The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Have the higher sampling rate and bit depths cured the digital monster? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 13th August 2014
  #211
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kafka View Post
I still think I nailed this thing on page 3. Of the very few people people who think they can perceive the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 (let's be fair, and call it 96/20. The other 4 bits are just there for engineering convenience), vastly fewer think the difference is clear, and even fewer care. All of the content that matters is easily contained in 44.1/16. That, to me, is a conclusive argument against any economic reason for a change in technology.

The fact is, there is no consensus for occupying twice the bandwidth, computation, and storage. There's hardly any interest in it at all, even among professionals. There's certainly no economic demand for it. Nobody is witholding purchases because of sound quality. SACD failed because nobody cared. So why bother with it?
Within this thread there haven't been many voices who said they could not hear a difference. The breakdown seems to be a minority that have done some listening and heard
an improvement with hi res, and a larger group that won't do any listening until a blind ABX test has conclusively established the difference.

Maybe people don't care. As a musician and an engineer I find it supremely depressing that people don't seem to care (I don't want to stay stuck with 16/44), but then almost nobody has actually heard hi res. In fact, at this point many many people haven't even heard vinyl. One of the things about SACDs were that they came about in an era of cheap sounding music, nobody knew about them, and they required special players.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if we could come to value nuance, complexity and beauty over what is disposable and cheap.
Old 13th August 2014
  #212
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Within this thread there haven't been many voices who said they could not hear a difference. The breakdown seems to be a minority that have done some listening and heard
an improvement with hi res, and a larger group that won't do any listening until a blind ABX test has conclusively established the difference.

Maybe people don't care. As a musician and an engineer I find it supremely depressing that people don't seem to care (I don't want to stay stuck with 16/44), but then almost nobody has actually heard hi res. In fact, at this point many many people haven't even heard vinyl. One of the things about SACDs were that they came about in an era of cheap sounding music, nobody knew about them, and they required special players.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if we could come to value nuance, complexity and beauty over what is disposable and cheap.
It must be nice to be on the side of nuance, complexity, and beauty -- surely better than the disposable and cheap world we 44.1'ers live in. Hell, we won't even bother listening unless a team of PhDs proctors a peer-reviewed ABX test.

I think you're right: we don't care, we've never actually heard "hi res" audio, and we certainly didn't grow up listening to all our favorite music on vinyl.

That is surely why we don't embrace higher sampling rates.
Old 13th August 2014
  #213
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

As a musician I have the option of an OK decent sounding guitar made with a few compromises but generally OK and serviceable. I also have the option of an outstanding guitar made without compromises. The general dismissal of the better rates is not unlike accepting an OK guitar as opposed to an outstanding guitar. It makes no sense to covet great instruments and great equipment if its destined to be recording into anything less than the best the state of the art has to offer. It would be interesting to know the demographics of go with the best vs OK is good enough.
Old 13th August 2014
  #214
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
...It would be interesting to know the demographics of go with the best vs OK is good enough.
I've never met anybody who recorded a hit record that had the phrase "good enough" in their vocabulary.
Old 13th August 2014
  #215
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
But isn't that EXACTLY what Lance is saying ??



I mean, except for the ABX part

People can quibble about the bona fides of this or that study, but in all the studies, anyone who has tried it blindfolded, including those who claim success, admit it was "difficult" and that they were "unsure" of their choices.

This flies in the face of claims that "reduction" to CD of a good sounding master results it being a "shadow" of its former self. That implies a drastic reduction in quality. Not something were people have to crank the volume and concentrate on the reverb tails to 'tell'.

It has become impossible to discuss this stuff when the hyperbole surrounding these distinctions has gotten so far out of hand. When people denigrate blind ABX comparisons, they put the entire thing entirely into an 'unarguable' subjective area where they can pretty much say anything they want, and be forever smug in their perceptions.
As I understand it, he was talking about an entire production at 16/44.1 (which of course no one is advocating) versus just a final master for delivery.

