[Noah99]

   
Just as a bit of interesting trivia... 44.1K covers the full spectrum of frequencies that humans can hear- 20Hz to 20kHz, with a bit to spare. Higher sampling rates extend the frequency response higher, far beyond our ability to hear, but the core frequencies below 20kHz are rendered exactly the same at 44.1 as they are at 192. So whatever it is that you seem to think is clearly audible isn't audible with human ears. Perhaps a bat!
 
However, it is possible that your equipment isn't designed to deal with super high frequencies and is adding distortion down in the audible range. So if you are positive you are hearing a difference, it is almost certainly noise, not music.

I'm sorry to say but I just recently visited my audiologist and I was told by three doctors that the adult human ear can only hear up to about 8,000Hertz.
Infants are able to hear from 20hz to 18khz but as we become older our frequencies range drops.
Don't bother testing your ear from online downloaded frequencies because they will not turn out the same as a professional  Audiologist' equipment. in an acoustic room

 

[Xenophon]

Connect your flamethrowers, I don't care a whit but imo some of you people are overdoing it a bit.  You're entitled to your opinion and sure, most of it will be based upon science -so was an opinion about medicine dating back to the 15th century which I just read, btw.  The 'science' honchos of that time are now generally considered as idiots wearing pointed hats while they were just reasoning based on what was available in terms of 'knowledge' at that time- but the attitude and lack of tolerance of some toward 'non believers' would do the taliban proud.
 
I'm sure this site can be criticised, yet although the owners are under no obligation whatsoever to provide you with any kind of platform, you have the liberty to express your views.  If nothing else, that deserves some respect imo.

 

[cjl]

  I'm sorry to say but I just recently visited my audiologist and I was told by three doctors that the adult human ear can only hear up to about 8,000Hertz.
Infants are able to hear from 20hz to 18khz but as we become older our frequencies range drops.
Don't bother testing your ear from online downloaded frequencies because they will not turn out the same as a professional  Audiologist' equipment. in an acoustic room

Most consumer grade gear can reproduce 10-15kHz just fine, and most good quality consumer gear can reproduce up to 20kHz just fine. Your audiologist was wrong, except for people who have damaged their hearing. I have tested myself up to about 19kHz just fine (I used to be able to hear up to 20kHz pretty clearly in high school, but now it's down to somewhere between 18.5 and 19kHz).

 

[Currawong]

  Andreas Koch who was involved in the creation of the standards for SACD states 
 
that studies have shown humans can perceive frequencies up to 100k, however at a much lower amplitude
 
(it may have been dynamic range as well)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nj7d7Jnx0xc
 
it's about 24 minutes in.   The entire panel  on the video consists of luminary electrical engineers,
 
recording engineers, mastering people, etc.
 
If anyone walked up to one of the people in this RMAF panel that designed or use these high res professional tools
 
 to record or transfer master tapes every day,  and stated  
 
" 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music."
 
I can only imagine what their reaction would be.

 
He also says that DSD is still good out to 100 kHz because it still has a noise level of -30dB of noise above 50 kHz (whereas PCM has a hard cut-off).  Try overlaying that much noise over regular music! It'd be unlistenable! 
 
I think though that points out where "science" has its limitations: Not every scientist agrees completely on everything -- it isn't an arbiter of absolute truth by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[esldude]

  Andreas Koch who was involved in the creation of the standards for SACD states 
 
that studies have shown humans can perceive frequencies up to 100k, however at a much lower amplitude
 
(it may have been dynamic range as well)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nj7d7Jnx0xc
 
it's about 24 minutes in.   The entire panel  on the video consists of luminary electrical engineers,
 
recording engineers, mastering people, etc.
 
If anyone walked up to one of the people in this RMAF panel that designed or use these high res professional tools
 
 to record or transfer master tapes every day,  and stated  
 
" 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music."
 
I can only imagine what their reaction would be.

Well, Mr. Koch sounds like he is referring to Oohashi.  Which is of course not been replicated, and some others have shown his test subjects were hearing IM products not direct 100 khz sounds.   Mr. Koch also promotes another myth, that the human ear can hear above 20 khz for transient information.  Now that would be a very curious transducer indeed.  It would have a far higher bandwidth only for transients than it does for steady state.  I don't know of other transducers that work that way.  Speaker cones, microphone diaphragms etc. don't.  The ear starts with the movement of the ear drum.  The ear drum doesn't move at those frequencies.  Most transducers can have their transient response deduced from the max frequency steady state response as it is more or less the same.  Some have a bit lower transient response than max steady state frequency response.

But in the audiophile world we have the magic transducer with 5 times the transient response of its steady state response.  And it does this with reduced dynamic range.  And the ear drum doesn't move at these rates except for the brief transient after which is apparently does not respond at all.  Quite the curious transducer from the standpoint of the physics involved.  Further while the upper steady state response of the ear drum has a very high threshold it apparently responds freely to these high frequency transients that are at very low absolute sound levels.  Even more curious.  Steady state, no response and a high threshold for what it will respond to on the upper end with super quick response to quite small level signals 5 times that high.  Wow!

 

[BeyerMonster]

  I personally believe that 'high definition audio' and all those who sell it claiming it is audibly different is, like many things in audio, simply a scam.

Out of curiosity, do you have the same attitude towards vendors selling 256 kbps or even 128 kbps MP3s as CD-quality or "near CD-quality"?
 
In the case of lossless high-res audio case, you can at least argue that their production and distribution costs are higher (storage/bandwidth).
In the lossless cases, they're actually saving money via lower costs/bandwidth.
 
