23-24 Khz) can have an effect and therefore you can not rule out any possible audiophilia even if the freq's in question exceeds the normal hearing range (a little, lets say), because there is no evidence that the brain does not pick up much more than heard. On the contrary, subliminal perception shows that it does pick up much more than we can respond to consciously. The ultrasonic questions was your iterpretation not mine and not that important to my point beyond given the audiohiles a little theoretical possibilites instead of ruling it out initially, which is not my kind of attitude to this problem.

Beyond that I really do not know what we are discussing here. Do you believe in 44,1/96 audiophily or not? I beleive in the possibility, but not that it is worth it.

[hifiboom]

[tony tony chopper]

Do you believe in 44,1/96 audiophily or not?

no (until evidence)


(not talking about mixing/processing plugins at a higher samplerate, though)

Those bases are detemined by the hearable range by verbal reports and the cells coresponding to those. This a called a "correlation study", you correlate behavioral responses or verbal reports with activation of cells and get a fixed amount of cells corresponding to the range heard. Thus you can not correlate the cell-firings to sounds a subject does not report to hear or respond to in other ways. Fact is that if you can not correlate cell firings to any psychological fact, they say nothing and can be sign of any activation of any freq range or tempeture or humidity or movement or even ultrasonics...they are never passive. Thus these scopes do not represent the entire possible range of cell firing. There can be specialised cells way beyond those that deliver the raw material for conscious perception

lol, you almost made me doubt.. until I realized (you hadn't closed your ") this was something YOU wrote, and not extracted from the article at all.

I don't see how this block is interpreted from the article.

[zircon]

The whole discussion is way beyond my point, cause that was only that high freqs outside a normal hearing range might have subliminal effects for an audiophile. If this is not the case, FINE, that just confirms my point that audiophilia is worth it.

Yet as this test shows, the audiophiles couldn't detect any effect. If there was one, even if it was subtle and they "felt" differently, they would have reliably picked out the 96khz music. But they didn't.

[eduardo_b]

The whole discussion is way beyond my point, cause that was only that high freqs outside a normal hearing range might have subliminal effects for an audiophile. If this is not the case, FINE, that just confirms my point that audiophilia is worth it.

Yet as this test shows, the audiophiles couldn't detect any effect. If there was one, even if it was subtle and they "felt" differently, they would have reliably picked out the 96khz music. But they didn't.

And, in the end, it's the real world perceptions that we have to work with. Positing whether frequencies beyond our normal hearing range (and which for many is not even that good near the top of the frequency range) contribute to the audio quality of music may be interesting academically, but there's no reason to assume its effect, if any, is perceptible in a meaningful way. In the same way that HD televisions at 720 and 1080 look the same at normal viewing distances even though there's more information in the 1080 resolution. The enjoyment of music is not diminished because we don't hear or utilize information beyond what our hearing range allows.

[Locus M]

lol, you almost made me doubt.. until I realized (you hadn't closed your ") this was something YOU wrote, and not extracted from the article at all.

I don't see how this block is interpreted from the article.

It is not, the article can not say anything about it cause it can only consider those firings that correspond to audible stimulation, not those that correspond to beyond. These studies go like this:

Subjects presented with sounds -> correlation with cell firings -> conclusions about which cells correspond to which frequencies.

and not

cell firings -> conclusion about what the subject hear.

As stated many many times now, HEARING RANGE IS DETERMINED BY VERBAL REPORTS, thus you can not rule out the possibility of cell firings beyond, and that burden of evidence is on your side, because I do not try to establish it as a fact, but a posibility. If you want to rule out the possibility, YOU will have to prove it....

If you are ready to leave the question open,though, I will not pick on this any further but just leave it at our individuel believes....

after all I do not believe in the benefits of audiophilia too, but are just ready to give them a "chance" from a theoretical point of view, but would of course like to see some testing and final evidence like yourself.

Peace!

[tony tony chopper]

It is not, the article can not say anything about it cause

..cause you're inventing all this