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

[Lexxie]

"Bias and BIG ego can turn reality upside down, can't it?"

Yeah it sure can, BIGshot! Science-ego-dogma vs. REAL SCIENCE.

It's what I told you all a long time ago, only 5% of mental music processing is at a conscious level.
Read it and weep:

Double blind tests failed to reveal subconscious differences in musical experience and enjoyment.

 

[bigshot]

Uh… We aren’t talking about mental music processing or preference. We’re talking about sound fidelity. Haven’t you been paying attention?

 

[Lexxie]

The topic of thread, 24 bit is useless because blah blah millions of people it's inaudible and lalala. It's even in your signature. We can philosophize about sound fidelity if you want but I see you run from the atomic bomb which has nuked idk how many years of pseudo-science dogma is in this thread!

 

[bigshot]

You don't have to philosophize about sound fidelity. It's an objective thing. It's quantifiable. It's not something you "believe". You can believe in fantasies. You can believe in lies But reality just *is*.

 

[Lexxie]

So you believe in the Ding-an-sich and yet do not believe in the Ding-an-sich, simultaneously. Seems contradictory. Objectivity, while surely real and existing, is most definitely elusive to measure, and even more so, the interpretation of such measurements even more elusive to get right. But finally, the purpose of why one is measuring it and for what end, absolutely perilous. Hence scientists need a healthy dose of self-scepticism rather than bombastic dogmatic proclamations in this bigshot style I read above.

Kinetic waves, say in the 10 to 20000+ Hz range, most definitely seem to be out there in the air, I don't think many are going to argue about it. But a wave is not SOUND until it enters a subjective consciousness and indeed sub- un- and non-conscious parts of the mind/body duality. So for one to make the leap of equating the one objectivity to the other mélange-fusion-smoothie of objective+subjective which we call "SOUND", one requires a whole cathecism of dogmas to be in place, perhaps subconsciously inherited from the metaphysics of scientism. Which is a highly effective metaphysics at some things but not others, I think we can all agree. Helpful but not be-all end-all.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Double blind tests failed to reveal subconscious differences in musical experience and enjoyment.

oh.. nice link..
nice story i discovered recently:
i always noticed an effect on sound quality if i have the roomlights on while listening to music, i kinda thought its because of noise from the lamps on the power lines
my hearing goes to around 15,5k
but while testing my hearing range recently i also tested 15,16,17,18,19,20 khz sinewaves and strangely enough i noticed at 20khz a "similar effect" on overall perception as with the lamps on

they are 4x 4W led lamps, i removed two and the effect on soundquality nearly "halved"
while not listening to music the effect becomes kinda subtle, tho i will soon try to swap the lamps

after this i also noticed some , mostly pretty hot mixed (distortion and stuff, Rob Zombie - Revelation Revolution), music with a similar effect

 

[bigshot]

Objective facts aren't resistant to being measured. In fact, measurements are a great way to quantify objective facts. Waves aren't sound unless they are perceptible. The best way to determine whether something is perceptible is with a controlled listening test, not asking your subconscious whether you find the sound pleasurable or not. By the way people who know what they're talking are able to attack the argument on point, not attack the person.

Here's our tag team again. Both joined within three months of each other, and not even 200 posts between them. If you look at their posting history, the majority of their posts are trolling Sound Science.

 

[Lexxie]

"Objective facts aren't resistant to being measured." That's weird, can you quote any graduate level source on science methodology for this? Everything I have seen from that level and higher, including the greatest minds of the past 200 years of scientific progress, are constantly warning us that we NEVER measure facts, and (1) the mere observation of a fact creates interactions therewith, which alter the same reality being measured, (2) the empirical raw data gathered from the transmogrifying measurement interactions with these objective NON-FACTS are per se meaningless "raw data" until they are "schematized" through conceptual units and filters which themselves are not objective, but rather translated into the current array of units/theories/principles (read: hypotheses) through which we scientifically conceptualize raw empirical impressions.

To me, dodging every point made and avoiding proper scientific review/discussion of that content, while presuming the argument invalid just from age of the poster, is ad hominem and absolutely non-scientific. If Faraday or Einstein came on, would they be invalid just because it was their first post? Of course not. It could even be that a very pseudo-scientific set of dogmas have ingrained themselves into the forum's culture, such as poo-pooing anything non-conformist with dogma (which btw is now scientifically invalidated for quite a few years.)

