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

[eq1849]

Very interesting stuff, Lexxie.

 

[Ghoostknight]

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.

yes i have considered this, natural lightning from the window didnt have "effects" like from the roomlighting

and yes in my experience "seeing light" actually has effects too but they are not really comparable
ime, listening to music in the dark let you "dive deeper into a musical expierence", its kinda fun, tho not for casual listening i would say

but the effect of (my) roomlamps is just "subtle annoying" compared to natural lightning

well yes it sounds crazy and i would have not considered this if i wouldnt had expierences a similar "expierence" with 20khz sinewave and my lights on, the more plausible answer was noise on the powerlines to this day, well i cant say im 100% sure, but it was strange imo

 

[bigshot]

ime, listening to music in the dark let you "dive deeper into a musical expierence", its kinda fun, tho not for casual listening i would say

So you're saying that fully blind testing would allow you to focus and give more accurate answers in a listening test?

 

[bigshot]

He's been here before and he'll be here again.

 

[Ghoostknight]

So you're saying that fully blind testing would allow you to focus and give more accurate answers in a listening test?

maybe, probably, atleast in my opinion blind folding lets you focus more on sound since you "disable" a other sense, this is also common knowledge i think, i heared it often that blind/disabled people can focus more on sound since the brain focuses more on the left over senses

tho im unsure what a blind test could "influence" negativly, its a unnatural setting under "pressure", some of the times without the well known own system and other things

 

[bigshot]

Blind tests aren't conducted under pressure. A lot of them are conducted in people's own homes using their own equipment. It seems to me closing your eyes and leaning back and focusing on the music is the exact opposite of under pressure.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Blind tests aren't conducted under pressure. A lot of them are conducted in people's own homes using their own equipment. It seems to me closing your eyes and leaning back and focusing on the music is the exact opposite of under pressure.

being tested alone can be a "pressure factor" if we look at placebo effects with placebo pills, those people wouldnt believe feeling some beneficial effect if they have not taking any pills, to make a easy example
thats also why i cant give any credit to those "studys" that pretend two devices are tested while only one was running and similar ones

i guess "homemade" blind tests are atleast better than studys with a "research setup"

 

[Elegiac]

Every time I read the words 'under pressure' I hear the music.

 

[bigshot]

You haven’t read the studies. Some of them set up a switcher in a person’s home. They can test on their own equipment any time they want. No pressure at all.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

When in doubt, simply point out that no proposed invalidation of double blind testing can ever *validate* sighted testing, when asserting to the listener that they are listening to two different things with ascribed properties, reliably creates perceived differences between two totally identical things.

 

[castleofargh]

@Lexxie

Posting Etiquette

1. Be polite. We encourage debating in the forums, but please avoid defamatory statements, personal attacks, racial slurs, name-calling, and cursing at others in the forums.

This is the first rule of fight club and you failed like it was your mission.
IDK if you're a troll account, if you're sick, or if you got banned from tweeter and come venting your anger here, but now is the time to stop insulting people.
And to those who reply with just as much trolling, stop it.

 

[bigshot]

I’ll miss the hot dog princess.

 

[gregorio]

Have you considered that perhaps your eyes pick up different amounts/color temperature of light, and it impacts your experience and impression on sound?

No, that’s the point, that’s how audiophiles are so able to accept audiophile marketing and their own ideas. Ignorance is a great advantage in this sense because if you do not know or believe the facts/science then obviously you can’t consider them. They also don’t consider the consequences if the facts were actually wrong or their nonsense assertions were right. For example, in films why do we have a “colour grading” process, why do we have sound designers or Foley artists/teams and what happens if you dissociate the sound from the picture? Ignorance of all this can come to the rescue again but now they’ve got to be completely ignorant of whole bunch of other facts in order not to consider them. The solution to this appears to always be the same, simply don’t care how ignorant you demonstrate yourself to be.

Birds whisper to me that this is Dante Inferno chapter 6 of head-fi, under quarantine, so this is why if you come here to talk science it's a trap...

Huh? If someone “comes here to talk science” then of course we expect them to talk science (or ask if they don’t know). What we don’t expect/accept is for them to come to a science discussion forum and simply make-up, repeat and argue anti-scientific nonsense because then they will of course get trapped by their own falsehoods, fallacies and their own stupidity for attempting that in this subforum in the first place! What, apart from the facts/science, do you think people should “come here to talk”?

