[arnyk]

   I was very clear and guess what - out came the personal attacks again.
 
KeithEmo is right, I'm right, the rest of you are choosing to degrade your audio because you don't think you can hear the degradation.  That's your choice but you should degrade your own files, not continue to claim that I'm imagining things, and not add to the confusion about what people can and should hear.
 
 
I have to ask, is there anything else your body can clearly and repeatedly do that you don't have math or testing to confirm?
 
You "16/44 is the highest" people are the most ridiculous lot of brainiacs I've come across. Continue to deny the sensations of the physical world, it could take another few hundred years to devise the math behind what we all do all the time.  I've done many things in 1 hour this morning that you have no mathematical model for.
 
Sadly you won't be alive to buy the upgraded robot version of yourself.  Until then enjoy listening to your degraded music files. There's other pleasure in the world, hopefully you don't degrade every piece of art given to you.

 
Pretty ironic all of the personal attacks that are part of this post that starts out by complaining about personal attacks.
 
For example:
 

You "16/44 is the highest" people are the most ridiculous lot of brainiacs I've come across

.

Sadly you won't be alive to buy the upgraded robot version of yourself.

 
 
I can only conclude that the poster is not very self-aware.

 

[FFBookman]

"i can only conclude"   
 
see what i mean?
 
yeah i said i was part of it, mr reading comprehension.  you really are special.

 

[FFBookman]

Lemme say, for the record, I don't think I've ever heard 16/48.  Perhaps that's part of the disagreement here?  
 
You think 16/48 is all you need, I say 16/44 isn't enough.  It's not the same argument on both ends.
 
I hear an improvement with 24/44 over 16/44 on the same material, but I've never tested 24/44 against 16/48. I will have to try that sometime.
 
I used to think "well that should be enough" and "i'm sure the high end is a bunch of BS".   See I'm poor, independent, and would rather spend on analog instead of digital gear.  So I wanted to believe 16/44 was enough.
 
[and 16/44 is good, decent, not a major degradation from the master. When used right it's nearly perfect. It was a good choice in 1981]
 
Until you move up to 24bit played from a real chain, then you hear more depth and air. More movement. More accurate timbre. Far more movement across the soundstage. More of the mix, and more of the humans behind the mix. 
 
I mix music and it is a passion of mine -- where things sit in the mix, how they blend, how they bounce off the walls, how the mic was placed -- this is critical for me. The history of recorded music is important to me.  
 
MP3 was supposed to be temporary and CD was temporary as well. CD had it's 20 year run and when it came time for the upgrade the internet drove us off a cliff. It's been about 20 years of this lossy crap and I just hope we upgrade to better than what we had 40 years ago.

 

[castleofargh]

 

[interpolate]

 

This.

 

[arnyk]

  Lemme say, for the record, I don't think I've ever heard 16/48.  

 
Since 16/48 is an audio format that is widely used for the audio tracks associated with video, a person would have to live in a cave to have not heard it by accident in these days.
 

You think 16/48 is all you need, I say 16/44 isn't enough.  It's not the same argument on both ends.

It's true. I base my belief on generally accepted science and reliable evidence and you seem to base your opinon on some theories that you seem to have made up and maybe some inherently flawed listeni ng evaluations. Not the same thing.
 

I hear an improvement with 24/44 over 16/44 on the same material,

So how is it that you can compare musical selections like this, when you've already said that:
 

By the authority of where our brain processes sound verses where our brain processes the recollection of sound. They aren't even in the same regions of the brain.

 
It would appear that were the above true, no comparison of 24/44 over 16/44  would be possible.  Yet, you claim that you have done it. What magic was employed?

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

Originally Posted by arnyk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
... ... ...

 By the authority of where our brain processes sound verses where our brain processes the recollection of sound. They aren't even in the same regions of the brain.

It would appear that were the above true, no comparison of 24/44 over 16/44  would be possible.  Yet, you claim that you have done it. What magic was employed?

 
The only way around that one would seem to be simultaneously listening!

 

[arnyk]

   
The only way around that one would seem to be simultaneously listening!

 
Been there, done that, had a horrible time.
 
It appears that Mr. Bookman's problem is to demonstrate or specify an effective means for comparing musical selections processed by different technical processes that doesn't have all of the inherent flaws of sighted evaluations but can't be done blind.

 

[Ruben123]

The only way around that one would seem to be simultaneously listening!

Or just looking at the file extension

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

My media player tells me when I am listening to good music. In fact, I don't even have to put the headphones on!
 

 

[RRod]

   
The only way around that one would seem to be simultaneously listening!

 
Actually, if you invert one of the files then simultaneous listening can actually be instructive:

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

 
(But, in practice, isn't it quite difficult to get a really clean null? Not that I ever tried...)

 

[RRod]

 

 
(But, in practice, isn't it quite difficult to get a really clean null? Not that I ever tried...)

 
I would forgive someone for mixing the tracks together digitally.

 

[money4me247]

  Actually, if you invert one of the files then simultaneous listening can actually be instructive:

 
You can also set-up to play one channel per side (each channel with different format) to see if you can hear any differences. if you are using IEMs that look the same on both sides, you can do a semi-'blinded' test having someone else cover the L/R markings with a different sticker and swapping to see if you can call out which format is which.

 

[RRod]

   
You can also set-up to play one channel per side (each channel with different format) to see if you can hear any differences. if you are using IEMs that look the same on both sides, you can do a semi-'blinded' test having someone else cover the L/R markings with a different sticker and swapping to see if you can call out which format is which.

 
If your right ear has more frequencies gone than your left then that could mess things up, unless you just use the same ear each time. Still seems like way more work than a straight up switcher.
 
The main point I was trying to make is that it can be helpful to see and hear exactly what gets lost when you drop bits or samples. This example was from dithering a 24/96 track down to 16/96… oh I'm sorry, I mean from truncating a 24/96 track down to 14/96 ^_^ Noise below -100dB, that's what you're missing, yet I'm sure people will tell you all kinds of amazing audible things the extra 10bits are doing for this remaster (anyone care to guess what it is 

)