16/44 vs. 24/96 Format Comparison

[opaqueice]

It can be scientifically proven that even if you cannot hear it, it can have an effect on what you can hear.

Yes, I fully agree - knowing that you're listening to a hi-rez format can enhance your perception of the quality of the sound.

[amey01]

Yes, I fully agree - knowing that you're listening to a hi-rez format can enhance your perception of the quality of the sound.

I know you're disagreeing with me here, but I agree with you also. There can be placebo effect also. There is just so much we don't understand about sound. But really, frequencies in the inaudiable band can affect the way frequencies in the audiable band sound.

[earthbased]

I know you're disagreeing with me here, but I agree with you also. There can be placebo effect also. There is just so much we don't understand about sound. But really, frequencies in the inaudiable band can affect the way frequencies in the audiable band sound.

Which is why we have science (and consequently engineering) and double-blind research studies. If someone just spent $10K on a tone arm, he is going to have a big inducement to think it improved the sound. Ditto for $500/ft cable.

[amey01]

If someone just spent $10K on a tone arm, he is going to have a big inducement to think it improved the sound. Ditto for $500/ft cable.

Absolutely!

But there is just so much that science and DBT tests (which have been proven inaccurate) can't explain.

If you enjoy it then go for it (placebo or not), but just remember that we are not at the pinnacle of reproduced sound quality yet - recordings sound nothing like the live event.

Science (or anything else) can't explain this as yet, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying to get better sound quality.

[opaqueice]

I know you're disagreeing with me here, but I agree with you also. There can be placebo effect also. There is just so much we don't understand about sound. But really, frequencies in the inaudiable band can affect the way frequencies in the audiable band sound.

Can you clarify what you mean? You mean a tone which is inaudible by itself can make an audible difference when played along with another tone? Do you have a reference?

[jeffmeh]

Absolutely!

But there is just so much that science and DBT tests (which have been proven inaccurate) can't explain.

If you enjoy it then go for it (placebo or not), but just remember that we are not at the pinnacle of reproduced sound quality yet - recordings sound nothing like the live event.

Science (or anything else) can't explain this as yet, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying to get better sound quality.

Out of curiosity, do you have a reference regarding a well-constructed, statistically significant, double-blind test that has proven to be inaccurate?

[darrenyeats]

recordings sound nothing like the live event.

That's a whole can of worms again. (I recall we discussed this a while ago :-) )

That might be true but the reason is not necessarily red book.

I recall two occasions in my life when a recording has sounded real (absolutely real). One was very recently. On each occasion a CD was playing, which to me indicates the problem in general lies elsewhere (perhaps the recording, mixing or mastering process). Both were recordings of live performances, and I understand in at least one case the recording technique was very simple.
Darren

PS: Neither experience was on my own system, unfortunately!

[Phil Leigh]

Did anyone see the "famous" Linn demo where they had a guy in a room playing a guitar and singing and then they switched between him live and a recording of the same guy in the same room playing the same song via their top-end (!) system?

It was shown on TV in the UK. Obviously you couldn't tell from the TV sound what was going on but the point was made that it was very convincing.
I'd love to have heard that for myself. Pity they didn't DBT it )

[pfarrell]

darrenyeats wrote:
> That might be true but the reason is not necessarily red book.

RedBook can sound amazing. For proof, go to the Royer Microphone site,
and order their $4 sample CD. Its amazing.


> Both were
> recordings of live performances, and I know in at least one case the
> recording technique was very simple.

Recording good musicians in a good room with Blumlien techniques
requires just two quality mikes. I have two matched AEA R84 ribbon mics
that sound fabulous. I've also got a set of matched Neumanns.

Simple is the easy way to get fabulous recordings, but it requires the
more from the musicians, and you can't fix it in the mix.

[CatBus]

But there is just so much that science and DBT tests (which have been proven inaccurate) can't explain.

Money quote from this forum IMO. Science has been scientifically proven to be wrong. But if it was proven scientifically, then maybe it wasn't proven after all and science isn't wrong. But then...

DBT has limitations, sure--the results are truly valid only for the tested environment and test subject. If the environment is wonky or the subject pool is nonrepresentative, then DBT results cannot be extrapolated to apply to the real world. But that's why information on methodology is included in the published results, so that people can pick it apart and point out problems, and the test can be re-run correctly. That's the science part of DBT--it's self-correcting.

Or are you saying DBT doesn't work on dogs and bats because science stops working at 20KHz?