I've not yet listened to the attached files - I'd like to, but won't get a chance for critical listening at any point till Friday I don't think.
Old 13th August 2014
  #216
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I've never met anybody who recorded a hit record that had the phrase "good enough" in their vocabulary.
Good enough is so subjective though. After something is a hit record it doesn't matter how bad it sounds, once it become popular everyone suddenly thinks it automatically "sounds good". Some early 90s hits are so embarrassingly sonically bad, but if it's popular it sounds good.
Old 13th August 2014
  #217
Lives for gear
 
sleepingbag's Avatar
Just would like to remind y'all that anyone can end this argument definitively by posting a high res/high bitrate master that sounds noticeably better than the same master in 44/16 in this thread.... it could be that easy. I'd love to hear what some of you claim to hear.
Old 13th August 2014
  #218
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
As a musician I have the option of an OK decent sounding guitar made with a few compromises but generally OK and serviceable. I also have the option of an outstanding guitar made without compromises. The general dismissal of the better rates is not unlike accepting an OK guitar as opposed to an outstanding guitar. It makes no sense to covet great instruments and great equipment if its destined to be recording into anything less than the best the state of the art has to offer. It would be interesting to know the demographics of go with the best vs OK is good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I've never met anybody who recorded a hit record that had the phrase "good enough" in their vocabulary.
So why isn't the industry lining up endorsing a 96kHz standard? Where are the hordes of professionals and decision makers who agree with you? I mean, just where are they? How about even a small minority? Do you think maybe it could be the case that they don't exist, because they don't hear the difference, or otherwise think the differences are not important to their definition of perfectionism? Could it be that perfectionism in their minds has more to do with the sounds that can actually be heard?
Old 13th August 2014
  #219
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Actually the majors are archiving everything at 192.
Old 13th August 2014
  #220
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kafka View Post
So why isn't the industry lining up endorsing a 96kHz standard?
Probably because people don't really understand the benefits of it. The industry is so divided digitally speaking.

You have some professionals who don't think converters matter, higher sample rates don't matter, plugins are all the same etc....

In the analog days you couldn't cut a major label record on an otari deck, I'm only half serious obviously but point being the quality "control" was much better back then. Now it's just a free for all. One problem is groups like AES are claiming bit rates and sample rates don't really matter. If a audio committee like that is out of touch who can you trust?
no one.
Old 13th August 2014
  #221
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
The links work fine. But man, that tape is a mess.
Yeah, I don't know about that tape. I don't think it makes a very good argument for any medium. There's just a ton of compression and distortion on that acoustic guitar that makes it hard to hear anything else, and the noise floor is pretty bad, also. Not that I can tell the difference between the two recordings blind, or even sighted. But at least give us something pleasant to listen to.

Does someone have a pro deck and an orchestral recording that this can be repeated with? If this is the 'great equipment' the OP is talking about, s**t, I have almost the same model Teac sitting in the other room that I haven't used in almost 25 years - for good reason.
Old 13th August 2014
  #222
Gear Head
 
Rocksitter's Avatar
Rupert talks



Here Rupert talks some on this subject I know it is a long video but the other stuff is nice has well..
Old 13th August 2014
  #223
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
It must be nice to be on the side of nuance, complexity, and beauty -- surely better than the disposable and cheap world we 44.1'ers live in. Hell, we won't even bother listening unless a team of PhDs proctors a peer-reviewed ABX test.

I think you're right: we don't care, we've never actually heard "hi res" audio, and we certainly didn't grow up listening to all our favorite music on vinyl.

That is surely why we don't embrace higher sampling rates.
I think you are saying you feel misrepresented or dismissed by my statement about the thread, but I'm not totally sure..
Old 13th August 2014
  #224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Actually the majors are archiving everything at 192.
Just to clarify Bob, you're talking about archiving master tapes/production reels right? Obviously no label, major or not, is archiving digital sessions at sample rates in excess of what they were recorded at....scarily I work for a major and I have to impress upon them the importance that they take copies of all the sessions we do in the studio for future use!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
In the analog days you couldn't cut a major label record on an otari deck, I'm only half serious obviously but point being the quality "control" was much better back then.
*doesn't think is serious...never can be certain with chainrule..*

Yes of course "quality control" was better - in that you couldn't sell recordings, get anything on radio, or really do anything outside sell a few demos in your home town, without a "proper" record label.

A "proper" record label generally meant a "proper" recording (although there's always been some pretty ropey recordings being released).

In the self releasing age, that barrier has been removed. Not to mention all the demos/self-recordings licensed by labels.

So yes you're right in some way. Obviously the vastly larger amount of music available today possibly means there's still as much, if not more, QUALITY music/recordings released.

I'm not sure you can blame the poor standard of some releases today on sample rate though.
Old 13th August 2014
  #225
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Within this thread there haven't been many voices who said they could not hear a difference. The breakdown seems to be a minority that have done some listening and heard an improvement with hi res, and a larger group that won't do any listening until a blind ABX test has conclusively established the difference.

