[frodeni]

I am in the "I don't give a damn what others or God himself thinks of me or my opinions" camp. LOL P.S. Full Terror Assault 3 was awesome this September.

Well, if you do not care what others think, why be in a community with others, like a forum?

AFAIK the only people to ever reject subjectivity are some of the self proclaimed subjectivists.

Care to describe the form of "subjectivity" you speak of here? Are you claiming to be an interpretivists, in which you claim that knowledge is made through the experience of the individual, and constructed by communicating with others? I sort of lost you on this one.

... when we decide to take an objective approach to a problem, it is because we understand the difference between reality and our perception of it.

Which is a dead old positivists stand. That subjectivitiy can be eliminated by reason, and that the world, including perception can be described and quantified. That emotions can be rationalized, and described in universal terms. The exact opposite of any interpretivist would tell you.

... so when we question feelings we answer subjectively, and when we question objective reality, we try to answer with an objective approach.

And this "objective" approach, is not made by humans? Is not based on a common intersubjective understanding of the world? Not made of language, that is nothing but a common understanding between people on what words means? The positivist claim to be able to describe the world, to quantify it, through their own subjectivity, then claiming it to be made without any subjectivity. How does that work?[/QUOTE]

it's not so much philosophy or positivism, and more about using the right tool for the right job.

Well, if you make your picks based on a postivistic stand, choose your methodology solely based on positivism, which you do, then i disagree. When you claim to be able to tell me, what I hear or not, because you do not grasp the limits of your philosophy, then get rude an attacks me, which you have in the past, then it is all about flawed philosophy. Because that's what it is. Sure, you got valued points and angles, but there are colors in the rainbow. There is no black and white in any rainbow.

Your main flaw, is not grasping the limits of your reasoning. You may claim that Santa does not exists. Sure. No proof ever of him living on the north pole. But he enters a lot of living rooms for Christmas, so something exists. There are a ton of tales of figures about Santa. Which get really, really messy to explain with positivist terms.

The flip part, is when trying to use interpretive measures to explain physics or math. To try to find the universal mechanisms of nature. That is why most people, when given the right question, actually belongs in both camps. At least those who are sane.

For what this forum is supposed to cover, it a very strange thing to read that people get music reproduced, because they do not. They get sound waves reproduced. So how does that work, if both the fruits of the nature science, and the ability to infer sound waves were present? That inferring is subjective, how ever you might twist it. There is no human in your speaker. Nor any guitar. It is all in your and my head.

and if we seem to insist on the objective aspect of sound so much, maybe it is because it is the purpose of that subsection of the forum...

Which makes this very forum one of the most obnoxious sub forums ever. As there is no real understanding of how to conduct proper science by proper scientific standards. Even for postivistic work. As in rigging test to achieve specific results, not the correct one. That by far, makes it a political, and purely political forum.

as for your claim of claim about people being stupid and dumb, maybe you need a double dose of ice cream. when somebody goes overboard, any forum member can report the post and obviously moderation would deal with it. when nothing is done, you can conclude that at the very least, that nobody got offended enough to press a button. I feel that we can survive just fine under such anticlimactic circumstances.

Sure. Let's see how this works out. If there is room for the traditional discussion on scientific validity in this very forum. Which this very post is. If people are up to it. Or if it is just talk, while being offensive: Promoting a political agenda.

There are great articles at Wikipedia for both epistemology and ontology, which should enable people to find further great sources for this very topic. If you got access to a scientific library, there are more articles available than any normal human could ever manage to read.

So, can you take it, faced with someone who know their philosophy, and tells you, using traditional philosophy, that your argument is flawed? Do you dear to ask why? Or are you going to delete opposition. Again. Even opposition firmly based in the sciences?

In the community, there is a need to unite both camps. Getting to grips with the strength and weaknesses of both camps. As to try to gain both knowledge and understanding. (Would be great, if anyone could tell me why those two specific terms. Then there i probably more than one scientists in here.)

As for instance, why I cannot tell any difference of lossy and lossless compression, if I use my laptop as a source. Because I cannot. (As opposed to my PC) Why does the buffer setting influence the result as much as it does, because as an IT student, it really should not. But it does. Why? The sonic traits, clearly defined traits are all there.

How things is experienced and how the differences come to existence, is not understood at all. Also, what what is "organic" reproduction of sound? How does that manifest itself, as in distinct sonic traits? A common language is sorely needed.

