|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.209.123
In Reply to: RE: Hmmm... posted by Goober58 on January 26, 2015 at 17:02:10
Yes but what guarantee do we have that both units have identical performance?
It's the same model unit. You're really stretching here.
Also the physical location of any component can be relevant...
Say what?
Doesn't change the fact that this test asssumes both signal paths are identical
They are from the same mic feed.
and that the down sampling algorithm has no sonic effect.
There is NO down sampling. Only recordings sourced at different resolutions.
Get it?
Follow Ups:
It's the same model unit. You're really stretching here."
Oh?
Say what?
Also the physical location of any component can be relevant...
"They are from the same mic feed."
So? They follow different signal paths.
"There is NO down sampling. Only recordings sourced at different resolutions."
There's 3 samples in the test - 2 created by the recorders and one created by a down sampling algorithm on one of them.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
the Goober who complained:
Sure several files recorded at 2 different sample rates - not 2 files one converted from the other
might need to inform the other Goober who complained:
...and that the down sampling algorithm has no sonic effect.
that the discussion remains about the native recording results:
"To test this hypothesis, we recorded five different musical excerpts, each presented in three different formats: 44.1 kHz, 88.2 kHz and the 88.2 kHz version down-sampled to 44.1 kHz...
"Listeners could significantly discriminate between files recorded at different sample rates only for the orchestral excerpt, the only recording of a complex scene with different musical instruments playing in a medium concert hall. This finding provides support for theories that high-resolution formats better reproduce the details of transients and room acoustics."
Either you understand the concept or you don't. Have a nice life!
Lab test(your quote)-
"Listeners could significantly discriminate between files recorded at different sample rates only for the orchestral excerpt, the only recording of a complex scene with different musical instruments playing in a medium concert hall. This finding provides support for theories that high-resolution formats better reproduce the details of transients and room acoustics.
"My point -
"Not sure the study proves anything other than that the converters and down sampling algorithms may impose a sonic signature. "
You say -
"Either you understand the concept or you don't."
I understand the concept but I question whether or not this study "...provides support for theories that high-resolution formats better reproduce the details of transients and room acoustics."
There's no need for your disingenuous paraphrasing, nastiness and name calling. Either one buys into the suggestion that this test supports the theories of high resolution formats as better reproducers "..of transients and room acoustics" or they don't. You buy it - I don't (at least not completely) and I laid out my reasoning for my position.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Not sure the study proves anything other than that the converters and down sampling algorithms may impose a sonic signature.
There was no downsampling involved
Don't you remember Goob #1's complaint? You must be Goob # 2.
They compared two native format recordings. Remember?
Is it past your bedtime?
They compared 3 "recordings". 2 recorded at the same time and 1 down sampled via a sw algorithm. The second lower resolution file was created by removing samples from the higher resolution file.
Creating a lower rate set from a higher rate file is DOWNSAMPLING. In fact it's the listening results of this decimation that cause me to question the test setup/methodology.
Please continue to state the obvious - maybe sooner or later you'll understand what you are trying to talk about.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
There were actually five recordings made in three different formats.
All of my comments have been about the native recordings. Do you understand?
You, and the author, seem to want to pick out a part of a piece of the test and hold it up as evidence of something. On the contrary the whole of the test suggests no differences due to higher resolution formats.
I have no doubt, in the special cases you rely on, that people actually heard differences. But I've made it clear throughout this thread there's no evidence proving that the format differences (as opposed to set up or equipment differences) are the reason for these differences.
You are free to believe whatever you want.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: