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

[KKeene]

Why not capture 2 identical pieces of music. One sampled at 44khz and the other at 96khz. Resample the 44khz file to 96khz and invert mix them. Any differences will become apparent.

[Cordelia]

It absolutely exhausts me just imagining I'd be in TTC's place. To debate against such utter lack of logic...

how wearisome.

Yes.

Wearisome even to read, but at the same time a strangely interesting look into the human psyche.

[rifftrax]

oh and don't forget that...

blue is better than red
squarewaves are better than saw-waves
& laptops are better than computers.

the whole point is that people cannot "hear" above what can be "heard". Is this not common sense? Why can't we all just acknowledge that anything beyond that is a matter of, how do you say... taste?

I've seen such little actual scientific discussion in this thread about the topic it's absolutely repulsive. Hey, I've got an idea - why not take a flipping class that actually deals with hi-frequency waveform acoustics and we can all stop googling it to get our opinions from? AND THEN....here's the good part - that person can actually come back and EXPLAIN WHY "x" form of reasoning is valid and provable. yeesh.

blind leading the blind leading the....

[Locus M]

so you cannot really prove something to 100% with significance tests.

its no real science. And you can easily make tests do deliver the results you want to have.

I know, and that is all I am saying. P-values are the best "proof" we got but its not final.

No science is "real" science in that sense, that is what I have learned from 14 years as an academic, not even physics, there are competing paradigms too. The only ones I know of that think science is 100% pure, are not scientists themselves.

And even if you turn out to be wrong, there is nothing wrong with questioning even the most "obvious" logics. Thats how science go on.

And yes you can bias individuals in tests, but one must admit, that given the results, the present test would indeed be as "valid" according to laws of stats that anyone can be, can not do much better than that according to these criterions.

I would like to return to a point here finally about the whole structure of the test. With respect to the joy of music, I do not believe in 44,1/96 audiophlia at all, even if a difference can be detected, so I will post an earlier point to illustrate

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...

The present test is about hearing a difference at all, but even if such a conclusion actually was present in the test, it would not say anything about whether we would like one above the other, does it?

So all in all I am in for the conclusion. And if you can not detect a clear and obvious difference anyway, then it can not effect the joy of music either.

True or false?

[metamorphosis]

If what you're saying is "Given the evidence there's a small posibility that ultrasonics may ocaisionaly have a tiny but perceptible effect. But as of yet there is little / no evidence to support the idea".

Had to dig this up just to stir the sauce a little:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audi ... sonics.htm

It's actually a very good writeup.

Have fun guys...

"The experimenters found that while subjects could not recognize (i.e. perceive in the common sense of the word) HFC when presented alone, their brain activity altered significantly when they were presented with music containing HFC in addition to LFC as compared to LFC alone. Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC. "

[lotus2035]

Do higher sample rates make you a happier person??...no...so STFU everybody and go and do something that does make you happy....

[Per Lichtman]

So all in all I am in for the conclusion. And if you can not detect a clear and obvious difference anyway, then it can not effect the joy of music either.

True or false?

I'd have to say neither confirmed nor refuted.

There are circumstances where we are affected by differences we are unaware of or don't seem to be able to detect but to tell whether something effects our experience of the joy or music there would still have to be some way to track, measure or observe it. So I guess the answer is, we may find out at a later date.

When it comes to DAC for instance, I generally tend to want to be able to hear what I pay for. As far as the area discussed in this topic, however, I am curious and undecided. I can, however, say that you're emphasis on the bottom line, the fundamental joy of music, is the most important.

I guess maybe that is part of the point of some of these studies: people trying to understand what it takes to connect with music the most. If you're connecting to the music running on an onboard sound card at 22.050 kHz, then that connection is not diminished by the low specs. If you find it's easier to enjoy music more on another system, then that is equally valid. Maybe studies like these can help people decide how they want to spend their money and help clear-up some confusion that is keeping them from relaxing enough to enjoy the music. So many possibilities: so little time left before my head hits the pillow.

[Locus M]

Do higher sample rates make you a happier person??...no...so STFU everybody and go and do something that does make you happy....

Good conclusion! I know I need that know, but there is nothing wrong in debating is there? If we are lucky we all get out a little wiser, correcting our own mistakes of thinking at least, if not, seems like KVR people have a fun or exciting time doing it. Whether others learn from it I do not know, think I do myself

For instance this I did not know of:

Had to dig this up just to stir the sauce a little:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasoni cs.htm

It's actually a very good writeup.

Good work!

I'll add up with different sources and approaches to subliminal perception, some more critical than others for perspectives on this:

http://www.sysdesign.ca/archive/berkes_ ... eption.pdf

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... hita2.html

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... estha.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/sublimina ... ption.html

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... ellew.html

http://www.umich.edu/~onebook/pages/tab ... story.html


But I will try not to take the bate this time, have work to do and need to get down from this addictive thing up here...somebody take over please...

I can, however, say that you're emphasis on the bottom line, the fundamental joy of music, is the most important.

Thanks! Of this we can agree, I bet there are others in for that around here...true or false?


Peace and joy of music

[kmonkey]

When i am tripping on LSD i can hear every fu**** unwanted distortion/aliasing,saturation just like that...Muahaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[joeykusack]

on some "sounds better" threads there is logical debate.

others, not so much

some are "placebo's"

others are fact, even if they are not!

jealousy? penis envy? mid-life crisis?

