Originally Posted by Kokomo O
Um, that was you, if you look above. Since we're talking about something that only exists as binary information converted from the analogue sound signal, I translated your term "physical differences" so that it made sense in the context of the conversation that was occurring here, hence, "mathematical differences."
You completely misunderstood what I said.
What I said was, "Because it's so trivially easy to get humans to subjectively perceive differences even when there are no actual physical differences, you can always sell things to people for which there are no actual audible differences."
When I said subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences, I meant exactly that. For example, playing a 16/44 file for someone, and then play the exact same 16/44 file but tell them that it's a 24/96 file. Many people will report subjectively perceiving a difference, even though there is no physical difference, i.e. both files are 16/44.
That's what I meant, not that there's no physical physical or "mathematical difference" between 16/44 and 24/96 or whatever.
Look, you can believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe that 35 year old technology designed as a kluge to fit one particular piece of music onto a disc of predetermined dimension with the smallest pits then feasible at a specified price point is the best possible storage technology, fine, believe it.
What I believe is what I have stated previously, that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences between 16/44 and 24/96. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be happy to look I to it. But at this point, that appears to be the reality and I fail to see why I should be taken to task for believing in the apparent reality.
But there are way too many people who know what real music sounds like, and know that CDs are just a poor approximation, bettered by good vinyl systems, which are themselves imperfect, and also often, not always, bettered by hi-res as well...
Well implemented digital, including 16/44 doesn't have anywhere near the gross noise and distortions that vinyl has and there's no arguing that there aren't clear audible differences between the two with many preferring vinyl. There's no arguing over people's subjective preferences, but there's virtually nothing about vinyl that's technically equal to let alone superior to digital, again including 16/44.
...and who aren't all fooled by confirmation bias.
And you know they're not fooled by expectation/confirmation bias how exactly? Because they say so?
What's especially amusing about all these posts from you "there's no audible difference between redbook and hi-res" guys is when you claim that those of us who do hear a difference are hearing confirmation bias. From the smug tone of your posts, you'd never admit that it's at least as likely that your failure to hear a difference is due to your own confirmation bias.
Sure, biases can work both ways. But all you have to do to put all this to rest is simply demonstrate that there are in fact audible differences between 16/44 and 24/96. And do so by means other than empty claims and hand-waving.
seEdited by Steve Eddy - 4/16/14 at 6:24pm