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

[Shabdahbriah]

2) [...] Furthermore, their methods are much like conducting a survey testing the public's knowledge of astronomy, but only 1% of the sample are astrophysicists. By averaging the astrophysicists with everyone else, their expertise is severely diminished.

Mod Edit: HPC material does not belong anywhere but HPC

[BertKoor]

It's not hard to do a study on solely 16bit/44.1kHz vs 24bit/96kHz vs 1bit/720kHz and do it wrong.

Dug up the first article from post #1 of this thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080918225 ... _sampling/

That actually looks like a properly conducted experiment! No sign of the things progmatist claims at all. No news in 12 years, what a surprise!

I've been wading through the first 5 pages, no second report or article found. Actual links are appreciated! That is, if you want to perpetuate this Groundhog Day

[progmatist]

The true advantage both analog and H-Res digital have over CD quality is twofold. 1) The mix as a whole sounds more open and transparent. The reverb in particular sounds lighter, airier, and more free flowing throughout the mix. 2) Every instrument and/or effect is better able to cut through the mix, without dominating the mix. Every instrument retreats more to its own assigned position within the sound field, resulting in a less cluttered sound.

Disagreed. The words you use are highly subjective. There is no scientific base for the things you mention. An audio quality measurement tool like Rightmark Audio Analyser has no room for "position", that is a term used by deluded audiophiles. Maybe it's stereo separation and phase response you mean, but are not educated enough to recognise.

When adjusting my vinyl cleaning software, I can hear when I start over adjusting, and hearing less and less of what I'm hearing. That's one hell of a subjective delusion.

When comparing the quality of any recordings, the one thing I listen to more than anything else is the reverb characteristics. That alone speaks volumes on overall quality.

Disagreed. You're saying if there is no apparent reverb then you are less able assess the quality? Would the reverb itself not matter? For instance being a natural space or coming from DSP, either a black 19" box or VST effect?

I mentioned specifically the "characteristics" of the reverb, ie the pre-delay, size, diffusion, width, et cetera. When comparing a vinyl and non-remastered CD version of a specific old recording, or the CD and Hi-Res version of a specific recent recording, the reverb will indeed sound quite different.

[BertKoor]

You have just confirmed the difference you hear is not due to the storage format.
The examples you give is comparing apples with orange juice from concentrated powder.
The processing is what makes it sound different, not the storage format.

[progmatist]

You have just confirmed the difference you hear is not due to the storage format.
The examples you give is comparing apples with orange juice from concentrated powder.
The processing is what makes it sound different, not the storage format.

The settings of the vinyl cleaning software affecting sound quality, in my own Hi-Res recordings of vinyl records is completely unrelated to the CD and Hi-Res version of professionally produced recordings sounding quite different. The former of which I'm comparing to itself, based on the previous settings. The latter of which I was referring specifically to the reverb...in response to your specific question regarding "reverb." I'm guessing by your response you're confusing the two. My bad for not making that more clear.

[BertKoor]

Two versions of the same (professionally produced) record sounding quite different is because they went through different processes, rendering different versions. Remasters sound different because they are different. Compressors (especially multi-band) and exciters do alter reverb tails.

So to me it appears you are not discussing the storage formats, which is what the studies were studying and what you started with disagreeing with. You're moving goal posts.

[progmatist]

Two versions of the same (professionally produced) record sounding quite different is because they went through different processes, rendering different versions. Remasters sound different because they are different. Compressors (especially multi-band) and exciters do alter reverb tails.

When it's 2 different digital formats, like 16/44.1 vs 24/48 or 24/96, chances are the mastering will be identical. Any differences in mastereing will be used to address the shortcomings of the 16/44.1 format. Like the dithering, and/or downsampling algorithm, among others. I'll agree wholeheartedly new vinyl records will quite often be mastered quite differently. It's physically impossible to brickwall a vinyl record, which digital formats all too often are these days. A brickwalled record would be unplayable.

[BertKoor]

When it's 2 different digital formats, like 16/44.1 vs 24/48 or 24/96, chances are the mastering will be identical.

Well, it depends...

Before we had compact disks, albums were published in different forms: vinyl, compact cassette, 8-track. For each publishing medium a new master (tape) needs to be made based on the "master" leaving the recording studio, taking into account the limitation of the publishing medium. If for example there's too much bass or hard-panned bass, then the needle will jump. So vinyl has different constraints than cassette tape. It sounds different and the masters made for them ARE different.

Then came the compact disk. You say the 16bit/44.1kHz format has shortcomings, but technically it is superior to everything we had before. It beats vinyl, if transparency is what you're after. And any audiophile should admit that transparency (hearing how it was intended with nothing changed) is the Holy Grail.

Then came the SACD. The same principle applies: a separate master is being made especially for the format. So if you take the CD and SACD versions of the same album, they ARE different because they were processed differently. The SACD might have a greater dynamical range because they changed settings on the compressors & limiters. So they made A DIFFERENT master, and did NOT use the same.

Buy a reissue now of a CD originally published in 1990. It is remastered, limited to smithereens to combat the loudness wars. Yes it sounds different than the original because it is REmastered.

Vinyl has its charmes, but technically it is inferior. You may dispute that, but then you're plain proven wrong. CD has better frequency response, better phase response, better stereo separation, better noise floor, better dynamical range, better resilience to physical abuse. Only the smell and art work of compact disks is inferior.

Digital recording is technically superior to analog tape recording. Studios switched to digital mastering first and later digital multi-tracking as soon as they could afford it. The engineers were no fools to do so.

Now the question is: is the 44.1kHz/16bit publishing format enough? Page one of this thread answers that with wholeheartedly YES! People cannot hear the difference!!

Then you can go on discussing: yes but during processing you need more bandwidth. True that. Go on, discuss. Yes there are differences, but the study shows that just downsampling to 44.1kHz and truncating to 16bits in itself does no harm.

[chk071]

I didn't read the article, and, I don't really have much to add to the topic. Just wanted to pick a (12 year old) post from the first page:

you can only hear up to 22kHz no matter what the mix has in it

A child can, in the best case possible (really theoretically). With my 43 years, I can hear up to 10-11 kHz, max. I can only recommend that everyone tries a test with test tones. Loads of them available for free on the net. And, If I'd dare a test, then I would say even just 1% of children are able to hear "up to 22 kHz". Most won't. And, as a young adult, most won't hear above 16-17 kHz anymore. That's the way it goes.

[sonicpowa]

I can only recommend that everyone tries a test with test tones.

... with proper test gear of course.

[Shabdahbriah]

I can only recommend that everyone tries a test with test tones.

... with proper test gear of course.

9377d9f6cb9af0bf74814c7f4e8fc1d3.jpg

[vurt]

I can only recommend that everyone tries a test with test tones.

... with proper test gear of course.

9377d9f6cb9af0bf74814c7f4e8fc1d3.jpg

we (well the uk, not me, wasnt born) built walls to do that in the 2nd world war.

[sonicpowa]

lol, I had something more modern equipment in mind, but that will do.. only have to be careful not to pick up messages from other worlds..