If only people in this forum could drop the arguing, and just share in a friendly manner, quit the mocking. This forum could be a really interesting place. There is a lot of thought put into a lot of posts, and if presented in the spirit of making a great community in which we try to get things moving forward, things could turn really interesting.

 

[jnorris]

This is getting out of hand. Here is the bottom line...
Recordings at 96k/24 do, unquestionably have the potential for better sound. Since these files are flat out to 48KHz, they may have the potential to carry oscillations or other anomalies that may harm the speakers.

Whether you can hear the difference is entirely up to the ears (and prejudices) of the beholder.

Moving on.

 

[bigshot]

You fellas sure are all worked into a lather! Maybe that's why you were banished to Sound Science. The thing is though, here at Sound Science we are all pretty nice folks and we're happy to chat about stuff calmly here. You aren't out in crazy town any more. Join our party and have fun.

 

[JWolf]

This is getting out of hand. Here is the bottom line...
Recordings at 96k/24 do, unquestionably have the potential for better sound. Since these files are flat out to 48KHz, they may have the potential to carry oscillations or other anomalies that may harm the speakers.

Whether you can hear the difference is entirely up to the ears (and prejudices) of the beholder.

Moving on.

The thing is, if there are going to be issues by hitting boundaries, then having a spec that goes past those boundaries you don't have those issues. Also, in some 24/96 recordings, you do see the sound does go past 20kHz. Plus, with 24-bit, you have more bits to give more resolution. With 16-bit if you have bit error(s), you get more of the sound with 24-bits as you have more data to reconstruct the waveform.

 

[Whazzzup]

To me its obvious 192 kHz and 24 bit just sounds more full, intimate, and less sharp than 16 bit 44.1.

 

[bigshot]

Jwolf, if all the added resolution of 24 bit is below the level where you can’t hear it, and all the additional superaudible frequencies are beyond your ears’ ability to hear, then you’re creating a hifi for bats and dogs, not yourself. Redbook already is overkill.

Wazzup, the reason high sampling rates sound less sharp is probably because your equipment isn’t designed to deal with superaudible frequencies and they’re causing distortion down in the audible range

 

[Quadfather]

Well, if you do not care what others think, why be in a community with others, like a forum?



Care to describe the form of "subjectivity" you speak of here? Are you claiming to be an interpretivists, in which you claim that knowledge is made through the experience of the individual, and constructed by communicating with others? I sort of lost you on this one.



Which is a dead old positivists stand. That subjectivitiy can be eliminated by reason, and that the world, including perception can be described and quantified. That emotions can be rationalized, and described in universal terms. The exact opposite of any interpretivist would tell you.



And this "objective" approach, is not made by humans? Is not based on a common intersubjective understanding of the world? Not made of language, that is nothing but a common understanding between people on what words means? The positivist claim to be able to describe the world, to quantify it, through their own subjectivity, then claiming it to be made without any subjectivity. How does that work?

Well, if you make your picks based on a postivistic stand, choose your methodology solely based on positivism, which you do, then i disagree. When you claim to be able to tell me, what I hear or not, because you do not grasp the limits of your philosophy, then get rude an attacks me, which you have in the past, then it is all about flawed philosophy. Because that's what it is. Sure, you got valued points and angles, but there are colors in the rainbow. There is no black and white in any rainbow.

Your main flaw, is not grasping the limits of your reasoning. You may claim that Santa does not exists. Sure. No proof ever of him living on the north pole. But he enters a lot of living rooms for Christmas, so something exists. There are a ton of tales of figures about Santa. Which get really, really messy to explain with positivist terms.

The flip part, is when trying to use interpretive measures to explain physics or math. To try to find the universal mechanisms of nature. That is why most people, when given the right question, actually belongs in both camps. At least those who are sane.

For what this forum is supposed to cover, it a very strange thing to read that people get music reproduced, because they do not. They get sound waves reproduced. So how does that work, if both the fruits of the nature science, and the ability to infer sound waves were present? That inferring is subjective, how ever you might twist it. There is no human in your speaker. Nor any guitar. It is all in your and my head.



Which makes this very forum one of the most obnoxious sub forums ever. As there is no real understanding of how to conduct proper science by proper scientific standards. Even for postivistic work. As in rigging test to achieve specific results, not the correct one. That by far, makes it a political, and purely political forum.



Sure. Let's see how this works out. If there is room for the traditional discussion on scientific validity in this very forum. Which this very post is. If people are up to it. Or if it is just talk, while being offensive: Promoting a political agenda.

