frodeni
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Posts
- 141
- Likes
- 28
I read through that study (well, I scanned it)...... and I agree with you that it was in general sloppy and had lots of procedural flaws.
It was also specifically intended to identify whether there was a correlation between sample rate and spatial resolution.
(And the results, as credible - or not - as we may consider them, at least suggested that there was no strong correlation to be found there.)
However, check out the section entitled "additional experiment into overall sound quality" (bottom page 13).
In that section, they presented a very limited number of test subjects (4) with samples of music at 48k and 96k.
After being presented with samples at both sample rates, the subjects were presented with unknown samples, and asked to identify what sample rate they were listening to.
This was a somewhat modified ABX sort of test.
The results of that test, and the conclusions based on them, were interesting....
One subject was correct 16 times out of 17 trials.
And two of the subjects were correct 61% and 68% of the time respectively.
In fact, while the presenters of the test concluded that they had failed to demonstrate any difference in perceived spatial positioning accuracy.....
They also concluded that the differences between 96k and 48k were "clearly audible".... to at least some listeners.
From their conclusions:
"While there is little doubt that subject 1 reliably heard a difference between HDDA and 48 kHz reproduction, results of subject 2 and 3 need
closer evaluation. The probability that the results obtained from both subjects were randomly guessed is 6%. It is reasonable to conclude that
even in the 96 kHz to 48 kHz sampling rate comparison there was a perceivable difference."
I would have to say that using that test as "proof" that there is no significance between 48k and 96k in terms of spatial cues,
while ignoring the fact that it also concluded that there were other "clearly audible differences" would be a sort of cherry picking
(Bear in mind that, in order to establish that "humanly audible differences exist", we only have to produce a single test subject for which this is provably true.)
Thanks. I missed that. Sloppy just became fraudulent.
It is funny how the lack of real scientific proof for this supposedly proven knowledge is utterly missing, and that nobody in here seem to be able to point to concrete research supporting their claim. Yet there is a substantial level of screaming about a lot of stuff supposedly being knowledge.
Guys, great if there is real scientific proof, but this fraud, is a fraud. This simply does not stick up to a through review. Not even a quick and simple one. Throwing this kind of "proof" at us, simply prove that you cannot read a scientific paper, as a scientist.
Sure, you might be right, but if one contestant gets 16 out of 17 correct, which is a 94,1% hit-rate, please explain the conclusion. Remember the number of contestants, before you answer.
I was using the term with the casual definition, but if you want to get technical about it, Google is your friend... "difference between hypothesis and theory"
In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
http://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm
Note number 4
The belief that things that have been tested and determined to be inaudible actually are inaudible is a theory. Making up reasons how you might possibly be able to hear something below that threshold is a hypothesis. Raising that to the level of a theory would require a whole lot of testing that validates it. So far, no tests I know of support that idea- only cherry picking and sales pitch.
Well, who ever this guy is, he has some serious issues with the philosophy of science. The big question is how he supposedly proves anything, and what constitutes a proven theory in science. He would flunk any test at almost any university, presenting this.
Also, if this guy has written ANY paper at all, I cannot find a single accepted work of his, in any scientific database. Please point me to his work. If there is any.
I guess asking for the proof, as in real scientific form, suddenly became more pressing.
Does anyone have any work, that they have actually vetted themselves, that they can point to? To prove this claim that mankind know this high def audio to be all but waste.
I guess claiming that, suddenly got a lot harder, once you got real scientists in here? Doesn't it? What is next? Banning the scientist for being too scientific, in a science forum?
The great irony is, that what is thrown as accusation at writers in this forum, actually plagues the papers that are being presented as proof. The exact same thing. How come people does not see the flaw in work at which they point to as proof? It is not like they can argue that they did not know about it.
Last edited: