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

[theveterans]

None of that explains why you need to see the equipment you are listening with to hear it properly as you assert.

In fact the tests referred to were blind, which is the counter of what you believe gives you accurate and real information from the audio.

Which is it, blind tests are right or wrong ?

I surmise the participants have better trained ears than me if they can pull off meaningful differences blind wheas I would lose more than 1/2 of my cognitive ability to tell them apart if I participate blind

 

[BS5711]

I surmise the participants have better trained ears than me if they can pull off meaningful differences blind wheas I would lose more than 1/2 of my cognitive ability to tell them apart if I participate blind

Sorry, that is just another manipulation to suit your reality.

First blind tests are bad since you obviously need sight to hear properly because that is what your feelings tell you.

Then blind tests are good because you think they help you make a case.

Then they are only good if you have really good hearing and don't need sight to help you along.

That is utter nonsensical drivel.

You surmise ...... I think that is the problem right there, you surmise far too much and are unwilling to accept that your whole audio obsession might be centered around a myth, just like most people's is. You can still enjoy music and great sound while also accepting that what you perceive isn't always real and not every possible little thing makes an audible difference.

 

[theveterans]

Sorry, that is just another manipulation to suit your reality.

First blind tests are bad since you obviously need sight to hear properly because that is what your feelings tell you.

Then blind tests are good because you think they help you make a case.

Then they are only good if you have really good hearing and don't need sight to help you along.

That is utter nonsensical drivel.

You surmise ...... I think that is the problem right there, you surmise far too much and are unwilling to accept that your whole audio obsession might be centered around a myth, just like most people's is. You can still enjoy music and great sound while also accepting that what you perceive isn't always real and not very possible little thing makes an audible difference.

So I take you don't believe in listening training at all and that everyone hears the same way as you? I think that's far from the reality that I experience throughout my existence

 

[BS5711]

So I take you don't believe in listening training at all and that everyone hears the same way as you? I think that's far from the reality that I experience throughout my existence

Did I say that, no I didn't.

I said that you pick and choose whatever supports your feelings and are happy to flip flop between science, blind testing and whatever else suits you, cherry picking the bits that support your beliefs and shunning the rest.

Psychology is a science and it explains a great deal of things in audio perception but you can't accept it because to do so shoots down your obsession with gear and the notion that everything makes an audible difference. Instead you invent an alternate reality that aligns with your perception and feelings, like sight is needed to hear properly for example.

You are not interested in learning anything, only seeking out piecemeal data points that you can mentally manipulate to give you some level of confirmation for your existing beliefs and feeling.

 

[theveterans]

Instead you invent an alternate reality that aligns with your perception and feelings, like sight is needed to hear properly for example.

So does every subjectivist out there including those that have great knowledge of digital and analog audio such as Professor Kunchur (which even used blind testing to further solidify his case for hi-res audiblity)

 

[BS5711]

So a subjectivist invents facts to align with their feelings and perceptions ?

Like a person needing to see an inanimate box of electronics to provide complete hearing of the sound created by the electrical signals coming out of that inanimate box ?

Does that seem like a genuinely plausible explanation, one that your professor would endorse ?

You can very easily demonstrate the power of psychology in audio perception yet even with that knowledge you dismiss it.

Why dismiss it and look for another out of left field explanation when there is one right there staring you in the face ?

Why isn't the explanation provided by psychology right, why isn't it good enough ?

Because to believe that psychology has an explanation for all the things you perceive, rather than some left field concept, would unravel your obsession.

 

[theveterans]

So a subjectivist invents facts to align with their feelings and perceptions ?

Like a person needing to see an inanimate box of electronics to provide complete hearing of the sound created by the electrical signals coming out of that inanimate box ?

Does that seem like a genuinely plausible explanation, one that your professor would endorse ?

You can very easily demonstrate the power of psychology in audio perception yet even with that knowledge you dismiss it.

Why dismiss it and look for another out of left field explanation when there is one right there staring you in the face ?

Why isn't the explanation provided by psychology right, why isn't it good enough ?

Because to believe that psychology has an explanation for all the things you perceive, rather than some left field concept, would unravel your obsession.

Why not defend your case by refuting Professor's papers about hi-res then? I don't have the proper education to even publish a journal to AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY let alone be vetted by members of AES to even let my whatever paper published. You can certainly contact him and give him a sincere email that refutes his paper as absolute false heretic of a science because psychology bias!

BTW, can you find me an AES research paper supporting your audio science? AFAIK I haven't seen one at all, wonder why

 

[BS5711]

I am just a bloke on the other end of the internet popping a reply to you now and again in between doing paid work.

I don't care enough to go digging for something to argue with you, if my own experiences and a little common sense are not sufficient so be it.

If you want to take that as a win, please do.

 

[71 dB]

Why not defend your case by refuting Professor's papers about hi-res then?

Haven't those papers been discredited here a million times already?

Here is one take on how professor Milind N. Kunchur does scientific research.

I don't care enough to go digging...

I have the same problem, not caring enough. In the past I used to debate A LOT about politics online, but then after many many years I realised it is complete waste off my time, because NOBODY will ever change their mind about anything no matter what I write and how well I present my arguments online. I stopped arguing about politics online and it was a good decision. Sometimes I feel I should do the same with audio stuff, perhaps communicating online in general is just bad for human psyche?

 

[eq1849]

None of that explains why you need to see the equipment you are listening with to hear it properly as you assert.

In fact the tests referred to were blind, which is the counter of what you believe gives you accurate and real information from the audio.

Which is it, blind tests are right or wrong ?

In this study, the brain appears significantly more stimulated with higher sample rates with high frequencies intact versus without, as measured by EEG.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5285336/

Here’s another study from last year where ultra high frequencies affect subjective response and impressions of sound. EEG utilized here as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57749-w#Sec5


The AES seems to indicate listeners can differentiate Cd from high Res at a statistically significant rate in blind listening tests, especially when listeners are properly trained.

https://www.aes.org/press/?ID=362

I would like to see EEG on just bit depth changes… 16 44.1 to 24 44.1, for example.

 

[71 dB]

In this study, the brain appears significantly more stimulated with higher sample rates with high frequencies intact versus without, as measured by EEG.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5285336/

Here’s another study from last year where ultra high frequencies affect subjective response and impressions of sound. EEG utilized here as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57749-w#Sec5


The AES seems to indicate listeners can differentiate Cd from high Res at a statistically significant rate in blind listening tests, especially when listeners are properly trained.

https://www.aes.org/press/?ID=362

I would like to see EEG on just bit depth changes… 16 44.1 to 24 44.1, for example.

Again, haven't those papers been discredited here a million times already?

High End audio companies have financial incentive to finance research that tries to prove hi-res better, but there is no financial incentives for the opposite. That's why there is pseudoscience for suggesting hi-res better than CD quality, but there isn't pseudoscience for the other way.

I have enjoyed CD quality music for decades. Clearly it is able to stimulate my brain enough. In fact, I always assumed my brain to be stimulated by musical stuff like harmonies, chord progressions, melodies, rhythms, instrument timbre, development of musical ideas etc. rather than ultrasonics. How much >20 kHz frequencies are needed to enjoy Mozart?

 

[BS5711]

The AES seems to indicate listeners can differentiate Cd from high Res at a statistically significant rate in blind listening tests, especially when listeners are properly trained.

https://www.aes.org/press/?ID=362

I only bothered looking at that one and stopped about half way down the page when I got to this part:

“Audio purists and industry should welcome these findings,” said Reiss. “Our study finds high-resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content. Trained listeners could distinguish between the two formats around sixty percent of the time.”

So they were able to distinguish a difference a tiny bit better than chance would predict, how is that "important" ?

What does "around 60%" actually mean, only 56% perhaps ? It might have been even closer to chance if they rounded up, I doubt they rounded down, they would want the number as high as possible.

Why would the industry welcome the findings ? I imagine because they paid for the study.