Maybe people don't care. As a musician and an engineer I find it supremely depressing that people don't seem to care (I don't want to stay stuck with 16/44), but then almost nobody has actually heard hi res. In fact, at this point many many people haven't even heard vinyl. One of the things about SACDs were that they came about in an era of cheap sounding music, nobody knew about them, and they required special players.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if we could come to value nuance, complexity and beauty over what is disposable and cheap.
[bold added]

That's kind of fatuous and nonsensical, isn't it?

You say it comes down to either people who listen and hear a difference and others who you claim won't listen until someone there's conclusive evidence.

But, of course, that's just a really dirt-stupid thing to say -- because it's so obviously untrue. Why say something so patently false and expect people to not call you on it?

And THEN you go on to seem to suggest that those you don't agree with simply 'don't care' about sound.

And then there's this nonsense about how many people haven't heard vinyl. Well, I strongly suspect that most of us old guys not only have big vinyl collections but plenty of -- I have 1200+ LPs and about 200 singles in various formats, mostly 45 and 78 -- but most probably have lots of experience with analog tape, as well. I've owned 10 analog reel decks (five multitrack) and spent my first decade in studios recording to analog tape.

So this whole misguided trope about how those who don't agree with you simply haven't listened and don't care isn't just potentially grossly untrue -- it's more than a bit insulting.
Old 13th August 2014
  #226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
I decided to use a different set of wave files where digital reduction was not in the process. Posted are two wave files taken directly from a mixed analogue studio master. The high res sampling was recorded first and the CD rate recorded second. Output of the tape machine was left the same at 0db. Samples were recorded into SONAR peaking 0db No compression or EQ has been added. I hope these links work.

The signal chain is as follows
The 7.5 ips reel to reel tape dubbed from 15 ips mixed master. Done at studio at the time of original recording sessions. Tape is Ampex 406 baked and treated to allow play.

Teac A-2300SD reel to reel @ 7.5ips into a Digital Audio CDX-01 PCI interface into SONAR.

FileSwap.com : Caroline Solo 9624.wav download free

FileSwap.com : Caroline solo 4416.wav download free
So many things racing through my mind... ahem.


Ok. You are definitely not imagining there is a significant difference between these two files. But they're both a terrible mess. The music is fine, but the sound is garbled and there is a dynamic wobble that almost makes me seasick (my first thought was drop-out [maybe the tape-baking planted the idea in my head, that ol' cognitive distortion) but if it's drop out, it's the most radical and somewhat bizarre drop out I've heard.

What it sounds like to me is a wildly out of alignment dbx NR -- or dbx applied to a signal that wasn't encoded with it.

But, yes, the 96 definitely has the more high end. It doesn't sound good -- but there's more of it.

But the thing is, considering these tracks, there's nothing in the world to keep reasonable, professional gear running at 44.1 from getting far better fidelity than that on either of those versions. Not to mention a digital project would likely avoid the nasty tape speed flutter that gives the guitars and cymbals a chorus-y effect and, of course, whatever that deal-breaking dynamic problem is.

But, yeah, you're not imagining the difference. I just don't think that's anywhere close to the biggest of your problems. And I see no reasons why a good converter working at 44.1 couldn't far surpass either of those in production. Speaking strictly of the differences between versions presumably implicit to the switch of sample rates or converters -- there's something wrong there. I've never seen a difference like that from my converters from tracking at different rates with the same source -- and the same converter.

PS... I thought the music underlying it sounded musically fine, if sonically awful. Don't know if it was you, but I did want to get that in. Not being critical of the song.
Old 13th August 2014
  #227
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
[bold added]

That's kind of fatuous and nonsensical, isn't it?

You say it comes down to either people who listen and hear a difference and others who you claim won't listen until someone there's conclusive evidence.

But, of course, that's just a really dirt-stupid thing to say -- because it's so obviously untrue. Why say something so patently false and expect people to not call you on it?

And THEN you go on to seem to suggest that those you don't agree with simply 'don't care' about sound.

And then there's this nonsense about how many people haven't heard vinyl. Well, I strongly suspect that most of us old guys not only have big vinyl collections but plenty of -- I have 1200+ LPs and about 200 singles in various formats, mostly 45 and 78 -- but most probably have lots of experience with analog tape, as well. I've owned 10 analog reel decks (five multitrack) and spent my first decade in studios recording to analog tape.

