In this study, people that got high scores were re-tested and failed. If they could truly hear a difference then they would have been able to repeat their high scores.
Third, I misremembered. In fact, there was no retesting...because no subject achieved a score where p< 0.05, unless levels were jacked up to abnormal levels.
Don't know about that....perhaps we should both review the HA archive. My memory is that a very few savants like gurubroolz are so attuned to mp3 artifacts that they CAN often ABX them, even at high CBR or VBR with the best LAME codecs...far more routinely than the average punter. It would not be surprising if mp3 codec tweakers were blessed/cursed with this talent. It would be surprising if a typically 40-ish mp3-denouncing 'audiophile' writing for Stereophile, could truly do the same
However, using such an 'unfair' derivation method (Audacity software), I was easily able to ABX (with foobar) the sound of a triangle being struck
The resampled triangle sample from Audacity isn’t quite so colorful as the resampled sweep tone, but when comparing Audacity’s result to CoolEdit resampling (the precursor to Audition, for those who don’t know), the visual differences, especially in the critical midbands, are very obvious.
I don't suppose that there are any musicians ‘out there’ willing to record a minute or so of music with 24-bit and 16-bit sample rates, and then present the tracks for us to ABX? It might be something as simple as playing back a pre-recorded sample (like karaoke background music), and then doing a recording in the two formats.It would appear to be better to do a live take – but there is no way that a musician(s) could do it exactly the same way twice. If anyone is interested, I'll offer to host the tracks on my server. Lemme' know - it might go a long way towards assisting in a resolution to this discussion.Andrew D.www.cdnav.com
This high resolution track is free : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=35624Working link through Megaupload, post 31, page 2.
All resampling is not equal.
What I wrote there certainly is not even close to equivalent to writing 'no one can hear any better than anyone else', and if you can't see that, you're even more obtuse than I thought. Or you're trolling.
Are you suggesting that any single 16-bit process inserted into an otherwise 32-bit chain should be audible to 'golden ears' at normal levels in a blind test?
Go do some reading. You know where the links are, and you know how to get the paper. I'm not here to be your special ed teacher.
Quote from: krabapple on 30 April, 2008, 10:26:48 PMWhat I wrote there certainly is not even close to equivalent to writing 'no one can hear any better than anyone else', and if you can't see that, you're even more obtuse than I thought. Or you're trolling.All I can say is that is that's how it reads to me. Perhaps it's just your insults that make your statements seem confused?
Quote from: krabapple on 30 April, 2008, 10:26:48 PMAre you suggesting that any single 16-bit process inserted into an otherwise 32-bit chain should be audible to 'golden ears' at normal levels in a blind test? Nope, as everyone else knows, I was just wondering if they'd retested those who scored above average.
Quote from: krabapple on 30 April, 2008, 10:26:48 PMGo do some reading. You know where the links are, and you know how to get the paper. I'm not here to be your special ed teacher.My, aren't you being especially helpful!
[blockquote]A. Original 96KHz resampled to 44.1KHz:- duller, and sound appears to come more from from the left.B. Original 96KHz resampled to 48KHz:- duller, and sound appears to come more from the left.C. Above version A resampled back to 96KHz:- no improvement.D. Above version B resampled back to 96KHz:- no improvement.E. Original 96KHz resampled to 192KHz:- the 192KHz version had a slightly brighter sound.[/blockquote]
The differences between A, B, C or D and the original 96/24 sample were quite stark, and I did not perform ABX tests. Either factor -- change in position of the stereo image, or the loss of apparent high frequencies -- was quite noticeable.
The difference in situation E was relatively slight, so I ABXd, in order to satisfy forum guidelines. I was a little surprised to hear a difference in situation E. I had thought the filter performance in the audible range (and even a bit beyond that) would have been indistinguishable as between a sampling rate of 96KHz and a sampling rate of 192KHz.
Prima facie, a struck triangle is a valid test sound, as the triangle is an instrument of a symphony orchestra. However, could there be something anomalous about the particular triange sample? For example the microphones may have been so close that phase cancellations were occurring. In an auditorium, microphones could be quite some distance away from the percussion section of the orchestra.
I feel like a fish out of water writing on this particular topic. An amateur tredding down a path that others would have investigated years ago! Is there a consensus that a sample rate above 44.1KHz can be beneficial, at least for some musical instruments?
No consensus I have come across. A lot of people have done tests (like the papers presented earlier in this thread) without statistically significant results.
C (96 > 44.1 > 96) could be subtracted from the original struck triangle sample and leave no audible difference signal.
I don’t know about Audition 3, I still use CoolEdit200. The Help under Convert Sample Type here is quite clear. It says that quality settings of 100 to 400 give the best results. Higher quality settings can cause high frequency ringing because of the steep filters employed. Since this recording has so much energy above 22050Hz, it may be a good candidate for such problems.In the old Syntrillium forum, the word from the developer was to use 250 for the quality setting. Calculation times are greater at larger settings but perceived quality will not improve above 250.
QuoteC (96 > 44.1 > 96) could be subtracted from the original struck triangle sample and leave no audible difference signal.What does this mean? If you compared the original with a resampled to 44.1 back to 96, there would have to be a major difference since nothing above 22050Hz could be in the resampled to 96kHz Do you simply mean you could not hear anything from the difference file?
No, I think you're just not reading carefully, or not understanding the concepts involved. I don't see anyone else here claiming to be confused by the two statements.
And you're still wondering, even though, 'as everyone else knows', you were informed days ago that there were no scores 'above average' (at the p<.05 level)?
Btw, your statements seem confused.
Are you saying you're NOT suggesting that that a proper re-test of a putative high scorer on a DSD vs Redbook test, would be to see if they could tell 16-bit from 24-bit audio?
You don't seem to have exploited the help you've already been given.
Thus retesting was not needed. Which answers 2tec original question : both average results and individual results were taken into account. There was no positive result.
In the Detmold university listening test, 200 listeners took the same challenge. Some scored above the significance threshold, but this was coherent with random guessing at the collective level. However, one of them got a score of 20/20, which is significant even in a collective test with 200 listeners. The authors said that unfortunately, a small noise at the beginning of one of the samples, though unheard by the listeners, may have biased the result. Maybe also this listener really hears ultrasounds... I don't remember the study talking about his or her hearing ability in high frequencies.