View Single Post
  #9  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 01:57 AM
LiquidAcid LiquidAcid is offline
Trusted Editor
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
But the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 is very plain and despite the math, can't be explained away with graphs and figures.
Of course it can be explained that way. The point however is, if you can ABX between those two. Which you can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
It may be true that test tones show little difference, but if you compare the DVD-audio version of Santana's "Shaman" with the CD version, even if you listen to lossless files of both, there is no comparison. Even if I turn the speaker system to "pure direct," and turn it down low, you can still hear the difference.
Common misconception when doing comparison: You don't compare the same sources. The DVDA is mastered differently than the CD version. You can't compare these two. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
One reason I believe I hear this is that I have a TX-NR1009 connected to Polk TSI-400 towers - with a signal to noise ratio of 110dB.
You're mixing up SNR and dynamic range. See SNR and DR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
I also wonder when these listening tests are performed if the people listening know what to listen for.
That's not how ABX works. You want to know if the test subject is actually (removing expectation bias) able to hear a difference. Nobody says that you can't train yourself to detect certain artifacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
But finally, I think that most magazines that study this issue miss the idea that the Nyquest theory applies to conscious hearing.
You misunderstood Nyquist. This is about signal processing/reconstruction. Nyquist-Shannon would still be valid if there were no human beings (or beings with human ears) on this planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
It is true that most people can't hear sounds that are above 20Khz or so - but that doesn't mean that they cannot perceive them in some other way the scientists are not measuring.
So what do you suggest as organ perceiving these frequences? Because something connected to our brain has to perceive the information, otherwise we're talking about metaphysics here.
I know what there are some studies about "ultrasonic hearing", but these just suggest that the higher frequences are modulated by bone and body tissue to lower frequences, which are then again perceived by the inner ear. So this is just adding noise to our "reference signal".

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
Studies that ask people to identify sampling frequency wouldn't be able to pick that up because they only ask people if they "hear" anything differently.
Wrong. You can let them ABX between a reference signal and the ref signal + ultrasonic component. The playback system of course has to be able to reproduce the frequencies (without distortion and intermodulation artifacts).

Quote:
Originally Posted by quintin3265 View Post
This is an interesting issue that there seems to be a lot of debate over - but I still think that once Apple starts offering 24-bit music, there will be a switchover.
Yes, but only because most people just blindly accept what Apple "offers" them. Not because it would any sense.

Instead of this mania for even more bits, more kilohertz, more channels, etc. I'd rather like to see more careful mastering, less loudness war and a move towards the DVDA. Not because the DVDA is better in terms of sound quality, but because it fixes a lot of flaws of the CDDA: More durable (protection layer!), better support for metadata, no "offset issue", more ECC/EDC data, etc.

Last edited by LiquidAcid; Sep 19, 2012 at 01:36 PM.