---

Here is one I stumbled across the other day elsewhere on Head Fi, I posted it for Mr Veterans but he apparently ignored it because it doesn't support his notion that he is above psychological factors adversely altering his perception.

https://tu-dresden.de/mn/psychologie/ifap/kknw/die-professur/news/we-hear-what-we-expect-to-hear

The simplistic takeaway from a neuroscience study about audio perception was:

"Our subjective beliefs on the physical world have a decisive role on how we perceive reality. Decades of research in neuroscience had already shown that the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that is most developed in humans and apes, scans the sensory world by testing these beliefs against the actual sensory information. We have now shown that this process also dominates the most primitive and evolutionary conserved parts of the brain. All that we perceive might be deeply contaminated by our subjective beliefs on the physical world."

 

[Ryokan]

This thread reminds me of a famous -

Spoiler: Wood engraving

 

[gregorio]

Empty if you take away the subject/listener of course …

But a DAC isn’t a subject/listener of course, it’s just a DAC. How can such a simple, obvious fact still continue to elude you?

So does every subjectivist out there including those that have great knowledge of digital and analog audio such as Professor Kunchur

He doesn’t have great knowledge of digital and analogue audio, he’s a professor of physics/astronomy, not of audio!

Why not defend your case by refuting Professor's papers about hi-res then? I don't have the proper education to even publish a journal to AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY let alone be vetted by members of AES to even let my whatever paper published. You can certainly contact him and give him a sincere email that refutes his paper as absolute false heretic of a science because psychology bias!

I have refuted his papers and so have many others. In fact it’s trivially easy, anyone with a DAW and 5 minutes to spare can do it! He makes a fundamental mistake that would fail even an undergrad, let alone someone with a PhD, although again, his PhD is not in audio. So why did the AES even publish it, how did it get through peer review? That’s a bone of contention, when challenged the AES effectively stated that they knew the paper was wrong but published it anyway because they thought it would spark a debate that might be useful to AES members. And incidentally, the blind trials you underlined in the cited paper demonstrated an audible threshold down to 6 microsecs, which actually provides proof of NO audible difference between 44.1kHz and higher sample rates!

In this study, the brain appears significantly more stimulated with higher sample rates with high frequencies intact versus without, as measured by EEG.

We’ve been through this at least twice already and your conclusion is not the conclusion drawn by the studies you’re citing and you’ve been provided the evidence that in fact ultrasonic frequencies do not even register in the auditory cortex. So why are you posting and humiliating yourself again, unless you’re trolling?

So they were able to distinguish a difference a tiny bit better than chance would predict, how is that "important" ?
What does "around 60%" actually mean, only 56% perhaps ?

If memory serves, it was something like 52.1% and Riess’ conclusion did not match the data in the paper. Given that it was a meta study, then although small, it does have statistical significance. The real issue was twofold:

Firstly, he very cleverly worded the title in a way that allowed him to exclude certain studies. If memory serves, there were potentially over 100 paper/studies that dealt with the subject and many more that dealt with it tangentially but he whittled it down to about 18 or so, which gave him his 52%. Add in one or two of the ones he left out and pure chance becomes the outcome.

Secondly, the study was financed by Meridian Audio (Bob Stuart). This paper and Stuart’s own (equally BS) “Audibility of typical digital filters” paper were the supposedly “scientific” backbone of Meridian’s marketing launch of MQA. It was pretty clever really, audiophile marketing is typically just complete BS that contradicts science without any reliable evidence but MQA contradicted science with some actual published scientific papers (albeit manipulated/BS ones)! This was necessary because MQA wasn’t only a product aimed at audiophiles, it also required the involvement of both equipment manufacturers and pro sound/music engineers, hence why they also paid for the endorsement of a well known engineer. Fortunately it was all seen through pretty quickly. Still, it was a valiant and far more sophisticated attempt at scamming the industry than I ever recall seeing!

G

 

[theveterans]

All that we perceive might be deeply contaminated by our subjective beliefs on the physical world."

I agree 100% on that. I thought it was pretty obvious to everyone hence why I didn’t reply on that statement. The way we perceive things is of course has to align with our subjective beliefs not just audio but everything!