"brickwall filter vs no digital or analog filters" which is on same lines:So it's either frequency or time artifacts. Pick your poison.
In reply to Kim_C:It is true that human ear cannot hear much above 20 KHz, and this is specially true for dynamic situations. Most people can't hear anything over 19 KHz with steady signals, and maybe over 17-18 KHz on dynamic signals.
There haven been a number of publications in the past 10 years about the capability of the Human ear to 'hear' sound > 20 KHz ( dont ask me for any links, i dont have any avaialble )
did tests with my own ears, almost 5 years ago :- I was not able to 'hear' sine tones > 16.5 KHz ( maybe even lower now )but- in a blind ABX test i could easily detect a low pass filter of 4th order ( 24 db/octave , linkwitz ) with a -3 dB at 20 KHz on a high quality Stereo chain, with normal music ( hitrate : > 85 % ) .Why ?
- in a blind ABX test i could easily detect a low pass filter of 4th order ( 24 db/octave , linkwitz ) with a -3 dB at 20 KHz on a high quality Stereo chain, with normal music ( hitrate : > 85 % ) .
giving its 'position' in the stereo image using the 'balance' slider .... so there is no runtime difference between left and right ear, but simply an amplitude difference ...
A 24 db linkwith filter shouldnt have a 1 db attenuation at 13 KHz.
In the same website (pcabx) there was a test similar to yours, but comparing 24/96 musical signals with 16/44.1 signals, unfortunately, it seems to be offline now. As I know, nobody had been able to identify those different formats in an ABX test.
If it was a kind of single instrument i dont think you could 'hear' what i could differentiate in my comparison, being the 'air' around instruments, the precision of positioning and the 'depth' of the recording studio .
You can try on more critical signals, possibly such as some cymbals (maybe castanets has too much low frequency impulsive content) , I believe Pio has some available, lowpass them with something like 18 KHz an see if you can tell the difference.
It is a quality, 'airy' piece of classical music from Telarc records. If you analyze it, you'll see that it has practically no content above 10 KHz.
About frecuencies over 20 KHz... well, if we are *totally* deaf, unsensitive, to a ultra-high level signal of 21 KHz, I can't see how, much lower levels that can be found in regular music at these frequencies, could have an effect over our perception.
We basically can't "hear" much higher because of the mechanical inertia of the moving parts in our ears... But if you have a short click (a few milliseconds) at 30 kHz. There will be the moment, when the sound starts, that your ear will move. But it won't be able to follow the speed. That doesn't mean your ear will not move. Especially if the frequency is not 100% constant (it will produce modulation at low frequencies). The movement of the ear, might not be at all like the movement of the air we "receive", but in the end there is one. And I think we can feel it.
So, they tested the high-sampling frequency of 96 kHz vs. 48 kHZ with practical music, with the result, that 48 khZ sampling is enough, indishtinguable from original sound.Test-listeners were a good group of students becoming recording-ingeneers.
Most of the ideas that are being kicked around here could be proved or disproved in a well planned experiment.And some people here have the equipment to try such an experiment. 1. 2496 sound card2. decent headphones3. Cool EditWe've been discussing these things for ages. When these ideas were first kicked around in the 1990s, no "normal" people had the equipment to be able to test the ideas. Now, many people do. It seems to me, rather than discussing hypotheticals, we could also come up with some ways of proving/disproving the hypothesis, and then carrying out the experiment.As my own contribution, the 1st hypothesis seems to be:24/96 material sounds better than 44.1/16The approach should bea) get 24/96 material (David Chesky sells some nice DVDs)B) convert to 44.1/16 (Cool Edit will happily do this as well as anything)c) compare (blind test)You'll have to remove all confounding problems - for example, I can hear when my audiophile24/96 switches sample rate, which makes a blind ABX test rather difficult! Putting some silence at the start of tracks (and not switching mid-track) may remove this problem.If, and only if, someone can hear a difference, then we can start trying to figure out what mechanism is causing that difference.Any takers?Cheers,David.P.S. - When I had decent headphones, I didn't have the 24/96 sound card - now I have the card, I no longer have the headphones. However, I'm working on it! I've never had a quiet listening environment.
Actually, according to Paul Frindle........no. According to experiments that were described in pages past, this phenomenon does not happen with the ear if either of the two fundamental tones is higher than the ear can hear. I have actually substantiated this myself as well. My hearing caps off at around 17.5kHz. I played a 16.5kHz signal and an 18.5kHz signal through two separate pair of speakers in a room and listened for the 2kHz tone and it never shows up. Therefore, limiting the signal to above what humans can hear does not inhibit our ability to capture the performance as naturally as we would hear it live.