|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.181.178.147
In Reply to: RE: Test with 24/96 vs. 16/44 LITTLE TO NO DIFFERENCE. posted by ??? on February 13, 2010 at 11:35:06
It is unhelpful and unkind to make such a blanket dismissal without any explanation. OTH, you my be right so it would be helpful to all if you were to spell out the mistakes you see and say how it could be done correctly.
Follow Ups:
...he just didn't hear a difference....Period.
It cracks me up when people try to debate what someone else hears. Its his house, his system, his room, and HIS ears, if His Brains says it didn't hear a difference then it didn't hear a difference.
Doesn't mean anyone else will or won't.
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
I hope you are aware of the many times I have posted exactly that in this forum, that is, what you hear is what you hear and a report of this is a fact of observation. However, for it to be useful to others the circumstances and methodology must seem conducive to making the relevant discrimination or lack thereof. If it couldn't be heard with his method or if that method is likely to create overriding artifacts, then his perception while still true is meaningless.
It seems reasonable to assume to poster wished for his "data point" to have significance and be useful to others. He clearly indicated He felt the methodology mattered.
Useful or not, I assume we are all humans and physiologically we resemble each other more than we differ; including in terms of hearing ability. It's easy to say that 24/96 is better because the numbers are better, we rationalize they MUST be better, or advertising tells us it's better.
I would love for someone who believes 24/96 to be so much superior to tell me WHICH piece of MUSIC have they heard which when converted to 16/44 clearly is diminished so I can try for myself...
I assume we are all humans and physiologically we resemble each other more than we differ; including in terms of hearing ability.Physically the same....though perception is totally different. It is Perception that is the end product of hearing as the brain interprets the neurological messages from the ear. Hearing is in fact 100% perception, no human being can hear absolute sound without perception. We all perceive sound slightly different. And though many claim to be golden eared Audiophiles, their super hearing is still due to perception. To make an accurate test between person A and person B you will first need to train both of them to perceive sound the same. Train both people to perceive all the octaves at various amplitudes and wavelengths. Test them both to assure that both of their hearing capabilities are identical. Then play different tracks for them at different sampling rates, in the same room, in the same listening position and so forth. Now you will have an experiment with only one independent variable [the music]. As it stands you have to many independent variables, people's hearing [physical capabilities and perceptions], rooms, gear, etc. Having more than one independent variable in any experiment with always give different results.
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Edits: 02/14/10
Philosophically I agree with you. What you seems to be saying essentially is that art cannot be "proven" one way or another as so much relies ultimately on the qualia of experience.
Having said this, if what I claim is true (24/96 is perceptually no better than 16/44) for the vast majority of people (say... 99.9%) with technically capable equipment because neural physiology reaches threshold of perception already, I'd say that's important to know as a matter of scientific inquiry.
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: