[StanD]

  Trusting one's "ears" doesn't actually mean trusting one's hearing, but rather one's perception of sound, which is inextricably clouded by emotion and conscious and subconscious bias. Most commonly, if someone believes they will hear something (e.g. a difference between a cheap piece of gear and an expensive one), they will most likely "hear" it. Where people then get into trouble is they attribute what they "heard" to the acuity of their hearing, or perhaps the perceptiveness of their mind in general. They then conclude that they somehow have better ("golden") ears than those who can't hear what they (the golden eared audiophile) can, and that anybody who claims there is no difference just isn't blessed with their hearing or powers of perception. In reality, they may have simply gotten caught in a feedback loop wherein the result is always what they expect it to be because it's now important to them, on an emotional and identity basis, to be able to "hear" a "difference".
 
It's this emotional investment, not only in the stable of expensive gear many audiophiles acquire, but also in the notion that owning it and being able to detect minute differences between functionally identical items places them in elite company, that drives subjectivist audiophiles' general loathing of blind testing and sound science. The alternative would be to face the possibility that, no, they don't necessarily have better hearing or perception than others. And, even if they did, absent visual confirmation they might not be able to tell the difference between a $10,000 cable and a coat hanger any better than the average listener or objectivist could. A simple blind test would of course clear up the matter. However, since nobody can force them to take a blind test and prove that they can indeed hear the difference, the subjectivist is free to disparage the process and the scientific basis behind it, choosing instead to, as the phrase goes, trust their ears.
 
When it comes to minute differences, or audio gear or software of dubious value, I am wary of any variation of the "trust your ears" mantra. I don't trust my, or anyone else's, ears, because I know that they are easily fooled by a myriad of factors.

I'm a sceptic, so like Sgt. Schultz, "I hear nothing."
Hmmm, audiophile coat hangers at $10K a pop, sounds like a solid business plan.

 

[U-3C]

I'm a sceptic, so like Sgt. Schultz, "I hear nothing."
Hmmm, audiophile coat hangers at $10K a pop, sounds like a solid business plan.

Add an upgrade option for $5k, where you include stickers! Of course, for best results on the most mathematically correct place to stick them by the efforts themselves, add on another $500 per sticker assembly fee!

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Price is not matter if you know what you buy.
If apparaus have 10k price, why don't purchase cables for 1k?
It is not sound quality. But it is quality of consumption. Aestetical and other reasons.
 
I suppose, that car for maximal price, is not fastest in the world, as example.

 

[StanD]

  Price is not matter if you know what you buy.
If apparaus have 10k price, why don't purchase cables for 1k?
It is not sound quality. But it is quality of consumption. Aestetical and other reasons.
 
I suppose, that car for maximal price, is not fastest in the world, as example.

I'm not a fan of car analogies. My Ferrari came with a diamond studded USB cable, platinum wires.

 

[gregorio]

  We discussed pure audio double blind test before your post. Not audio-visual effect.

 
Actually the original statement was "simple blind test" not double blind tests. And, why do you think it's called a blind test if there's no connection with "visual"?
 
G

 

[StanD]

   
Actually the original statement was "simple blind test" not double blind tests. And, why do you think it's called a blind test if there's no connection with "visual"?
 
G

I saw that coming, D'oh.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

   
Actually the original statement was "simple blind test" not double blind tests. And, why do you think it's called a blind test if there's no connection with "visual"?

 
Why you think, that I think so?

 

[VNandor]

With a synth it's possible to make a sound that gets completely lost after downsampling to 44.1kHz.

 
Quote:

True with acoustic instruments too. Point?

  I never said that. IF an acoustic "isntrument" made a sound with a fundamental above 22kHz it wouldn't be functioning as an instrument because every bit of that sound would be inaudible.

 
You said it's possible to make a sound with acoustic instruments that will get completely lost after downsampling it to 44.1kHz. How is that possible without the fundamental being above 22kHz, or without the sound containing only frequencies above 22kHz?
 
