Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?

[kraken2109]

Yet supposedly we shouldn't be able to see a difference between 60hz and 120hz screens but the difference is clear.

Where is the science that says we can't see the difference?
 

yes.
which is why I said "simplistic".

I don't think it's just about pitch, though, is it?

Isn't it about richness too?

Help us out.
Can you give amore apropos way of thinking about it?
Not being challenging, just trying to grip this issue myself.

I take those tests...and I can generally tell the diff. about 90%, most days.

probly 'cuz I live with dogs.
they've taught me all the tricks.

Research the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.

 

[elmoe]

Where is the science that says we can't see the difference?

Research the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.

Its there, google for it if youre interested.

 

[riverlethe]

Its there, google for it if youre interested.

What is where?

 

[riverlethe]

yes.
which is why I said "simplistic".

I don't think it's just about pitch, though, is it?

Isn't it about richness too?

Help us out.
Can you give amore apropos way of thinking about it?
Not being challenging, just trying to grip this issue myself.

I take those tests...and I can generally tell the diff. about 90%, most days.

probly 'cuz I live with dogs.
they've taught me all the tricks.

Are you aware of the difference between "simplistic" and "completely invalid?"

What on earth is "richness?"

 

[elmoe]

Articles about the limit of what the human eye can see vs the reality, that at higher framerates things get smoother, more fluid, sharper and noticeably so.

 

[riverlethe]

Articles about the limit of what the human eye can see vs the reality, that at higher framerates things get smoother, more fluid, sharper and noticeably so.

Scientific studies, or just "articles?" Supposedly, fighter pilots have been shown to perceive 255 fps. Nerves can fire 1000 times per second, so that would be the hard limit. I'm not aware of anyone hearing above 22khz.

 

[elmoe]

Scientific studies, or just "articles?" Supposedly, fighter pilots have been shown to perceive 255 fps. Nerves can fire 1000 times per second, so that would be the hard limit. I'm not aware of anyone hearing above 22khz.

Scientific studies yes, and now we have 1000hz screens that are also a step up from the 100/200/400hz screens (I saw one just today actually).

This kind of thing tends to make me think that the way we test many things aren't necessarily as accurate as we believe them to be. Take ABX DBTs for example, if its in fact true that our audible memory is very short then doesnt that make DBTs incredibly difficult to give accurate results? Im of the opinion that a long 30+ mins test before switching is much more plausible to accurately test differences in audio gear rather than a few minutes or even seconds as are most DBTs done.

Of course this is strictly based on my own experiences and not scientific studies but honestly a DBT with ABX where things are switched every few seconds seems to me like an innacurate way to properly test things.

 

[riverlethe]

Scientific studies yes, and now we have 1000hz screens that are also a step up from the 100/200/400hz screens (I saw one just today actually).

This kind of thing tends to make me think that the way we test many things aren't necessarily as accurate as we believe them to be. Take ABX DBTs for example, if its in fact true that our audible memory is very short then doesnt that make DBTs incredibly difficult to give accurate results? Im of the opinion that a long 30+ mins test before switching is much more plausible to accurately test differences in audio gear rather than a few minutes or even seconds as are most DBTs done.

Of course this is strictly based on my own experiences and not scientific studies but honestly a DBT with ABX where things are switched every few seconds seems to me like an innacurate way to properly test things.

I'd like to see a link to such a study about framerate.

This still says nothing about people hearing greater than 22khz or 96dB of dynamic range. It simply isn't analogous to frames per second.

 

[elmoe]

Well as said above fighter pilots see a max of 254 fpa supposedly, try a video game at 255fps then up the limit to 600 and I guarantee youll see a difference - I do anyway. Alternatively google for studies.

Youre right this isnt analogous to 24 bit 192khz, what it is analogous to is that our ways to measure thinga scientifically arent always as accurate as wed like to think they are. That being said, its rare when I hear a difference between 16/44 and 24/192 but it does happen sometimes on good recordings of the same mastering, or so I hear. However ir is a very faint difference so much in fact that IF there is indeed one, it really doesnt matter.

 

[riverlethe]

Well as said above fighter pilots see a max of 254 fpa supposedly, try a video game at 255fps then up the limit to 600 and I guarantee youll see a difference - I do anyway. Alternatively google for studies.

Youre right this isnt analogous to 24 bit 192khz, what it is analogous to is that our ways to measure thinga scientifically arent always as accurate as wed like to think they are. That being said, its rare when I hear a difference between 16/44 and 24/192 but it does happen sometimes on good recordings of the same mastering, or so I hear. However ir is a very faint difference so much in fact that IF there is indeed one, it really doesnt matter.

What game are you running at 600fps? Aren't they usually CPU-limited before 200fps?

Anyway, the only test I found reference to WAS the fighter pilots...

 

[elmoe]

Theres plenty you can try if you have a decent recent gaming rig, cod4 for example, just lower settings and resolution if needed to get higher fps and theres a console command to draw fpa on screen or you can use a capture app like fraps to draw fps as well.

 

[Don Hills]

 ...  a DBT with ABX where things are switched every few seconds seems to me like an innacurate way to properly test things.

 
There is nothing in the design of an ABX test that requires you to switch "every few seconds". You control when the switching occurs, not the test. You can listen for a week at a time to A, B, or X if you think it will help you to hear a difference.

 

[elmoe]

   
There is nothing in the design of an ABX test that requires you to switch "every few seconds". You control when the switching occurs, not the test. You can listen for a week at a time to A, B, or X if you think it will help you to hear a difference.

 
But how many of those tests actually do listen for more than say, 15 minutes before switching? The reports I've read for every single ABX test so far have always been significantly less than that. If you have contradicting reports, please share them, I'm interested.

 

[stv014]

The reports I've read for every single ABX test so far have always been significantly less than that.

 
That is because the testers quickly learn that they get better scores with faster switching. Auditory memory fades quickly, and longer switching times have been proven to make the results less reliable. In a proper ABX/DBT, it makes a negative result more likely, while in casual sighted testing, it is easier to get a false positive (i.e. imaginary difference) if there is a longer time to forget what the other source sounded like. Which is why audiophiles believe longer switching time is better, because it "improves" their usual (flawed) testing method. It is also why "modding" audio equipment (like op amp, cable, etc. upgrades which inherently take some time to perform) is popular, and large differences are often heard with no objective evidence.
 
Note that fast switching ability does not mean that the sample length or the overall time spent on testing also has to be short; with a thorough comparison of a longer sample that has more different sounding parts, there may be a better chance of finding an audible artifact.

 

[elmoe]

   
That is because the testers quickly learn that they get better scores with faster switching. Auditory memory fades quickly, and longer switching times have been proven to make the results less reliable. In a proper ABX/DBT, it makes a negative result more likely, while in casual sighted testing, it is easier to get a false positive (i.e. imaginary difference) if there is a longer time to forget what the other source sounded like. Which is why audiophiles believe longer switching time is better, because it "improves" their usual (flawed) testing method.

 
I don't agree here and you've clearly misunderstood me. You can take a 30s long recording, play it for 15 minutes, and then switch during your DBT. I don't see how your auditory memory will fade any quicker than if you gave it a single 30s listen. Auditory memory might fade quickly from a single listen but if you loop a short recording for 15 minutes, you will remember things a lot better than if you heard it only a single time. I don't see how it is easier to get a "false positive" this way, given that you take the time to do plenty of switching. It's an ABX DBT, it shouldn't matter how long you take, it's a blind test anyhow. If audiophile results get better when doing this it goes to show that I'm not entirely wrong about the methodology. You say testers know they get better scores switching quickly but you say they get more false positive switching slowly - which is it?