BEATZM1D10T


That's not entirely true. 192Khz picks up frequencies well above the human hearing spectrum that manifest themselves in sub-harmonics within the audible range of humans. 44.1Khz does not pick up those frequencies. But, that's for another discussion for another time.

UnderTow

BEATZM1D10T


That's not entirely true. 192Khz picks up frequencies well above the human hearing spectrum that manifest themselves in sub-harmonics within the audible range of humans. 44.1Khz does not pick up those frequencies. But, that's for another discussion for another time.

This is not correct but indeed, it is another discussion for another time.

UnderTow

BEATZM1D10T

UnderTow

BEATZM1D10T


That's not entirely true. 192Khz picks up frequencies well above the human hearing spectrum that manifest themselves in sub-harmonics within the audible range of humans. 44.1Khz does not pick up those frequencies. But, that's for another discussion for another time.

This is not correct but indeed, it is another discussion for another time.

UnderTow

/hijack

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398%3C/a%3E - "Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz."

[link=http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v117/i4/p2147_s1?isAuthorized=no]http://asadl.org/jasa/res...147_s1?isAuthorized=no[/link] - basically HF information helps us differentiate space.

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

http://www.searsound.com/philosophy.html - Read 'The Recorded Sound Sucks - We're trying to make it better'. Written by Walter Sear. All of his articles are great to read honestly for someone with an interest in our craft.

I have colleagues, who went to highly esteemed audio engineering schools, who's instructors could recognize what sample rate projects were recorded in a heart beat.

Just because you can't hear a difference between a 44.1khz/192khz recording (and your outboard gear's ability to reproduce this response) and their impact on the recorded product, doesn't mean there isn't a perceivable difference to those of us that can.

I'll side with the AES and established (highly regarded) professionals in our field on this one.

/endhijack

chuckebaby

the man is packing amomo.

BEATZM1D10T

UnderTow

BEATZM1D10T


That's not entirely true. 192Khz picks up frequencies well above the human hearing spectrum that manifest themselves in sub-harmonics within the audible range of humans. 44.1Khz does not pick up those frequencies. But, that's for another discussion for another time.

This is not correct but indeed, it is another discussion for another time.

UnderTow

/hijack

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398 - "Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz."

[link=http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v117/i4/p2147_s1?isAuthorized=no]http://asadl.org/jasa/res...147_s1?isAuthorized=no[/link] - basically HF information helps us differentiate space.

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

http://www.searsound.com/philosophy.html - Read 'The Recorded Sound Sucks - We're trying to make it better'. Written by Walter Sear. All of his articles are great to read honestly for someone with an interest in our craft.

I have colleagues, who went to highly esteemed audio engineering schools, who's instructors could recognize what sample rate projects were recorded in a heart beat.

Just because you can't hear a difference between a 44.1khz/192khz recording (and your outboard gear's ability to reproduce this response) and their impact on the recorded product, doesn't mean there isn't a perceivable difference to those of us that can.

I'll side with the AES and established (highly regarded) professionals in our field on this one.

UnderTow

chuckebaby

the man is packing amomo.

The man is packing blanks which are misfiring while he is shooting randomly in all directions in the hope of hitting the target he can't seem to see.

BEATZM1D10T

UnderTow

BEATZM1D10T


That's not entirely true. 192Khz picks up frequencies well above the human hearing spectrum that manifest themselves in sub-harmonics within the audible range of humans. 44.1Khz does not pick up those frequencies. But, that's for another discussion for another time.

This is not correct but indeed, it is another discussion for another time.

UnderTow

/hijack

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398%3C/a%3E - "Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz."

That research has been debunked. Not only is the test itself flawed but the conclusion that you quote does not even follow from the test results!

1. The recordings at the different sample rates are not made with the same clocks. This in itself already invalidates the test but let's continue.

2. To exclude issues with the playback sample rate, the 44.1 Khz recording and down-sampled versions should be resampled to 88.2Khz so that all samples can be auditioned at that rate. This was not done.

3. The re-sampling was performed with the internal Pyramix converter. This is what a Sine Sweep looks like after re-sampling with Pyramix (in Version 6 which was used for this test):



This is the same Sine Sweep converted with the excellent and free SoX converter:



(Note that Pyramix is quite popular in the "Hi-Rez"circles. Makes you wonder heh? ;-) )

4. No clear description of how the ABX testing was performed.

5. The test results: Of the 16 participants 13 did not perform better than chance and 3 seem to have performed better than chance but in the wrong way: They got the answer wrong a "statistically significant" number of times!

