Hi. I just want to clear my doubt. Lavry's optimal sampling rate explanation makes sense to me for recording. I can't hear any benefit with higher sampling rates that what the cd format uses for playback. Is there or could there be any golden ears with golden equipment that can hear anything important with higher sampling rates.? Thank you.
Hi. I just want to clear my doubt. Lavry's optimal sampling rate explanation makes sense to me for recording. I can't hear any benefit with higher sampling rates that what the cd format uses for playback. Is there or could there be any golden ears with golden equipment that can hear anything important with higher sampling rates.? Thank you.
There are clearly those who think they can:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tes...Woj5GzDbMbVC.97 (http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit#LF5DWoj5GzDbMbVC.97)
"
This is really great news for anyone following the hi-res audio debate. The debate is simple; some people claim there is an audible difference between high resolution files and lower resolutions, and some people claim there isn't. There have been a bunch of technical articles on the subject but up until now(ish), there's never been proof that everyone agrees upon. No solid scientific statistically significant proof as to whether or not anyone can discern hi-res audio from lower resolutions in an ABX test. The good news is we have significantly significant test results that prove without question there is an audible difference between hi-res and lower resolutions. The not so good news is this happened over a year ago.
Read more at http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tes...xidzIQ5i8PJi.99 (http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit#9BTixidzIQ5i8PJi.99)
"
I'm not sure why you'd link to an "article" by Lavorgna, who in turn links to amir's clown show.
Is there or could there be any golden ears with golden equipment that can hear anything important with higher sampling rates.?
Some can: http://www.academia.edu/441305/Sampling_Ra...Hz_Vs._88.2_KHz (http://www.academia.edu/441305/Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_44.1_KHz_Vs._88.2_KHz)
"At this individual level, three expert listeners out of 16 obtained significant results, p < .05, 2-tailed. However, they significantly selected the wrong answer, suggesting that they could hear differences between A and B but picked the wrong one (
e.g. A = X when in fact B = X). "
NB, this was a test of downsampling, as much as 'sample rates'. Also the ability to hear differences appears to be rather *instrument dependent* (and again, these results are just for the 3 'expert' listeners, who always got the source rates mixed up):
"Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and 44.1 kHz, significant results were observed for the Violin excerpt only, p = .006. Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and their down-sampled 44.1 kHz version, no significant result was observed. Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 44.1 kHz and files down-sampled to 44.1 kHz, significant results were observed for the Classical Guitar and the Violin excerpts,
p = .02, p = .006, respectively."
So once again, hardly evidence for the veils lifted, even my spouse could hear it, tulips bloomed in my gardens rhetoric that is STANDARD in the audiophile discussionn of Redbook vs hi-rez.
We just lately had a member that heard 96->44.1 with his behringer DAC but not 96->44.1->96.
This way he proved that gear may sound different at different samplerates, not more, not less.
"At this individual level, three expert listeners out of 16 obtained significant results, p < .05, 2-tailed. However, they significantly selected the wrong answer, suggesting that they could hear differences between A and B but picked the wrong one (
e.g. A = X when in fact B = X). "
NB, this was a test of downsampling, as much as 'sample rates'. Also the ability to hear differences appears to be rather *instrument dependent* (and again, these results are just for the 3 'expert' listeners, who always got the source rates mixed up):
"Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and 44.1 kHz, significant results were observed for the Violin excerpt only, p = .006. Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and their down-sampled 44.1 kHz version, no significant result was observed. Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 44.1 kHz and files down-sampled to 44.1 kHz, significant results were observed for the Classical Guitar and the Violin excerpts,
p = .02, p = .006, respectively."
So once again, hardly evidence for the veils lifted, even my spouse could hear it, tulips bloomed in my gardens rhetoric that is STANDARD in the audiophile discussionn of Redbook vs hi-rez.
Could this be evidence for a particular converter performing poorly at the lower sampling rate?
Could this be evidence of cherry-picking?
Could this be evidence of cherry-picking?
It's this:
The mountain labors mightily and brings forth...a mouse. Again.
It's debatable whether the mountain brought forth even a mosquito, if anything at all.
Hi. I just want to clear my doubt. Lavry's optimal sampling rate explanation makes sense to me for recording. I can't hear any benefit with higher sampling rates that what the cd format uses for playback. Is there or could there be any golden ears with golden equipment that can hear anything important with higher sampling rates.? Thank you.
It is absolutely possible to capture all audible information with a sampling rate of 44.1kHz. Some poorly-designed converters might work better at higher sampling rates, but this can be compensated for by upsampling in software, at least on the playback side. Most DSP plugins that benefit from higher sample rates over-sample internally, so you probably don't need to worry about it.
Some can: http://www.academia.edu/441305/Sampling_Ra...Hz_Vs._88.2_KHz (http://www.academia.edu/441305/Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_44.1_KHz_Vs._88.2_KHz)
Werner at pinkfishmedia once nicely explained what this paper is really about.
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpos...amp;postcount=9 (http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2307803&postcount=9)
and unsurprisingly, the paper was already discussed on HA as well.
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...=82264&st=0 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264&st=0)
"Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and 44.1 kHz, significant results were observed for the Violin excerpt only, p = .006. Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and their down-sampled 44.1 kHz version, no significant result was observed. Regarding the comparison between files recorded at 44.1 kHz and files down-sampled to 44.1 kHz, significant results were observed for the Classical Guitar and the Violin excerpts,
p = .02, p = .006, respectively."
Seems like one of them fishing expedition studies.
amir's clown show.
Has this been discussed here? Just curious to read about it.
amir's clown show.
Has this been discussed here? Just curious to read about it.
The clown show has its own channel
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ounds-different (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?15255-Conclusive-quot-Proof-quot-that-higher-resolution-audio-sounds-different)
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ull=1#post48449 (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449)
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ull=1#post48449 (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449)
ugh. why?
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ull=1#post48449 (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449)
Does that invert the polarity?
Also, when asked (on this forum) what difference he heard he evaded for several pages, until he gave some excuse that didn't answer the question either. He even denied listening to a very short test file I had prepared for him that could have unveiled problems with his laptop.
IIRC he also posted a picture of a spectrum analyzer ... which of course was never used in any ABX testing, as he asserted.
Also, when asked (on this forum) what difference he heard he evaded for several pages, until he gave some excuse that didn't answer the question either. He even denied listening to a very short test file I had prepared for him that could have unveiled problems with his laptop.
IIRC he also posted a picture of a spectrum analyzer ... which of course was never used in any ABX testing, as he asserted.
My take is that when I added the ultrasonic test tones to detect converters with high frequency IM, Amir's laptop did not make the grade. I base that on all of the fuss that he and Atkinson made about the test itself on AVS once it was added.
I don't feel that Amir was exactly forthcoming about the items mentioned above nor was/is he forthcoming about the performance of his laptop.
Archimalgo pointed out:
Archimalgo Comment Abut Amir's alleged tests (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104081-Calling-Arny-What-do-you-make-of-this-(Amir-s-ABX-again-)&p=826149&viewfull=1#post826149)
that it only takes a few minutes to run the test files:
44/16 versus 24/96 test files (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107570&view=findpost&p=904306)
and Amir's lack of willingness to explain past results or generate new results is pretty telling.
It looks like catching some of Lavorgna's buddies lying about me put a damper on the discussion at his web site:
Lavorgna's buddies get caught in a lie (http://www.audiostream.com/comment/510043#comment-510043)
The whole pretext of of Amir's thread on WBF is ludicrous because it denies a basic rule of valid scientific evidence which is that it is highly repeatable by anybody who puts up a serious effort.
BTW be careful if you post over at WBF as people who get umm, troublesome get banned.
Some can: http://www.academia.edu/441305/Sampling_Ra...Hz_Vs._88.2_KHz (http://www.academia.edu/441305/Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_44.1_KHz_Vs._88.2_KHz)
Werner at pinkfishmedia once nicely explained what this paper is really about.
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpos...amp;postcount=9 (http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2307803&postcount=9)
At that time, the sample rate convertor of Pyramix was proven not-blameless.
Can I have more information? I can only find some Pyramix tests in src.infinitewave.ca, although the results are technically inferior to the best ones such as iZotope, SoX and r8brain, I have no confidence to hear Pyramix's artifacts base on the published test results. Does it mean Pyramix 5 and below have even poorer performance?
I don't feel that Amir was exactly forthcoming about the items mentioned above nor was/is he forthcoming about the performance of his laptop.
Archimalgo pointed out:
Archimalgo Comment Abut Amir's alleged tests (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104081-Calling-Arny-What-do-you-make-of-this-(Amir-s-ABX-again-)&p=826149&viewfull=1#post826149)
that it only takes a few minutes to run the test files:
44/16 versus 24/96 test files (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107570&view=findpost&p=904306)
and Amir's lack of willingness to explain past results or generate new results is pretty telling.
I guess it is to late now. foobar abx for different samplerates from shady sources is history. It became to easy to have a spectrum analyzer running in parallel. Easy to spot.
I was able to tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 in one out of eight test samples at one point, however, I do not think that there is any significant difference.
The real difference between lossy and lossless is more important, but it can still be rather difficult to discern.
I was able to tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 in one out of eight test samples at one point, however, I do not think that there is any significant difference.
I guess you're leaving the rest of us wondering exactly how you managed testing this in order to determine whether your anecdote is worth taking seriously.