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 11  

post #151 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

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
Audio is the only hobby I've ever seen where people actively promote false information, even after being shown evidence that disproves them. When disproven in other hobbies other people accept the proof, not relentlessly fight it with subjective experience. I think I need to leave the sound science forum forever. Maybe this forum should be DBT free like the cables and tweaks section...
post #152 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

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?

You're saying their subjective experience isn't true? That they're subjectively experiencing something other than what they're reporting to be experiencing? I certainly hope that's not what you're saying, but I don't see you saying anything else here.

se
post #153 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post

Audio is the only hobby I've ever seen where people actively promote false information, even after being shown evidence that disproves them. When disproven in other hobbies other people accept the proof, not relentlessly fight it with subjective experience. I think I need to leave the sound science forum forever. Maybe this forum should be DBT free like the cables and tweaks section...

I'm still trying to figure out where you guys are getting the notion that someone relating their subjective experience is a false claim.

se
post #154 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

You're saying their subjective experience isn't true? That they're subjectively experiencing something other than what they're reporting to be experiencing? I certainly hope that's not what you're saying, but I don't see you saying anything else here.

se
Subjective experience is affected by psychology. The brain has as much of an affect on what we hear as our ears do. Technically speaking, their belief that 24-bit audio is better is making it better.
post #155 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

Colorado is better than Washington, without a doubt. I won't argue with that.


Peyton Manning would disagree :eek::D

post #156 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post

Subjective experience is affected by psychology.

Absolutely.

Quote:
The brain has as much of an affect on what we hear as our ears do.

Well, I wouldn't say as much. Otherwise, we'd be all over the map in terms of what particular individuals hear with respect to others. One person hears a mockingbird! another hears a lion's roar when all the time it's a dog barking. But yes, I agree with what you're saying in essence.

Quote:
Technically speaking, their belief that 24-bit audio is better is making it better.

That can certainly be part of it. Though even without being told exactly what one may be comparing, just the expectation of some difference can have an influence.

Now, after all that, let me ask you this. What's really the only thing that matters at the end of the day when we're sitting listening to music for our own enjoyment than our subjective perceptions? What else on earth do we have to work with but that?

se
Edited by Steve Eddy - 5/4/14 at 6:56pm
post #157 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post


Audio is the only hobby I've ever seen where people actively promote false information, even after being shown evidence that disproves them. When disproven in other hobbies other people accept the proof, not relentlessly fight it with subjective experience. I think I need to leave the sound science forum forever. Maybe this forum should be DBT free like the cables and tweaks section...

 

Start drinking wine and hanging out with people who will suggest what wine to get, then come back here and tell us about all the BS :D There was one blind test where "connoisseurs" picked Chilean over French, then Napa Valley and Australian in another. I know people who scoff at our drinking sweet raspberry+grape wine brought in in large vats with oak planks in them (or our coconut liqueur which without fruit flavors is technically our Moonshine), and only drink the mishandled French wine (tropical country, slow customs at port, unrefrigerated trucks) that are halfway to becoming red wine vinegar. It's atrocious that these people buy them for $200+ per bottle when you can just blow the same cash on cognac, which travels better.

post #158 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProtegeManiac View Post
 

 

Start drinking wine and hanging out with people who will suggest what wine to get, then come back here and tell us about all the BS :D There was one blind test where "connoisseurs" picked Chilean over French, then Napa Valley and Australian in another. I know people who scoff at our drinking sweet raspberry+grape wine brought in in large vats with oak planks in them (or our coconut liqueur which without fruit flavors is technically our Moonshine), and only drink the mishandled French wine (tropical country, slow customs at port, unrefrigerated trucks) that are halfway to becoming red wine vinegar. It's atrocious that these people buy them for $200+ per bottle when you can just blow the same cash on cognac, which travels better.

See bold:  this is the core of the entire issue.  Not the spending of the moneyed hoi polloi that is, but the 'we know better' attitude of people -wearing lab coats or not- who think they have a moral obligation to dictate (distinct from 'inform') what others should do.  If people want to blow their cash, me thinks it's their business and their prerogative to do so.  If they want some expert assistance they presumably have the disposable income to get it.  

 

BTW:  back in the 18th-19th century some wines were sent on a sea voyage from France to Cochin, India and back to speed up their development and maturation in the tropical heat.  But obviously I agree that it's not a good idea to move wine too much and certainly not to expose it to huge temperature shocks.  Which is why my cellar remained in Europe and wasn't moved to India.

post #159 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post

See bold:  this is the core of the entire issue.  Not the spending of the moneyed hoi polloi that is, but the 'we know better' attitude of people -wearing lab coats or not- who think they have a moral obligation to dictate (distinct from 'inform') what others should do.  If people want to blow their cash, me thinks it's their business and their prerogative to do so.  If they want some expert assistance they presumably have the disposable income to get it.  

But the problem isnt people blowing their cash. It's that those who blow their cash also run their mouths and justify blowing their cash with claims that what they blow their cash on is inherently superior because it cost them a lot of dough, telling budding audiophiles that they need to blow their cash on the same crap, and insulting anyone who knows better and isnt foolish enough (or rich enough) to blow their cash on audiofool's gold.

Cheers

PS, im not sure that 24 bit is really as silly as the > 48kHz sample rates. Dynamic range and low noise floor can be beneficial when music has very soft bits and very loud bits.
post #160 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post


But the problem isnt people blowing their cash. It's that those who blow their cash also run their mouths and justify blowing their cash with claims that what they blow their cash on is inherently superior because it cost them a lot of dough, telling budding audiophiles that they need to blow their cash on the same crap, and insulting anyone who knows better and isnt foolish enough (or rich enough) to blow their cash on audiofool's gold.

Cheers

PS, im not sure that 24 bit is really as silly as the > 48kHz sample rates. Dynamic range and low noise floor can be beneficial when music has very soft bits and very loud bits.

Which is obviously equally pointless and patronising.  And demonstrates my intolerance of any proselytising activity I guess.  Everyone should do as they seem fit; I once had the opportunity to test 2 interconnects costing about 10k USD.  Sounded the same as my 30 GBP pair to me but then that was irrelevant, the friend who had purchased them was happy.

 

I draw the line at purchasing modern date high-resolution 'studio master' versions of '30s mono recordings on their original 78 rpm format :-)  Those artefacts will doubtless sound nice.

 

Shocking revelation after plodding through this thread:  apparently my hearing, which according to my audiologist still extended to 17 kHz at age 39  measured 2 years ago has diminished to 14-15 kHz if jRiver is to be believed and provided no other major variables are at work.

post #161 of 2273
As I couldn't hear the difference, I played some cd sourced 16/44.1 files and the same songs in high resolution format to my pet cat.

He told me my music taste sucked.
post #162 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.


With the right active ingredient, you might be able to see it, let alone hear it!

 

(NB: post based on experience in long, long ago youth. No, I have not indulged in such "experiments" for more than four decades.)

post #163 of 2273
Sometimes audio should be subjective, such as when selecting headphones or amps to use or purchase. Other times, such as when selecting file formats, picking out DACs or turntables, and room treatment or damping for speakers you should be analyzing things objectively.
post #164 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


I'm still trying to figure out where you guys are getting the notion that someone relating their subjective experience is a false claim.

se

 

'The world's greatest sounding music downloads'

Doesn't sound like they're being subjective to me, sounds like they're making a factual claim.

 

From their FAQ section:

Q: Will I really hear the difference between the various formats?
A: You should hear a substantial difference when listening to the music on a home stereo. The music will sound cleaner, the bass will be tighter and you will notice a higher definition in all the instruments. If you are going to pay for digital music, you might as well own it in the highest-quality format available.

 

This video also claims they sound better than CD, DVD and even blu-ray which is interesting since blu-ray can store 192/24...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l8xKUjqKOM

 

 

Please note I am using HDTracks as an example since they seem to be the most well known seller of high sample rate and high bit depth music.

post #165 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

I'm still trying to figure out where you guys are getting the notion that someone relating their subjective experience is a false claim.

se
The human mind is powerful and fills in missing information for the senses. If you believe something hard enough it can affect what you hear. Ever thought you saw scary things in the night and convinced you did? I don't believe in ghosts, but many people claim they're real. In my eyes, the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit audio is as real as poltergeists.
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.