6. The next issue with the results is that instead of deciding what is relevant before the tests start and then look at the probability of the results occurring by chance, it seems they calculated the probability of every possible permutation of each individual listener and each individual chance (346 p-values) and then cherry picked the 12 "significant" ones. The thing they seem to be missing is that with so many values there will be a number of false positives by pure chance! That is the nature of statistics. The three candidates that had "significant results" were chosen for these p-values, after the fact! They were not chosen beforehand because of a background in audio engineering or something like that. This is fishy at best.

[link=http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v117/i4/p2147_s1?isAuthorized=no]http://asadl.org/jasa/res...147_s1?isAuthorized=no[/link] - basically HF information helps us differentiate space.

There is nothing in the resumé of that article that says anything about frequencies above 20Khz (or any mention of what frequencies were tested actually). I am not going to pay 20$ to buy the article for the sole purpose of proving you wrong. ;-)  Not least because much of this study is based on simulations. The article isn't even about the whole auditory system. Just a tine subsection of it. 

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

Yes I am fully aware of the Nyquist Frequency. What is your point? If you are referring to this particular sentence "However, this reconstruction requires an ideal filter that passes some frequencies unchanged while suppressing all others completely (commonly called a brick-wall filter). In practice, perfect reconstruction is unattainable. Some amount of aliasing is unavoidable." then note that there is no mention of audible aliasing. That is a crucial point. For instance if you use SoX to re-sample, artefacts are 170 dB below the signal. It doesn't matter how good you hear or how good your monitoring is, there is no way whatsoever anyone can hear that.

http://www.searsound.com/philosophy.html - Read 'The Recorded Sound Sucks - We're trying to make it better'. Written by Walter Sear. All of his articles are great to read honestly for someone with an interest in our craft.

This is only opinion with zero science to support it. That interview actually very clearly shows he did not understand sampling theory. He says "The bandpass, the frequency response - much, much too limited. It will improve as they go up to 192. The follow the dots becomes less follow the dots. There are more dots." and "and until the dots get close enough so that the ear can't hear the difference. It's like the old dot matrix printers - you could tell it was an "O" with the little steps up and the little steps down - you could read it as an "O" - but it wasn't very elegant." That was utterly clueless. The guy had no idea how sampling works.

I have colleagues, who went to highly esteemed audio engineering schools, who's instructors could recognize what sample rate projects were recorded in a heart beat.

More anecdotal evidence. It is meaningless. I have heard many many people claim they can hear differences. Once put to the test, they all fail. (And not just with me. With any proper test ever performed anywhere).

Just because you can't hear a difference between a 44.1khz/192khz recording (and your outboard gear's ability to reproduce this response) and their impact on the recorded product, doesn't mean there isn't a perceivable difference to those of us that can.

Ah yes that childish argument. Question my hearing. I could also stoop to that level and call you delusional but what is the point? All science and all evidence points to higher sampling rates being indistinguishable from 44.1Khz. On the other hand expectation bias and placebo are something every single person on the planet is subject to. There is no question about this. 99% of science is about procedures to avoid and work around the flawed human bias. Anyone that claims different needs to come with some very serious and solid science based evidence. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

On my quality converters, (Prism Sound), no one can tell the difference between different sample rates in a double blind ABX test. That includes many people that told me they could easily tell the difference. Some claimed night and day differences or other such superlatives... that is usually a clear give away that either their converters are completely broken or they have an over active imagination.

I'll side with the AES and established (highly regarded) professionals in our field on this one.

I'll side with A) the scientists and B) the actual proof and science. But you know what what? Most papers at the AES agree with the science and the proof.  (Note that having done a presentation at the AES does not mean that the AES agrees with your conclusions). I don't care how many grammys someone has, their claims are meaningless unless they have solid science and real testing to back-up them up. It is relatively easy to setup a proper double-blind test to demonstrate this yet so far no one, absolutely no one, has managed to. I think the conclusions are more than obvious.

UnderTow

UnderTow

WDI

If the 192 MP3 still sounds like garbage there most likely is another problem.

Oh absolutely. I am just a stickler for technical details. :-)





UnderTow

mike_mccue


Highly esteemed audio engineering schools?

SteveXN


If anyone wants to hear the 192 bit version it is here. I was going to do some vocal retakes, but it may be interesting to you as is

http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10524472&q=hi&newref=1