There are great articles at Wikipedia for both epistemology and ontology, which should enable people to find further great sources for this very topic. If you got access to a scientific library, there are more articles available than any normal human could ever manage to read.

So, can you take it, faced with someone who know their philosophy, and tells you, using traditional philosophy, that your argument is flawed? Do you dear to ask why? Or are you going to delete opposition. Again. Even opposition firmly based in the sciences?

In the community, there is a need to unite both camps. Getting to grips with the strength and weaknesses of both camps. As to try to gain both knowledge and understanding. (Would be great, if anyone could tell me why those two specific terms. Then there i probably more than one scientists in here.)

As for instance, why I cannot tell any difference of lossy and lossless compression, if I use my laptop as a source. Because I cannot. (As opposed to my PC) Why does the buffer setting influence the result as much as it does, because as an IT student, it really should not. But it does. Why? The sonic traits, clearly defined traits are all there.

How things is experienced and how the differences come to existence, is not understood at all. Also, what what is "organic" reproduction of sound? How does that manifest itself, as in distinct sonic traits? A common language is sorely needed.

If only people in this forum could drop the arguing, and just share in a friendly manner, quit the mocking. This forum could be a really interesting place. There is a lot of thought put into a lot of posts, and if presented in the spirit of making a great community in which we try to get things moving forward, things could turn really interesting.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you do not care what others think, why be in a community with others, like a

I am in this thread to analyze others' views and to read through the scientific data, and together with my own subjective tastes and biases form my own opinions about what I prefer in terms of bit rates and kilohertz and such. Some of it is very interesting. If somebody disagrees with some opinions I form based on what's in this forum that's what I don't care about. If I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't. It's that simple.

 

[jnorris]

I agree with you with a few qualifications. It is not resolution that is improved by 24 bits, it is dynamic range. And moving boundaries well above the range of hearing does eliminate the anomalies incurred by the 22K boundary, but it may let ultrasonics through that may have been removed from a 44.1/16 master.

 

[71 dB]

Recordings at 96k/24 do, unquestionably have the potential for better sound.

Whether you can hear the difference is entirely up to the ears (and prejudices) of the beholder.

Television sets that produce ultraviolet light too (RGBUV color) do unquestionably have the potential for better picture quality.

Whether you can see the difference is entirely up to the eyes (and prejudices) of the beholder.

 

[JWolf]

If all the added resolution of 24 bit is below the level where you can’t hear it, and all the additional superaudible frequencies are beyond your ears’ ability to hear, then you’re creating a hifi for bats and dogs, not yourself. Redbook already is overkill.

But how do you know you don't hear increased resolution? And while you may not hear the extended frequencies, the idea is for the frequencies you do hear to sound better.

 

[JWolf]

The thing is, the spec should have been 20-bits/48kHz and then we may not be arguing about this.

 

[Quadfather]

So far, I like the way 96 kilohertz 24-bit sounds. Another possibility with these higher bitrate recordings is that more care is taken mastering them back into digital format than the CD creators.

 

[bigshot]

But how do you know you don't hear increased resolution?

Great question! Two ways...

1) I understand the specific technical difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I also know the human thresholds of perception related to those specs. When I compare them, I can clearly see that all the added benefits of high rate sound is outside the range of human hearing.

2) I have compared 16/44.1 to 24/92 myself in a line level matched direct A/B switchable blind test using a ProTools workstation. And I couldn’t discern any difference at all.

Number 1 tells me you can’t hear it with a high degree of confidence. Number 2 tells me for sure that I can’t hear it. Ultimately, that’s all that matters to me. If you want to be sure too, just do a controlled ABX and you won’t have to worry about potential or theoretical sound quality any more either. It’s liberating!

 

[bigshot]

The thing is, the spec should have been 20-bits/48kHz and then we may not be arguing about this.

Why? How loud do you play your stereo? If you’re getting into the zone between 16 bit and 20 bit, you should be concerned about damaging your hearing.

 

[71 dB]

But how do you know you don't hear increased resolution? And while you may not hear the extended frequencies, the idea is for the frequencies you do hear to sound better.

Because listening tests tell us that. Sounds that we do hear can't sound better (better in what way?), because 16/44.1 already can reproduce them completely.

People who think high res audio sounds better are victims of thinking more must be better, victims of placebo effect and victims of not understanding enough digital audio or human hearing.