or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music. - Page 10  

post #136 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 

Do you mean that we should all move to Colorado? I know that with a little herbal help I too can hear 100kHz, and not just transients.

Nah - we already have enough people here in Colorado - the state is full. You all should move to Washington instead :p

post #137 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom View Post
 

Well, if you tell them that, if only they trusted their own ears, they could hear the same things, they would hear them too, and everybody is happy. And you get the money.

 

All those of us that try to cling to any sort of truth do is to make people unhappy.

 

How about... we all give up and join the happy club?

 

:wink_face:

You know I actually like discussions on the forums outside the science.  We know it's subjective, but it's fun to try out different gears and talk about our subjective impressions.  Are they absolutely correct like my multimeter?  No, not too many things we people do are.  I think it's fun that there are things that we cannot be absolutely certain, and we can be subjective about it, and I think this is part of the hobby itself.  

 

Even some  of us in here have gears at home, some expensive headphones.  Where did the idea to purchase that specific headphones come from?  Tyll's graphs?  :D I think we still need to listen to gear and see if we like the sound if want to keep them.


Edited by SilverEars - 5/4/14 at 3:17pm
post #138 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

You know I actually like discussions on the forums outside the science.  We know it's subjective, but it's fun to try out different gears and talk about our subjective impressions.  Are they absolutely correct like my multimeter?  No, not too many things we people do are.  I think it's fun that there are things that we cannot be absolutely certain, and we can be subjective about it, and I think this is part of the hobby itself.  

 

Even some  of us in here have gears at home, some expensive headphones.  Where did the idea to purchase that specific headphones come from?  Tyll's graphs?  :D I think we still need to listen to gear and see if we like the sound if want to keep them.


Your post reminds me of something that should be remembered when having these kinds of discussions. Namely that NOT everything in high end audio is unscientific mumbo jumbo. There is quite a bit of high end audio principles and ideas that are firmly grounded in good science and engineering unfortunately there is even a greater amount that is just pure snake oil. The real trick is to learn enough to be able to tell the real from the snake oil.

 

In the end this whole high resolution audio craze shows just how important good mastering is - in fact it is so important that good mastering pretty much trumps just about anything else. As in a high bit rate mp3 made from well mastered CD will sound much better than a high resolution flac file made from a poorly mastered recording.

 

Pay attention to what actually matters and even a modest audio system will provide one with hours of listening pleasure.

post #139 of 2273
It doesn't rain as much in Colorado.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post

Nah - we already have enough people here in Colorado - the state is full. You all should move to Washington instead tongue.gif

Edited by Soundsgoodtome - 5/4/14 at 3:39pm
post #140 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


Your post reminds me of something that should be remembered when having these kinds of discussions. Namely that NOT everything in high end audio is unscientific mumbo jumbo. There is quite a bit of high end audio principles and ideas that are firmly grounded in good science and engineering unfortunately there is even a greater amount that is just pure snake oil. The real trick is to learn enough to be able to tell the real from the snake oil.

 

In the end this whole high resolution audio craze shows just how important good mastering is - in fact it is so important that good mastering pretty much trumps just about anything else. As in a high bit rate mp3 made from well mastered CD will sound much better than a high resolution flac file made from a poorly mastered recording.

 

Pay attention to what actually matters and even a modest audio system will provide one with hours of listening pleasure.

I agree with what you say.  There are fundamental things that we as audio enthusiasts should be weary of.  Not many of us that love music will have a technical degree or have the common sense to recognize snake oil.  :D  I think at most time it's more of common sense than anything else.  

 

What I realized is that it being very scientific could detract you from trying out some great performing products.  If you are very skeptical, it's highly likely you will not believe most of anything, and will not try out things.  There are times merits to certain things the majority of these audiophile community commonly do, sometimes numbers of heads do come up with interesting outcomes.  Lots of these people here are honest people that will try to give you their hones opinions on things.  

post #141 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post

So please explain to me how the first scenario differs form the second scenario. Note: I used the example of high resolution digital audio files but I could have instead used the proclaimed differences between digital audio cables as an even better example.

Having hallucinations of Abraham Lincoln would be a sign of some seriously abnormal mental health issues. Subjectively perceiving sonic differences even when there are no actual audible differences is a normal part of the human condition.

se
post #142 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


Having hallucinations of Abraham Lincoln would be a sign of some seriously abnormal mental health issues. Subjectively perceiving sonic differences even when there are no actual audible differences is a normal part of the human condition.

se


You addressed the mental health aspects of my two scenarios but not the part about using false claims (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to make money.

post #143 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundsgoodtome View Post

It doesn't rain as much in Colorado.

Colorado is better than Washington, without a doubt. I won't argue with that. I just said we already have too many people here ;)

post #144 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post


You addressed the mental health aspects of my two scenarios but not the part about using false claims (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to make money.

Unless someone makes an absolute objective claim regarding actual audibility, where's the false claim? If someone says 24/96 or whatever sounds better to them than 16/44, where's the false claim? Are you making the claim that these people are lying when they relate their own subjective experiences? If so, that's a pretty damn bold claim.

se
post #145 of 2273
Nearly all recording microphones roll off at 14 KHz. Whether you think you can hear a difference with over 44.1 KHz doesn't matter, the information doesn't exist for you to process. As for 24-bit, the human hear can hear approximately in volume steps of 1 dB... so unless you're listening at over 96 dB there is no benefit over 16-bit.

Edit: If you don't believe me about the microphones, show me a recording waveform with information above the 22 KHz possible with 44.1 KHz audio.
Edited by ToddTheMetalGod - 5/4/14 at 5:21pm
post #146 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
Even some  of us in here have gears at home, some expensive headphones.  Where did the idea to purchase that specific headphones come from?  Tyll's graphs?  :D I think we still need to listen to gear and see if we like the sound if want to keep them.

 

I use measurements to choose what I buy. I also use them to correct for imbalances. Those graphs represent sound in a very precise and specific way. You just need to know how to read and apply them.

 

Also, a skeptic is just as apt to try new things as anyone else. It's just that a skeptic wants proof of the result, not just a warm fuzzy feeling inside.


Edited by bigshot - 5/4/14 at 5:15pm
post #147 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


There is quite a bit to argue. To wit:

 

Let's say that I come home after shopping at the local mall and tell my wife that I saw Abe Lincoln shopping in Macys - no someone who looked a lot like Lincoln but actually Lincoln himself in the flesh. Now hopefully my wife would just tell me that I'm either totally mistaken or completely crazy and things would end there. But now what if I was so insistent that I really saw Abe Lincoln that I decided to set up a booth and sell tickets at $100 each for your chance to see Lincoln alive and in the flesh. Hopefully people would realize that I was either completely crazy or some kind of scam artist. Soon ticket sales would fall off to zero. End of story.

 

Now suppose I write for some super slick high end audio publication and I say that I can clearly hear the difference between a 24bit/96kHz digital audio file and a 16bit/44.1kHz digital audio (dithered and resampled from the 24bit/96kHz digital audio file) and what's more clearly stated that the high price of the 24bit/96kHz digital audio file was therefore totally justified. However I provide absolutely no proof other then my word of honor. And furthermore, that no one else is able to tell the difference between the two files in any ABX test.

 

So please explain to me how the first scenario differs form the second scenario. Note: I used the example of high resolution digital audio files but I could have instead used the proclaimed differences between digital audio cables as an even better example.

There are quite a bit of moral/legal differences between both scenarios.

 

In scenario one I think (hope) the general opinion among the public will be that it is not, in fact, possible to see A. Lincoln shopping at Macy's.  Therefore if you truly believed this to be the case and act as described, you'd be judged mentally ill but there'd be no intention to deceive, no morally reprehensible component and -in most jurisdictions- when hauled in front of a judge for attempted fraud you'd be held not guilty for reasons of insanity.

 

In scenario B the crucial difference -which is not taken into account as a possibility in your example, rendering it flawed- is on a moral level wether or not you, as a seller, actually believe that a difference exists.  Morally this has absolutely nothing to do with preponderance of scientific evidence.  If you genuinely believe there to be some kind of difference then morally there's no problem, just like in the example above.  If you believe there to be no difference whatsoever then you're committing a morally reprehensible act, irrespective of the objective truth.   Wether or not you're committing fraud depends essentially on the acceptability of your position to the judge or (in the US I guess) a jury.  And there you might have a tough time getting a conviction because apparently despite scientific evidence pointing toward there being no audible differences, not everyone's convinced, going by the sales numbers.  Not to mention the fact that the majority of people adhere to some type of religion which by definition implies the acceptance of some unprovable elements while judging a situation.

post #148 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post


You addressed the mental health aspects of my two scenarios but not the part about using false claims (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to make money.

Unless someone makes an absolute objective claim regarding actual audibility, where's the false claim? If someone says 24/96 or whatever sounds better to them than 16/44, where's the false claim? Are you making the claim that these people are lying when they relate their own subjective experiences? If so, that's a pretty damn bold claim.

se


are we talking about the power of high res audio, or about the very real effects that placebo can have on humans?

both are very well documented now.

post #149 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post


are we talking about the power of high res audio, or about the very real effects that placebo can have on humans?
both are very well documented now.

We're talking about whether or not someone who reports their subjective experience with something, whether it be high res audio or not, is making false claims. Some seem to be arguing that they are.

se
post #150 of 2273

Well, they can claim anything they want, and they can believe it fervently with all their heart, but if it isn't true, it's false. Right?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.