Sean Beavan Explains 24-Bit Audio.

Excellent interview, thanks for sharing.

I kinda tuned out when he said that frequencies outside of the range of human hearing affect the sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iniamyen 

I kinda tuned out when he said that frequencies outside of the range of human hearing affect the sound.

It's not the first time I have heard that, this claim date back to the 60's 70's but has persisted, so it's hard to downright deny that it's possible.

I made it to six minutes in and stopped. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adda 

It's not the first time I have heard that, this claim date back to the 60's 70's but has persisted, so it's hard to downright deny that it's possible.

Sure would be easy to straight up prove it, but no one seems to be doing that 

You can't prove something doesn't exist. You have to prove that it does.

Have any objectivists watched the video? Does he provide meaningful information or just pseudo-science?

I'm pretty open-minded but still consider myself "objective."

I only watched for 15 minutes, but I got the impression it's a mixed bag. He brings up good science when talking about loudness wars, dynamic range of the formats, the importance of mastering, and other things, but then basically says "you can HEAR it dude! It's so OBVIOUS!" when confronted with whether for example, 24bit vs 16bit is audible or not. And I find it hard to stomach when I've tested my own limits of audibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

Sure would be easy to straight up prove it, but no one seems to be doing that 

 

You can't prove something doesn't exist. You have to prove that it does.

 

Have any objectivists watched the video? Does he provide meaningful information or just pseudo-science?

I am being objective, do a quick google, before you risk talking about something you obviously haven't looked in to.

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adda 

I am being objective, do a quick google, before you risk talking about something you obviously haven't looked in to.

 

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

The Oohashi paper's flaws have been pointed out many times. There's some posts about it in the Sound Science forum somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

The Oohashi paper's flaws have been pointed out many times. There's some posts about it in the Sound Science forum somewhere.

Of cause, that's how science works, people make research, it is then scrutinized and the researcher has to defend his results, it all has to start somewhere.

No one can say for sure that frequencies above human hearing has no effect what so ever, there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

I have never said that high frequencies do have an effect, but they just might, no one knows for sure.

If all research that had flaws had been dismissed science would have gotten nowhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adda 

 

No one can say for sure that frequencies above human hearing has no effect what so ever, there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

What evidence? Oohashi doesn't count, you can't use flawed experiments as solid evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

What evidence? Oohashi doesn't count, you can't use flawed experiments as solid evidence.

When did I claim that it is solid evidence? is is evidence however and something I hope to see more research on in the future.

In another thread I wrote something like "if the benefit of high resolution audio is to reproduce frequencies above 20KHz then no one would benefit".

But I remain open to the possibility that it does, while you refuse to accept anything but your own convictions, and downright disrespect people for thinking differently then you do, even if their experience exceeds your own.

I'm not gonna' have a discussion with you, it won't go anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adda 

When did I claim that it is solid evidence? is is evidence however and something I hope to see more research on in the future.

In another thread I wrote something like "if the benefit of high resolution audio is to reproduce frequencies above 20KHz then no one would benefit".

But I remain open to the possibility that it does, while you refuse to accept anything but your own convictions, and downright disrespect people for thinking differently then you do, even if their experience exceeds your own.

 

I'm not gonna' have a discussion with you, it won't go anywhere.

I'm looking for solid evidence. Not evidence that suggests IMD within the audible band is audible, which is basically what Oohashi managed.

You're putting words in my mouth. I would readily believe that supersonic frequencies matter if there were evidence to support it. I never once said it was impossible. But the evidence doesn't suggest that it's true.

Why the ad hominem? What was the purpose of that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

 

I'm looking for solid evidence. Not evidence that suggests IMD within the audible band is audible, which is basically what Oohashi managed.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I would readily believe that supersonic frequencies matter if there were evidence to support it. I never once said it was impossible. But the evidence doesn't suggest that it's true.

 

Why the ad hominem? What was the purpose of that?

If you are looking for solid evidence you won't find any, the human brain isn't very well understood, all we can do at this point is to give it input and see what lights up and make estimations based on that.

The ad hominem is a result of my experiences when discussing with you in the past, you really should read your messages twice before posting, they tend to be bordering on demeaning.

The bottom line is, none of us are good at keeping the piece when we go in to a discussion with each other, we just disagree and you won't accept that, this thread has already been derailed.

Just watch the video, he makes some good points and has some interesting insights, he not just some idiot you know.