I'm new here but not afraid to do it,

Clearly your not afraid to do it and apparently you’re proud of the fact rather than ashamed.

how can we cleanse the monkeys and start productive human sciences?

You’d have thought that demonstrating their own ignorance and looking like fools would do the trick but either they don’t mind being appearing foolish or are too thick to realise it. Typically when this happens they do their best to appear even more foolish. We cleanse them by first questioning if they are a troll, the mod reminding them of their obligations and eventually locking them out.

the more plausible answer was noise on the powerlines to this day

I’m learning the translation rules, “more” means less “more logical” = less logical/illogical. “More plausible” = less/least plausible.

being tested alone can be a "pressure factor"

So can being tested in groups. Simple solution is not to test at all and make-up complete nonsense.

i cant give any credit to those "studys" that pretend two devices are tested while only one was running and similar ones

What studies that pretend that?

i guess "homemade" blind tests are atleast better than studys with a "research setup"

Ah good more guesses. That’s just what we need in a science discussion forum instead of actual facts/science. One thing that’s impressive (beyond posting guesses here to start with); of the many guesses you’ve posted, including this latest, not a single one of them has been correct, as far as I recall. 100% consistency is amazing, just pure chance would suggest around 50% of your guesses would be correct, so 100% wrong takes some doing!

Maybe you should start a petition or talk to your local politician to have all scientific research labs demolished and all research scientists fired, and replace it all with audiophiles and their living rooms? That would be the “More” logical, plausible thing to do!

G

 

[bigshot]

100% consistency is amazing, just pure chance would suggest around 50% of your guesses would be correct, so 100% wrong takes some doing!

100% error would probably indicate your test is measuring something other than what you intended it to, or your interpretation of the results is wrong, not that the facts themselves are incorrect. In his case, it's definitely the latter!

Something we don't mention enough perhaps is the importance of designing a good test in the first place... it should measure what you want to measure and isolate that from other variables. I've noticed audiophiles tend to want to dump everything and the kitchen sink into their comparisons and not make any attempt to isolate one element at a time because "that's the way they listen". They end up with a mulligan stew of a comparison with so much going on, and so much uncontrolled that there is no way to discern anything at all from it. I guess that makes it easier for them to wallpaper their bias over the top of the whole mess.

 

[71 dB]

Too much stuff that tastes like trolling in this thread lately for my liking. It is like arguing with flat earthers about gravity on a geology forum discussing how to scientifically predict earthquakes. The effect of bit depth and sample rate on sound quality, the real topic of this thread, is hardly discussed at all. Instead we are discussing "listening under pressure" and other unrelated stuff.

People want to uphold audio-related beliefs that make them feel good. Things such as the possibility to have "mystic" sonic properties with certain audio products. Science questions those believes and that's the reason we have all this anti-science sentiment in here. People want a world where they can "buy" happiness and joy. Scientific forums tell people their happiness and joy are all in their head and not "real" thing. What's worse is people are told they "shouldn't" feel happiness and joy, but instead be cynical and aware of how we are conned by marketing BS and snake-oil sellers.

The big mistake people make is assume whatever feels good must be the truth, but that's not the case. Some things just make us feel good for some reason and most of the time those things are irrational. Scientific facts are separate things and they are not taylored to make us feel good. Facts can be dull, depressing, alarming, annoying etc., but also useful and even powerful.

So, when science takes away the dream of better sound quality with hi-rez audio, what does it give in return for compensation? I am happy that 44.1 kHz/16 bit digital audio is all we consumers need. We already conquered the transparency of consumer audio formats and now we should concentrate on issues that are not perfected yet. Transparency is not enough. There are other factors, often subjective, in play when it comes to enjoyment of music.

In visual arts we have the concept of photorealism. In audio we should have the equivalent thing (recrealism?). In what ways should sound be imperfect to appear realistic? If I record something with the best microphone using the best recording gear in the World, does it guarantee realism? If not, what increadient should be added? Artificial noise? Distortion? How "clean" can sound be to feel realistic? What is the sonic equivalent of lens flare? Do we need it? How far from realism are we? What do we do in music production that harms realism? How to deal with the fundamental difference of speaker and headphone spatiality? I'd put my energy on these things, because to my knowledge these things aren't 100 % solved/answered.