The Emperor's New Sample Rate
Reply #17 – 2008-04-24 15:08:01
This makes sense if you consider that for there to be those who can't hear a difference, they must be conterbalanced by those who can hear a difference. This is an amazing use of logic and could have important application in other areas as well. For instance, for there to be people who have never met aliens, they must be counterbalanced by those who have met aliens? Hehe. The main flaw in 2tecs thinking is that because he isn't that experienced, he doesn't know and understand yet, that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something anywhere in the world. But it is possible to prove the existence of something at specific locations in the world. This does NOT mean, that therefore something must exist somewhere in the world - it just means that you cannot test it. This is because we cannot look everywhere simultaneusly - we cannot test everything everywhere at the same time. Therefore, nonexistence of something regardless of location, is impossible to prove.... but it can be estimated: Probabilities. When in theory something doesn't exist, and besides of various tests and widespead awareness about the topic, no one succeeds in proving one single existence of the effect.... then it is reasonable to "asume", that it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. We have no proof that higher samplerates are unperceivable - but we also have zero evidence that it is perceivable - therefore we can ignore the issue until it starts to matter. We have no proof that the FSM doesn't exist - but we also have zero evidence that it exists - therefore we can ignore the issue until there is evidence. Thus, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim about the existence of something. And there is more to it: If apparently it is very difficult to prove the existence of something - thus, if its proposed effects seem very difficult to notice - then it is reasonable to asume, that even if it exists, its significance is very low. But if the significance of higher samplerates for listening are very low IF they exist..... then whats the point in spending all the resources for recording, storing, reproducing them? This makes higher samplerates look even more uninteresting, because it means: Higher samplerates do not seem to be perceivable - and even if they were perceivable by someone, then it is probable that in the majority of cases they are insignificant. Bummer!