Here's a real question....why be bothered with it? SOME people cannot (or refuse to) hear the difference....ok, so what?

wire hangers are as good as expensive cables, 192khz is the same as 44.1, all daw's sound the same, and 5000 dollar hardware is justified, though a 199dollar plug that sounds good is not. (and mac's sound better than pc's.....almost forgot about that one )

who's right, who's wrong, who cares! It's just an excuse to bully or pick on someone!

[zeoy]

so you cannot really prove something to 100% with significance tests.

You're right that we cannot prove something with statistics. Unfortunately in many cases it's all we have and we should be thankful we have it. If for example we know with >95% confidence that paracetamol can help with headaches I'd gladly take a pill when I need it.
In fact we're not even sure that if you jump out the window of the 14th floor you will die but I wouldn't take the chance.

its no real science. And you can easily make tests do deliver the results you want to have.

Now you're totally wrong and misleaded. Unless you believe that math and probability theory are not real sciences. As for tests delivering the results you want, I agree; but you have to make wrong tests or manipulate your data. If people are ignorant, lacking critical thought and happily believe whatever they read wherever they read it, that's not a problem of statistics. There's use and misuse in every science.

[metamorphosis]

Do higher sample rates make you a happier person??...no...so STFU everybody and go and do something that does make you happy....

... But... But... they make ME happy... you're mean

[hifiboom]

Unless you believe that math and probability theory are not real sciences. As for tests delivering the results you want, I agree; but you have to make wrong tests or manipulate your data. If people are ignorant, lacking critical thought and happily believe whatever they read wherever they read it, that's not a problem of statistics. There's use and misuse in every science.

yes, maybe my sentence was a bit misleading.

with "real science" I meant to say:

I have glass of structure x, and if you throw a stone with the power y onto that glass, it will break for 100% probability (if there is no extreme wind situation going on). This would be a physical fact.

In the case of the 44,1 and 96khz thing, it would be enough to find one person, that can pick out the 96khz signal from the 44,1khz signal, to prove that there are human beings that can hear a difference. And due to this fact a 96khz recording would have a value, unimportant of if the masses can or cannot hear a difference. audiphile products are no mass products anyways.

in the medical area these tests can have a big value, for sure. If it has a postitive significant effect on a group of people (f.e. if they say the medical pill helps), it is highly probability that it has a real effect too.

But in most cases these tests only work with obvious "bigger" differences... If the differences are too small, you will never get significant results...

That does not prove that there are no differences at all, or that people can not recognize them at all.

[Locus M]

A little post scriptum for you Per

So all in all I am in for the conclusion. And if you can not detect a clear and obvious difference anyway, then it can not effect the joy of music either.

True or false?

I'd have to say neither confirmed nor refuted.

Actually the conclusion is true given the premises are right.

Given that

1. P can effect Q
2. no P
________
No effect on Q


Add 1. We do not really know this do we? Are there ANY test that examines to which extend good or lesser good sound quality can effect our joy of a piece of music in general? (and not just a "sound") I do not know, thus the premise is not confirmed to me at least.

Add 2. That is the premise given by the (statistical significant) conclusion of the test in question

Even if "P" (a difference) however, we are not guaranteed an effect on Q (joy of music) because this argument could still fail at 1. premise.

There are circumstances where we are affected by differences we are unaware of or don't seem to be able to detect but to tell whether something effects our experience of the joy or music there would still have to be some way to track, measure or observe it. So I guess the answer is, we may find out at a later date.

There are a lot of potential methods. You could get inspired from the methods of subliminal perception especially. But from the test at hand, such info can not be extracted even given P.


Best to you

[zeoy]

Unless you believe that math and probability theory are not real sciences. As for tests delivering the results you want, I agree; but you have to make wrong tests or manipulate your data. If people are ignorant, lacking critical thought and happily believe whatever they read wherever they read it, that's not a problem of statistics. There's use and misuse in every science.

yes, maybe my sentence was a bit misleading.

with "real science" I meant to say:

I have glass of structure x, and if you throw a stone with the power y onto that glass, it will break for 100% probability (if there is no extreme wind situation going on). This would be a physical fact.

In the case of the 44,1 and 96khz thing, it would be enough to find one person, that can pick out the 96khz signal from the 44,1khz signal, to prove that there are human beings that can hear a difference. And due to this fact a 96khz recording would have a value, unimportant of if the masses can or cannot hear a difference. audiphile products are no mass products anyways.

in the medical area these tests can have a big value, for sure. If it has a postitive significant effect on a group of people (f.e. if they say the medical pill helps), it is highly probability that it has a real effect too.

But in most cases these tests only work with obvious "bigger" differences... If the differences are too small, you will never get significant results...

That does not prove that there are no differences at all, or that people can not recognize them at all.

I've written a long reply but forgot to press submit
so, I'll be brief

1) It's not sure that the glass will break. But the glass will break with a probability that is ridiculously close to 1
2) The study basically states that the "population average" probability of a correct guess does not differ from 0.5. However this is consistent with a simplified scenario where 99.99% of the population has no abilities to discriminate 44.1 and 96 at all but there is a 0.01% who can guess correctly with very high probability.
That means that I agree with what you said; It's possible that some people may have this ability indeed.
3) In studies showing no significant results it's very important to report their statistical power (probability to detect a significant effect given their sample size, design and an assumed 'true' effect size)

However we should not forget the population the sample was taken from. Simply put, this study in fact states that the 'average' audiophile, audio engineer or student of a related field cannot tell these both formats apart. It's a very significant finding of a well conducted study. No more no less.