I present to you instead an innocent discussion of topics which you may ignore or respond scientifically to. But you did neither and in so doing make this forum harshly, brightly, and loudly non-scientific.

I just linked you to REAL SCIENCE that invalidated your most recent claims about A/B and instead of a wondrous voyage of discussion moving forward, you simply re-iterate them as true all over again as if you ... think you're God or something? You silently peer-reviewed it and with divine authority dismissed these scientists as false, so far beneath you that you need not even argue anything on a level of peer review? Since they are not your peers but mere 140IQ scientists far below your 210 IQ? Not worth even a response from one who is omnisciently superior to all other intelligent people (except those who share the exact same hypotheses?)

Back to science. We've established A/B != "sound" as we know it. So we can discuss exciting things like,
(1) Well, if not "sound", to what degree does it correlate and partake in it, to what degree does it miss out?
(2) How should our conceptual definitions expand and shift after undergoing invalidation of the prior hypotheses?
(3) If null tests did not reveal differences which these alternative non-A/B type tests DID reveal, how might we expand the notion of null testing to rein in and get more objectification of what is currently too subjective to define and measure?

 

[bigshot]

Objective measurement: Grab an SPL meter and measure some amplitude. The reading you get is factual.

I'll respond to one silly statement in each one of your posts, no more. If you start out with something blatantly incorrect in the first sentence, you'll have burned through your quota for nonsense and I won't read any further. Perhaps that will encourage you to raise the level of your discourse.

 

[gregorio]

It's what I told you all a long time ago, only 5% of mental music processing is at a conscious level.

Telling us a falsehood a long time ago achieves what exactly? If “only 5% of mental music processing is at a consciously level”, how do musicians ever consciously become musicians or ever consciously practice? Are you saying that 95% of musicians only subconsciously become musicians or that they practice to only improve that 5% and the other 95% of their ability is just subconscious luck, or are you saying that 95% of musicians are unconscious? Is the same also true of all music recording engineers? Do you have any reliable evidence for this 5% figure or is it just something you made-up?

Read it and weep:

Double blind tests failed to reveal subconscious differences in musical experience and enjoyment.

Why weep, it entirely supports his assertion?:

“Twenty university students (19-24 years old) listened to two types of a 200-s musical excerpt (J. S. Bach's French Suite No. 5) with or without inaudible high-frequency components using a double-blind method. They were asked to rate the sound quality and to judge which excerpt contained high-frequency components.” and then:

“Participants were not able to distinguish between the excerpts, which did not produce any discernible differences in subjective, autonomic, and facial muscle measures.” - emphasis mine.

If you’re going to argue and present reliable evidence, don’t you think it would be better to present evidence that actually supports your argument, rather than supporting what you’re arguing against?

G

 

[71 dB]

oh.. nice link..
nice story i discovered recently:
i always noticed an effect on sound quality if i have the roomlights on while listening to music, i kinda thought its because of noise from the lamps on the power lines
my hearing goes to around 15,5k
but while testing my hearing range recently i also tested 15,16,17,18,19,20 khz sinewaves and strangely enough i noticed at 20khz a "similar effect" on overall perception as with the lamps on

they are 4x 4W led lamps, i removed two and the effect on soundquality nearly "halved"
while not listening to music the effect becomes kinda subtle, tho i will soon try to swap the lamps

after this i also noticed some , mostly pretty hot mixed (distortion and stuff, Rob Zombie - Revelation Revolution), music with a similar effect

I see a new audiophool product potentially entering the market: Audiophile candles. No cold 4000 K led lights to ruin the sound, but warm "analog" candle light. Bee wax candles work well, snake oil candles even better!

 

[gregorio]

That's weird, can you quote any graduate level source on science methodology for this?

As far as sound/audio science is concerned then sure we can, in fact we can literally take ANY graduate level source on sound/audio. If you want a specific example, then probably Ken Pohlmann’s book (The Principles of Digital Audio) is the most widely recommended textbook on the subject but pretty much any textbook will do.

Everything I have seen from that level and higher, including the greatest minds of the past 200 years of scientific progress, are constantly warning us that we NEVER measure facts

What greatest minds are you talking about? The really great minds like Ampere, Coulomb, Fourier, Voltaire, Maxwell, Nyquist, Shannon, etc., or Rob Watts, John Atchinson and other minds that are great at peddling audiophile marketing?