So this whole misguided trope about how those who don't agree with you simply haven't listened and don't care isn't just potentially grossly untrue -- it's more than a bit insulting.
Well, yeah. What I wrote was a bit overwrought. AND in the context of the thread what I read (incorrectly?) has been people speaking two languages, some people speaking in terms of experience and others speaking in terms of data. Within the thread I haven't heard many people make a case for lower sample rates couched in subjective experience like "I don't hear a difference,", and not that many make a case for higher ones couched in theory or testing. If the ABX crew has heard higher rates, few have mentioned here. Is this an incorrect assessment?

The rest was in response to what kafka said about professionals and consumers not really caring about anything beyond CD quality, which hit a nerve. When I say nobody has heard it, I mean amongst the general population.
Old 13th August 2014
  #228
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Here are a 16 bit and a 24/192 version of something I recorded for another thread. Both were recorded with a Prism Orpheus at 24/192, a couple DPA 4011s in XY through a Pacifica. No processing, so they are not loud.

This is not the complete picture as they both come from the same source file. I'm not able to record 16/44 and 24/192 in parallel with the same converters from the same sound source.

Ok, here we go:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eq13jcubd...P9g7Pg09SGLdRa
Old 13th August 2014
  #229
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepingbag View Post
Just would like to remind y'all that anyone can end this argument definitively by posting a high res/high bitrate master that sounds noticeably better than the same master in 44/16 in this thread.... it could be that easy. I'd love to hear what some of you claim to hear.
Wish it were so easy... but there's so much else that can go wrong. As we can see.

This is the problem. If something goes wrong, you can get a divergence. If you assume it's not a mistake or other problem, but instead inherent to the difference in sample rates, you may have come an incorrect assumption.

For instance, Lance bravely stepped up with his files taken in two separate passes from the same tape master. And it does, clearly, show a difference between the files -- but it's a difference I've never heard in my own comparisons -- and neither file sounds good in the slightest. The problems with those files are so profound and so compounded, it's hard to say what's going on, but with such issues -- and with results that conflict with other results -- it seems likely that there may be problems with capture just as there are clearly problems with the whole program material.

So, 'proving' things takes time and repeated efforts -- as well as careful review of method and results by others and successful attempts to replicate results

Old 13th August 2014
  #230
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Good enough is so subjective though...
No, it's an attitude. People who are betting their career on their next release always want the highest quality they can get. This is because literally one excited reviewer has often made the difference between a million seller and a thousand unopened CDs or records sitting in a garage.

We don't make records for "consumers." We make records for the folks who can advance an artist's career including their most engaged fans. No recording can ever be "good enough" for many of us.
Old 13th August 2014
  #231
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Well, yeah. What I wrote was a bit overwrought. AND in the context of the thread what I read (incorrectly?) has been people speaking two languages, some people speaking in terms of experience and others speaking in terms of data. Within the thread I haven't heard many people make a case for lower sample rates couched in subjective experience like "I don't hear a difference,", and not that many make a case for higher ones couched in theory or testing. If the ABX crew has heard higher rates, few have mentioned here. Is this an incorrect assessment?

The rest was in response to what kafka said about professionals and consumers not really caring about anything beyond CD quality, which hit a nerve.
Some of us are careful to use logic and try to say what we mean.

I speak from both personal experience, 5 decades of involvement with audio (next year will be the 50th anniversary of my first, amateur overdub project), a fairly good understanding of perceptual testing in psychology (I flirted with psych as a major, getting up to a grad level class in cognition I talked my way into), and a reasonable understanding of digital signal technology.


If people like me don't say, "Well, I don't hear a difference -- if you hear a difference there must be something wrong with your ears!" -- it's because folks like me have a broad enough understanding of both audio and human perception to realize that our personal perceptions -- like everyone else's -- are just that, personal and subjective.

Not only that, many of those who think like me probably are critical enough listeners that they have noticed their own subjective hearing experiences are subject to change from day to day or hour to hour.

That experience certainly helps underline the subjective and transitive nature of human perception -- notions that have been well backed up my mountains of scientific testing over the last century.

The reason folks like me don't rush to suggest OUR subjective experience is the only accurate one is probably because we're a lot smarter and more experienced than those gullible self-deceivers who DO indulge such egoistic fantasies.

Got it?
Old 13th August 2014
  #232
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post

The reason folks like me don't rush to suggest OUR subjective experience is the only accurate one is probably because we're a lot smarter and more experienced than those gullible self-deceivers who DO indulge such egoistic fantasies.