 
Quote:

   
 My soundcard is set to 192kHz. The daw is set to192kHz. I rendered the project in 192kHz. Yes, I did. This is how I know there was a harmonic at 96kHz.

 
Quote:

  Out of curiosity, how do you know this?

Wow, really? Think a little bit. How would YOU find out the sampling rate of your soundcard/daw/rendered project?
 
I know I would look at my soundcard's settings:
 
Then I would check the daw's settings:
 
This is how I would check the rendered file:
 
This is the spectrum analysis of the file, using audacity's less than ideal plot spectrum function:
If you look closely you can see this is probably a plot of a 5kHz square wave.
 
Since you seem to be skeptical about me and my statements I recommend you to download the waveform and draw your own conclusions from it. I hope the link works.
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1RKepESfvrWWHJyNFV0UWFJQW8
 

  I agree you did point out that some synths could theoretically have greater dynamic and frequency capabilities than most acoustic instruments. Please understand that, while theoretically true, it has no bearing on music creation or recording.

Yes. I understand that.

 

[pinnahertz]

   
You said it's possible to make a sound with acoustic instruments that will get completely lost after downsampling it to 44.1kHz. How is that possible without the fundamental being above 22kHz, or without the sound containing only frequencies above 22kHz?

Some of the harmonics of an acoustic sound could be above 22kHz. The will be completely lost after reconstruction filtering at 44.1, downsampling or not. If an acoustic even produces a fundamental above 22kHz, it's second harmonic will be above 44kHz (and so on) the event will be inaudible, and therefore not a "sound".

  Wow, really? Think a little bit. How would YOU find out the sampling rate of your soundcard/daw/rendered project?

I know how I would do it. I asked how you did it. Thank you for the explanation.

  Since you seem to be skeptical about me and my statements...

I have a healthy skepticism about just about everything. It's not personal, it's specific. I was curious. I well know how to evaluate ultrasonic content, and have no need to download anything.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
 
Wow, really? Think a little bit. How would YOU find out the sampling rate of your soundcard/daw/rendered project?
 
Since you seem to be skeptical about me and my statements I recommend you to download the waveform and draw your own conclusions from it. I hope the link works.
 

How did you get the output of the sound card back into Audacity?
 
Why would you think a 5kHz square wave sampled at 192kHz would be a valid and meaningful signal to generate with a music synthesizer?  Clearly it is technically possible, but why would anybody do that?  What you have done is chosen an example to illustrate the vast number of ultrasonic harmonics in a hypothetical wave form, but the example has no bearing on reality and practical usage of a synth in EDM.  The only thing less relevant would be a square wave with its fundamental about the audible range.  
 
It's as relevant as saying "100% of people who drink water die."  And that's true too. 

 

[VNandor]

  How did you get the output of the sound card back into Audacity?
 
Why would you think a 5kHz square wave sampled at 192kHz would be a valid and meaningful signal to generate with a music synthesizer? 

Because I wanted to demonstrate that a synth can create frequencies beyond audibility. You assumed it's only possible with analog synths which is clearly not true if a software that was made to generate tones for music counts as a synth. I used a square wave because predicting the outcome of a sine wave being modulated by an other sine wave which is being modulated by a triangle wave, then being filtered and then distorted is kind of hard compared to predicting the outcome of a square wave. How would I know that the plot is wrong if I used some sick wob-wob dubstep bass?
 

   
 What you have done is chosen an example to illustrate the vast number of ultrasonic harmonics in a hypothetical wave form, but the example has no bearing on reality and practical usage of a synth in EDM.
 

Yes, I've done exactly that. How did you expect me to come up with something relevant to audibility when we were discussing high resolution? Again, the only thing that bothered me was that people seemed to assume that snyths can't go above 22kHz and must contain less high frequencies than acoustic intruments due to some technical limitations. Which is not always true. It doesn't contain ultrasonic frequencies because its not audible so why would any producer bother to synthesize it in the first place?
 
 

  How did you get the output of the sound card back into Audacity?
 

I didn't get the output of the sound card back into audacity. I loaded my rendered file into it. If you think my analysis is wrong either point out to the problem or consider doing your own.

 

[pinnahertz]

  Because I wanted to demonstrate that a synth can create frequencies beyond audibility.

You certainly did that.

You assumed it's only possible with analog synths which is clearly not true if a software that was made to generate tones for music counts as a synth.

Yes, I had not considered the case of a software synth. You proved me wrong.

I used a square wave because predicting the outcome of a sine wave being modulated by an other sine wave which is being modulated by a triangle wave, then being filtered and then distorted is kind of hard compared to predicting the outcome of a square wave. How would I know that the plot is wrong if I used some sick wob-wob dubstep bass?  

You certainly did that.

Yes, I've done exactly that. How did you expect me to come up with something relevant to audibility when we were discussing high resolution?

Not possible, so I never expected you to.

Again, the only thing that bothered me was that people seemed to assume that snyths can't go above 22kHz and must contain less high frequencies than acoustic intruments due to some technical limitations. Which is not always true.

Yes, you've proven your point. Now place that point within the confines of reality, and we're good.

It doesn't contain ultrasonic frequencies because its not audible so why would any producer bother to synthesize it in the first place?  

No idea.

I didn't get the output of the sound card back into audacity. I loaded my rendered file into it.

OK, thanks. I'm a little confused as to why the sound card settings were important then, since the synth not putting a digital audio stream but was just generating a file, unless the synth bases its output file on soundcard settings. Seems odd, but certainly possible.  Software synths I'm familiar with base their resolution on the host app, not the sound card.  But whatever, it's a silly small point, let's not beat it up.

If you think my analysis is wrong either point out to the problem or consider doing your own.  

You have an amazing ability to misquote, misread, and imply things in my post that are not there. If I ask questions about your methodology it's because you hadn't provided details. The point of asking a question is to obtain more information. A question is not an accusation, at least, not the ones I've been asking.
 
 I don't think there's anything wrong with what you've done.  But, let's be clear about what your demo proves: The results of your demonstration prove the point that some software synths can output ultrasonic content.   Your demo does not address what comes out of digital hardware synths and samplers, nor software synths universally, nor which type of synth is most used,  nor the likelihood of anyone needing to create a 5kHz square wave for it's musical properties, nor the likelihood of the presence of incidental ultrasonics from any type of synth, nor how many EDM recordings are even made in high res.  
 
And the core question, "Does EDM benefit from high res" is not impacted at all by your demo.  You even agree on that. 
 
I don't think a clinical and hypothetical case is relevant to the discussion about EDM benefitting or not from high resolution.  

 

[LazyListener]

@VNandor
 
Thanks for explaining how synths don't inherently have a limited dynamic range when compared to acoustic instruments.  Some people here almost convinced me otherwise.  And although I don't have the technical expertise/understanding that some here do, something intuitively and innately didn't sound right about synths having a limited dynamic range vs acoustic instruments.  If anything, I thought the opposite would be true.  If it's limited, it's because of practical reasons specifically chosen by EDM creators, not because the synths themselves are inherently limited.
 
Is it safe to say now that EDM does not benefit any less or any more than other music genres from Hi-Res, since all Hi-Res is outside human audibility?

 

[pinnahertz]

  @VNandor
 
Thanks for explaining how synths don't inherently have a limited dynamic range when compared to acoustic instruments

Wow. That's what you got? He did nothing of the kind.
 
The only thing proven was that certain synths, under certain very specific (atypical and non-musical) settings can product ultrasonic content.
 
That's it. That's all.

 

[StanD]

  Wow. That's what you got? He did nothing of the kind.
 
The only thing proven was that certain synths, under certain very specific (atypical and non-musical) settings can product ultrasonic content.
 
That's it. That's all.

Ultrasonic content that has no intrinsic value.