I forgot to mention. I record at 96k. Not for technical reasons but because to me it sounds better.

Mosvalve
It appears that there are so many variables that must be considered when testing audio that it makes me wonder if there can ever be an absolute conclusion.

A great example is when I heard two people arguing about whether you could hear a difference with different cables. Given that one was using a cable to patch a synth out to a line level input, and the other was using it to patch a single-coil pickup to a high-Z input, of course they were both right. So the absolute conclusion is...cables can make an audible difference. You may never encounter that difference, or you may encounter it every day, but that difference exists independently of your perception of it.

Mosvalve
I forgot to mention. I record at 96k. Not for technical reasons but because to me it sounds better.

How would you characterize what sounds "better"? Is it anything you can quantify, like transient response or whatever?

To me 96k seemed to capture more of the sound of a guitar for example than 48k did. More definition and clarity maybe describes it better. I don't understand a fraction of what you guys are talking about so I can't get technical. All I know is that to me it sounds better. I'm not saying I can't get a good recording at 48k I'm just saying for whatever the reason 96k sounds better to me. When I recorded a virtual instrument like piano etc. I heard a big difference in the sound quality compared to 48k. If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

Anderton
I thought Meyer-Moran showed pretty conclusively that no one could reliably tell the difference between playback at 96/24. DSD, and 44/16.

 
This being audio, you will of course find critics of that test too. 
 

What gives me pause re: what I saw at NMS was the 30 second delay cited before the EEG changed when going from no ultrasonics to including ultrasonics or back again. I don't know the rate at which Meyer-Moran switched, but if it was typically 30 seconds or less, that would explain why there was no noticeable difference to the participants. Also, auditory memory is not that great. 

When switching between samples, I believe the number for when we start to lose the ability to discern tiny differences between signals is if there is a gap between them greater than ~200ms.
 
And the Oohashi EEG test that brought up the listening time issues dates to 2000. It's pretty easy to do an ABX test with both longer time lengths for each sample and longer gaps in between them. Kinda funny that if it's that easy, no one has put this to bed yet over the last 14 years.

Mosvalve
If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

No. If there is no difference technically, then it boils down to imaginary differences.
 
If you're hearing something real (and you may well be), then there is a technical explanation for it.

When MP3s came out it was marketed as better than CD quality.
very few know apart from audiophiles and us, LOL, we know different. Another one for the null testing courtesy of George Massenberg.
 
But most punters are content with MP3, not just for file size. Nothing is being broadly promoted as better.
 
Most punter love their music and if they knew it could sound better they'd buy it judging by history.
 
So I think there is desperately a need to be able to duplicate tests that prove and can show we can hear something subjectively better.
 
In the meantime, a workable explanation while probably incorrect is;
 
the program material above the threshold of audibility reinforces the fundamentals and harmonics that are there within the audible range.
 
Now following on from this have you ever tweaked a channels EQ and and could hear change as desired only to discover you were on the the wrong channel. Own up on this one.
 
So one thing we do know for sure it is "all in the mind".
 
Lets not be too serious about it after all this is fun. It is fun I tell you. LOL
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mosvalve
To me 96k seemed to capture more of the sound of a guitar for example than 48k did. More definition and clarity maybe describes it better. I don't understand a fraction of what you guys are talking about so I can't get technical. All I know is that to me it sounds better. I'm not saying I can't get a good recording at 48k I'm just saying for whatever the reason 96k sounds better to me. When I recorded a virtual instrument like piano etc. I heard a big difference in the sound quality compared to 48k. If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

I believe you are hearing a difference with the virtual instrument context. There are two situations going on here. People seem to forget that. One is creating sessions at either 44.1K and 96K and recording from the outside into the DAW through a sound card. In this case we all seem to agree that they are both very similar. (although in your case you actually prefer 96K which is also interesting. I bet if I lived with 96K for a long period I would start to feel the same way too. That is why I am thinking now about a setup that can run entirely at 96K)
 
The second situation is driving a virtual instrument such as the piano you mentioned or Z3ta as Craig did right at the start and in my case working with 'Prism'. There are very real differences when using some virtual instruments at either 44.1K or 96K and in all cases it seems 96K is the preferred sound. Virtual instruments obviously pose a different set of circumstances to the digital medium and the higher sampling rates win and it sounds so.
 
Read my post #150. 'Prism' at 96K is producing harmonics right up to 48K. Interesting. I bet the piano VST is doing something similar too.
 
Some people here are just having problems coping with the fact that it is in this case (virtual instruments, to which maybe more Sonar users are not using) that the differences are so marked. It is interesting that it has taken a while for these things to be brought out into the light.

drewfx1

Mosvalve
If there is no difference technically between the two sample rates then it just boils down the ear of the beholder.

No. If there is no difference technically, then it boils down to imaginary differences.
 
If you're hearing something real (and you may well be), then there is a technical explanation for it.

Yup. The problem with all of this is the range of variables that make it difficult to nail down the actual technical explanation. A couple engineers have told me that certain converters perform better at 96kHz than 44.1kHz and some perform worse. If it sounds better or worse at 96 it could have nothing to do with the sample rate itself, but how the converter reacts to that sample rate.
 
Another random factoid: DSD tends to shift noise above the audible part of the spectrum. If ultrasonics do produce some kind of response, then what's that noise doing to the experience?
 
I also find some peoples' preference for the "natural" sound of vinyl interesting, because the RIAA curve EQs the living daylights out of the signal. In terms of spectral distribution, what you hear coming out of the speakers in a vinyl playback system bears little resemblance to the spectra of what's actually "encoded" in the vinyl's grooves.
 
One panelist said that to have a reference point for good sound, you should listen to vinyl. I disagreed - I said the reference point for good sound is live music in a room with good acoustics
 
 

Putting aside the issues here I just want to say this has been one of the finest epic threads I can remember. All the participants deserve a pat on the back.