It's proven: 16/44.1 as good as 24/96

[abzug]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

[I_Forgot]

You can't apply scientific techniques to music.
Music is about beauty and truth and love and ennui. How can a scientific test ever hope to capture any of that? The article is worthless.

I_F

[abzug]

Originally posted by I_Forgot
You can't apply scientific techniques to music.
Music is about beauty and truth and love and ennui. How can a scientific test ever hope to capture any of that? The article is worthless.

The effect of music on the mind can be studied using psychological and neuroscience techniques. Indeed, psychology of music is an active field.

But this is beside the point of this thread, as the article is not at all about music; it's about whether people can or cannot detect a difference between audio setups where a specific thing was changed--the bit depth and sampling rate of the audio. All subjective effects are taken into account by the fact that the measurement is done by humans with their ears and brains, not a machine. That invalidates any and all objections you could come up with.

So really, the only thing worthless here was your post.

[audio-kraut]

You can't apply scientific techniques to music.

What has this article to do with "music"?

I guess as soon deeply held beliefs are refuted by the use of the "horrible DBT" than all rationality goes by the wayside, and arguments for the defence of such beliefs are scraped from the bottom of the barrel of intellectual dishonesty.

[abzug]

Let's get the thread back on topic. There are various criticisms of this study's methodology elsewhere, but I wanted to see what people here would have to say. Criticizing methodology is one thing; criticizing the idea of blind testing, however, is not acceptable--it is a rejection of rationality, and thus in essence one is arguing against logic (and thus against logical arguments--the argument becomes self-defeating).

[planet10]

I've actually read the paper.

The test showed that in their test, except for a few anomolies in the data (a few people who fairly reliably chose hi-rez, and a test group (women) that had a significant anti-result), the results were no different than random chance. They say in their conclusion that it does not prove that there is no difference, but that it casts doubt.

The paper was weak on detail of the actual setups.

The method which they aquired 16/44material was quite clever. They also said that it became clear fairly quickly that SACDs & DVD-A were clearly superior to CDs.

The test used ABX. There is a valid arguement that test conditions change the way one listens (ie the forced choice changes the mental state under which the listening takes place) such that test results are valid only for listening conditions unlike those conditions extant listening for musical enjoyment.

ie, it is interesting paper but proves nothing.

dave

[planet10]

Originally posted by I_Forgot
You can't apply scientific techniques to music.

I think you can.

Personally i don't think ABX is a valid test methodology. I would like to see some blind tests in a "natural" environment with data collected by direct measurement of brain activity.

dave

[abzug]

The same testing methodology as the ITU specifies for codecs should be used for hardware testing: double-blind multi-stimulus with hidden reference. The specifics such as natural listening environment, long term listening, etc., do not contradict this.

[janneman]

I find it interesting that when ABX comes up, there are always people that claim that the 'stress' of testing, the fact that the testers are 'forced' to take a decision, somehow invalidates the results.

In any and all human activities, it has been proven time and again that putting stress on people ALWAYS IMPROVES the results, whether it is answers at a quiz or laptimes at speedskating.

Jan Didden

[abzug]

Originally posted by janneman
In any and all human activities, it has been proven time and again that putting stress on people ALWAYS IMPROVES the results, whether it is answers at a quiz or laptimes at speedskating.

In my case, it is the converse. I work poorly under pressure, and my work is mostly software and algorithm design. I don't know about speed, but the quality of my work is best when I can work at a moderate pace, i.e. in the flow--not too relaxed but not too pressured either. The problem is that external pressure occupies a portion of attention, and thus is a hindrance.