Regardless of what happens when trying to measure a sub-atomic particle, digital audio is fundamentally the process of measurement (quantisation), without that there is no digital audio. You’re not claiming digital audio doesn’t exist are you? So maybe you’re claiming that Nyquist/Shannon and other “great minds” were all wrong? If so, no problem with that, you just need to provide some reliable supporting evidence and rationally explain how our digital world therefore exists.

To me, dodging every point made and avoiding proper scientific review/discussion of that content, while presuming the argument invalid just from age of the poster, is ad hominem and absolutely non-scientific.

Completely agree but then who here is doing that? We do not avoid proper scientific review/discussion and we do not “presume the argument invalid just from the age of the poster”. We presume it’s invalid because it’s nonsense, contradicts the valid science, has no reliable supporting evidence and relies on fallacy.

If Faraday or Einstein came on, would they be invalid just because it was their first post? Of course not.

Agreed, “of course not”, so who are you arguing with?

Back to science. We've established A/B != "sound" as we know it.

You say “Back to science” but then you say “we’ve established” something that isn’t clear, but being clear is a requirement of science! So, you’ve contradicted yourself, your very next sentence is not “back to science”? What exactly is it you’re claiming that “we’ve established”? That uncontrolled listening tests result in experiences/perceptions that are not “sound”?

So we can discuss exciting things like,
(1) Well, if not "sound", to what degree does it correlate and partake in it, to what degree does it miss out?
(2) How should our conceptual definitions expand and shift after undergoing invalidation of the prior hypotheses?
(3) If null tests did not reveal differences which these alternative non-A/B type tests DID reveal, how might we expand the notion of null testing to rein in and get more objectification of what is currently too subjective to define and measure?

1. “If not sound”, then what has it got to do with sound recording and reproduction equipment? What do you think a sound recording or reproduction system should be reproducing other than sound?
2. What prior hypothesis and what invalidation of it? Our conceptual definition of “sound” obviously doesn’t need to “change or shift” if we’re talking about something other than sound.
3. If null tests didn’t reveal differences between audio/sound signals it means no difference exists. So how do you think we can expand null testing to measure something that doesn’t exist? Maybe we could use it to “get more objectification” for other things that don’t exist, like unicorns and mermaids, etc?

You seem to be effectively talking about “imagination” and not sound (or audio), sighted/uncontrolled A/B listening tests that are prone to biases and perceptual errors. We can’t yet objectively measure imagination AFAIK and even if we could, that would obviously be a measurement of imagination, not of sound/audio. If we’re measuring the audio performance of audio equipment, then that’s what we want to measure, we don’t want to measure imagination because audio equipment obviously doesn’t have any imagination and we cannot record or reproduce imagination, only sound/audio. Isn’t all the above obvious?

G

 

[bigshot]

I don’t think he has any concept at all about what we’re talking about. He’s made up his beliefs, and he’s been spoon fed bogus beliefs to the point he can’t think about the subject in a straight line any more. He’s saying things that are clearly wrong, but he isn’t self aware enough to recognize the mistakes himself.

 

[castleofargh]

oh.. nice link..
nice story i discovered recently:
i always noticed an effect on sound quality if i have the roomlights on while listening to music, i kinda thought its because of noise from the lamps on the power lines
my hearing goes to around 15,5k
but while testing my hearing range recently i also tested 15,16,17,18,19,20 khz sinewaves and strangely enough i noticed at 20khz a "similar effect" on overall perception as with the lamps on

they are 4x 4W led lamps, i removed two and the effect on soundquality nearly "halved"
while not listening to music the effect becomes kinda subtle, tho i will soon try to swap the lamps

after this i also noticed some , mostly pretty hot mixed (distortion and stuff, Rob Zombie - Revelation Revolution), music with a similar effect

Have you considered that perhaps your eyes pick up different amounts/color temperature of light, and it impacts your experience and impression on sound?
I see how gracefully you dodge all concepts of potential non audio bias forever and ever to keep alive the dream of all you casual gut feelings being 100 factual about sound. I at least respect the effort and technique.
But as a member of the human race, I feel like I need to insist on how actual humans work. I'm not claiming light is the cause of your feelings in this particular anecdote, I'm saying it should at the very least get as much attention as some doubtful ultrasonic noises scenario in term of possible influence.

 

[Elegiac]

Time to start rolling light bulbs. See if you can get up to 25khz.