You may wish to see who is posting things like this under your handle:
That's a direct and uncensored quote. Maybe your account has been hacked? Or did you mean to say, "When people are told that something is hi res, they think it sounds better, whether it does or not?"
That's a direct and uncensored quote. Maybe your account has been hacked? Or did you mean to say, "When people are told that something is hi res, they think it sounds better, whether it does or not?"
I'll just correctly quote myself then as you can't seem to manage
So what I actually said is that only when subjects are told which one is hi-res and which one is not could they tell the difference but in that case they were very consistent.
Last edited:
Details of the experimental method I'd find much more interesting than the data produced. Do you have any?
Pretty straight forward really. When available a hi-res recording and a redbook recording was used. When a hi-res recording was not available the redbook version was used unmodified. Before each session which one to be designated hi-res and redbook was chosen randomly. Before playing each sample subjects were told which quality the recording was regardless if it was the opposite and given a brief instruction on what in particular to notice. These instructions were designed specifically with positive language for the hi-res description and negative language for the redbook description. Subjects gave consistently more positive feedback on the one they were told were the hi-res recording. That's it really. There should be a paper out on it that will be publicly available in a few months.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the instructors that read the instructions to the subjects were not aware it was a psychological test. They actually thought the material they presented as hi-res was hi-res regardless if it was actually the case.
Last edited:
Doesn't sound particularly rigorous for something claimed to be 'scientifically proven'. But thanks anyway for sharing.
<edit> On further reflection the details of this experiment don't correspond particularly well with your original claim, unless I'm majorly misunderstanding something. Your experiment as described seems to be testing for the placebo effect of being told a recording's hi-res. Rather different from the original assertion about 'detecting the difference between hi-res and redbook'.
<edit> On further reflection the details of this experiment don't correspond particularly well with your original claim, unless I'm majorly misunderstanding something. Your experiment as described seems to be testing for the placebo effect of being told a recording's hi-res. Rather different from the original assertion about 'detecting the difference between hi-res and redbook'.
Last edited:
It was designed to prove the power of suggestion.
The point being that we need hi-res recording in the same way we need expensive "quality" wine, designer clothes, and everything else that makes life worth living. We need it because we think it is better and makes us feel better about ourselves when we have it, listen to it, or drink it.
Last edited:
ISTM your argument is flawed. Your experiment showed those particular subjects just needed a convincing story for how and why something's better, quite orthogonal to it actually being better.
Enlightenment is not something someone else can give you, its something you have to see for yourself.
Can you cite a few papers (no preprinted) to support your claims? None of this childish "It's true. Go look it up."
se
Oops. Should have been "no preprints" above. Though after reading Saturnus' subsequent posts to the one I quoted above, I'm sure I'm not going to get any sort of answer. Just more empty hand-waving.
se
se
LOL - yes, so seems most of us actually agree with your conclusion, we just question how you arrived at it.
Am I right in summarizing your position as "there is no technical advantage to hi-res, and it doesn't actually have to be hi-res - as long as the listeners *believe* it is hi-res, they will enjoy it more than "normal CD quality"?
Studios will record in 48/24 or 96/24 just because that makes sense for their processing. Artists will record in wharever format the studios record in.
Problem is that once you go beyond "more than good enough", there is no upper limit. 2 MHz 64-bit recordings, anyone?
Well, PCM (not just specifically wav), yes, but 32 bit float doesn't give any more accuracy than 24 bit fixed point.
The FLAC is unpacked to raw PCM (not a wav file) because that is what a DAC uses - it might then process that further depending on the internal architecture (upsampling, delta-sigma etc).
96/24 (and 48/24) is what pretty much everybody uses, and for a good reason. Float doesn't add any value, and DSD has to be converted to PCM for processing anyway.
"It's scientifically proven that with the power of suggestion people will detect the difference between hirez and redbook."
Wow. What a discovery! 😀
Wow. What a discovery! 😀
True of course, for modern digital studios, but someone still needs to make these FLAC files and get them up online by the time they start to ship the players. And there is a lot of origanal recordings not in the digital realm.
It sounds like Neil and several other artist's like Tom Petty may have created some material already. Maybe something is available now for review. Or do we have to wait until October?
I see the content to be the main factor in all this. Question is how the original masters get converted and from what source and will that info be released with the files.
Hehe why not 10Mhz/128bit? Maybe we'll all hear a difference then?
Yeah, well that seems to still be a DAW engine argument though right? I mean FP is just a nice big container for buffer overflow. Some say it's needed and some argue it's not needed. So we just get back to the same debate.
That's what I thought, so the FLAC file is merely the transfer container which works because it will compact the PCM wav without loss of data?
So all we need now is to figure out and agree that 192khz/24bit PCM wav is as good as it will ever get. And maybe that can be a new final audio standard.
There will always be MP3's, CD's, cassettes, and records to still choose from.
Have you looked at HDTracks and Qobuz?
Yes.
96/24 and even 48/24 is more than good enough - and for actual end-result distribution, 16 bits is actually fine.
Agree Julf.
And see also here: 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
(The person also mentions that initially Neil Young apparently talked to Apple for a joint venture).
Jan
And see also here: 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
(The person also mentions that initially Neil Young apparently talked to Apple for a joint venture).
Jan
I've read this article before as well as watched the video on digital sampling and it all makes perfect sense and is a factual example of the science in digital audio that is well understood.
From everything said there, 44.1khz/16bit is as HDef as it needs to be right?
Anything beyond that is lost on our ears.
If 44.1khz/16bit is "perfectly good enough" for human hearing, then why are there so many people here on DIY building DAC's, converters etc...using 48, 88.2, 96, 192, 384, DSD and so on constantly seeking higher and higher rates and searching for higher and higher quality? It must be delusional and completely subjective to claim these sound better and more HDef...right?
I just don't see the point?....and then the endless debates over something that seems to have been solved years ago?
Also if 48khz/24bit gives us a slight extension beyond 24khz and a little better dynamic range and lower noise floor that is not even needed and why is that not good enough?
I don't have any arguments, just trying to wrap my head around all this...
I hate how people so often resort to the "delusional" hyperbole, as if to imply some sort of mental illness.
It's simply humans being human. While we don't know everything, one thing we do know is that it's trivially easy to get humans to subjectively perceive differences even when there are no actual differences.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.