Arguments for/against audible differences can be applied in either scenario.

 

[BeyerMonster]

 

  I'm sorry to say but I just recently visited my audiologist and I was told by three doctors that the adult human ear can only hear up to about 8,000Hertz.
...

...Your audiologist was wrong, except for people who have damaged their hearing....

It's entirely possible that his audiologist was right, but he misheard the doc.  

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

When you say j_j, do you mean jj as in James Johnston formerly of Bell Labs?

EDIT: Never mind, found him. It is ol' jj.

se

 
Yes, of course being a scientist doesn't make a person infallible, but  if I'm to take anybody's word, then the CV is certainly impressive. As is the capacity to patiently explain and put into layman, even non-mathematical, terms. Read some of his stuff on Hydrogen Audio too.
 
Monty, of Xiph, still gets the credit for opening my eyes, though.
 
Hey, I'm over sixty years old: why did nobody tell me all this stuff long, long ago!

. Oh well, better late than never!

  Out of curiosity, do you have the same attitude towards vendors selling 256 kbps or even 128 kbps MP3s as CD-quality or "near CD-quality"?

 
I hadn't really thought about that one. I don't really buy MP3, or any lossy audio, if I can help it,so the question hasn't arisen. Off-hand, no. It isn't such a fabrication as the high-res marketing.
 
Quote:

  In the case of lossless high-res audio case, you can at least argue that their production and distribution costs are higher (storage/bandwidth).
In the lossless cases, they're actually saving money via lower costs/bandwidth.
 
 

 
When I am buying music, I would buy FLAC rather than MP3. I don't object to the higher cost for the reasons you state. 

 Arguments for/against audible differences can be applied in either scenario.

I believe that there are many reasons why two sound samples could sound different on the same system, before even getting into the statements of pure faith which inspire so many to become "high res" evangelists.
 
In the first place, we have the people who heard some high-bit-rate music and declared it marvellous, without listening to a 44.1 copy of the same thing. In the second, we people who declare it marvellous because on one DAC in one system, they detected a difference. Many of these people will decry any sort of blind testing, formal or informal too, but even if the second group genuinely did hear something, it is no basis for a universal conclusion.
 
Me? Old[ish] and with diminishing hearing that rolls off from 8K, so if someone points me at a tiny, tiny variation in the decay of some cymbal shimmer (assuming that it did exist), well, I probably didn't get most of that shimmer anyway.
 
 
I can still talk, though!

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

Are there such equipment through the same receiving method that process bit depth differently? Example 16 vs 24 bit utilizing a different circuit or method of decoding resulting in better sound?

Also what about bit depth setting differences? Playing 16-bit files while DAC is set to run on 24-bit via Windows setting or vice versa? Is there quality loss when DAC settings is set at 24bit and 16bit files are playing?

This isn't counting WASAPI or ASIO taking control of device and changing the setting automatically to match. And not to be mistaken by sampling which does create quantization errors when going from one bit depth to another.

 

[Duncan]

Are there such equipment through the same receiving method that process bit depth differently? Example 16 vs 24 bit utilizing a different circuit or method of decoding resulting in better sound?

Also what about bit depth setting differences? Playing 16-bit files while DAC is set to run on 24-bit via Windows setting or vice versa? Is there quality loss when DAC settings is set at 24bit and 16bit files are playing?

This isn't counting WASAPI or ASIO taking control of device and changing the setting automatically to match. And not to be mistaken by sampling which does create quantization errors when going from one bit depth to another.

Yes,

The Micromega MyDac (to name one from personal experience) uses different clocks depending on if receiving [a multiple of] either 44.1 or 48khz sample rates...

 

[robertsong]

Wow, this "Monty" character is an enormous crackpot. Whether he truly believes the stuff that wrote in that joke of an article, or whether he an agenda to pass on such propaganda is impossible to tell. He does not state any credentials what-so-ever, nor does he disclose his full name. Hmmm.
 
My guess is this is somebody with nothing more than a computer programming background. No actual audio engineering experience. Am I right?
 
PS: He his DEAD WRONG.

 

[robertsong]

  Mp3 LAME V0, save more space!

 
 
That sounds good to you, eh? Cheers!

 

[Steve Eddy]

Wow, this "Monty" character is an enormous crackpot. Whether he truly believes the stuff that wrote in that joke of an article, or whether he an agenda to pass on such propaganda is impossible to tell. He does not state any credentials what-so-ever, nor does he disclose his full name. Hmmm.

My guess is this is somebody with nothing more than a computer programming background. No actual audio engineering experience. Am I right?

PS: He his DEAD WRONG.

Um, would you happen to have any sort of support for this empty-handed claim of yours? Or can I just come back and say "You are DEAD WRONG" and trump your "He is DEAD WRONG"?

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Well, Mr. Koch sounds like he is referring to Oohashi.  Which is of course not been replicated, and some others have shown his test subjects were hearing IM products not direct 100 khz sounds.

Beat me to it. Thanks.

se

 

[elmoe]

  Wow, this "Monty" character is an enormous crackpot. Whether he truly believes the stuff that wrote in that joke of an article, or whether he an agenda to pass on such propaganda is impossible to tell. He does not state any credentials what-so-ever, nor does he disclose his full name. Hmmm.
 
My guess is this is somebody with nothing more than a computer programming background. No actual audio engineering experience. Am I right?
 
PS: He his DEAD WRONG.

 
How about you offer some argument then? What are your credentials? Hmmm.