Got it?
I haven't said my subjective experience is the only accurate one. What I have said is that I am suspect of "objective" claims that contradict my vivid experience. Where bit depth and sample rate fall, with a lot of material they are above the threshold were I would feel unsure of what I was hearing. I know specifically what qualitative things I am listening for. I don't know if I hear the difference between different mic cables, 32 and 64 bit float point or different forms of dither. These fall below that threshold.

After 12 years of exposure to 24 bit+ I would think I would know if I was self-deceiving by now.
Old 13th August 2014
  #233
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Within this thread there haven't been many voices who said they could not hear a difference. The breakdown seems to be a minority that have done some listening and heard
an improvement with hi res, and a larger group that won't do any listening until a blind ABX test has conclusively established the difference. .
on the contrary, the people who are denigrating the difference are for the most part people who actually have taken blind ABX tests. Software to create such tests and score them and keep you blinded is readily available for most platforms. Nobody is "waiting" for some 'study' to be published!

It is the people who "done some listening" and say they "hear the difference" who are refusing to apply any blind listening test to themselves. No trip to a university hearing lab is required. No scientist in a white coat comes to your house. Just an inexpensive or even free piece of software. It cracks me up that these are the people who keep saying "I use my ears", but they can't ever use their ears without their eyes helping them?

In any case, when listening to full mixes of finished program material, being able to hear a difference well enough to edge out chance on a test, and being hit over the head by a huge hyperbolic difference ('shadow!', 'digital monster!') 100% of the time are two different things.

The distance between these differences shrinks considerably when you can't peek at the labels. Actually experiencing that difficulty - actually confronting that discrepancy is more important than whether or not you can or cannot "pass" the test.
Old 13th August 2014
  #234
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I've never met anybody who recorded a hit record that had the phrase "good enough" in their vocabulary.
However "best under the circumstances" can't be ruled out.
Old 13th August 2014
  #235
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
*doesn't think is serious...never can be certain with chainrule..*



Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Yes of course "quality control" was better - in that you couldn't sell recordings, get anything on radio, or really do anything outside sell a few demos in your home town, without a "proper" record label.

A "proper" record label generally meant a "proper" recording (although there's always been some pretty ropey recordings being released).

In the self releasing age, that barrier has been removed. Not to mention all the demos/self-recordings licensed by labels.

So yes you're right in some way. Obviously the vastly larger amount of music available today possibly means there's still as much, if not more, QUALITY music/recordings released.

I'm not sure you can blame the poor standard of some releases today on sample rate though.
In theory I agree with this, but with the superior digital audio technologies available for next to $nothing$ these days, is there really any excuse not to produce great stuff??
Obviously not everyone has the same skill sets, but even the most modest gear these days can yield some pretty stunning results when used properly.
Old 13th August 2014
  #236
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
I haven't said my subjective experience is the only accurate one. What I have said is that I am suspect of "objective" claims that contradict my vivid experience. Where bit depth and sample rate fall, with a lot of material they are above the threshold were I would feel unsure of what I was hearing. I know specifically what qualitative things I am listening for. I don't know if I hear the difference between different mic cables, 32 and 64 bit float point or different forms of dither. These fall below that threshold.

After 12 years of exposure to 24 bit+ I would think I would know if I was self-deceiving by now.
Dude, you've said a lot of things. Should we have a quote-fest?

If your subjective experience should carry no more public weight than mine nor mine than yours, then THAT simply underlines why reasonable people who don't want to bog down in endless I-hear-it-you're-deaf go-arounds use objective measurement in the form of test gear -- which is highly revelatory of performance characteristics -- and which is why both analog and digital gear designers use objective measurement to guide their designs.

And why, when such 'reasonable people' do talk about the vagaries of human perception and the very wide variegation of perception among humans, they resort to what a century and more of perceptual science has revealed to us about human perceptual systems.

Do reasonable people use their ears? OF COURSE they do. They are the first line and often last line of testing. But if reasonable people need to COMMUNICATE with others and discuss their experience, they realize that their experience is, indeed, personal, peculiar, subjective.

That experience might change -- for the individual -- tomorrow, even a few hours -- or a few yawns -- from now. That makes it hard to sort out EVEN on the strictly individual level.

When we then try to take those personal perceptions into the social and technical arena, reasonable people keep in mind that idiosyncratic, subjective nature of personal experience and so typically try to contextualize their observations within more objective, universal frameworks when possible.
Old 13th August 2014
  #237
Gear Maniac
 
PorchBass's Avatar
I don't see how vinyl or tape fit into a discussion about high resolution digital recording?
I used to sell hi-fi and have on many occasions sat with customers swapping out interconnects in nice Hi-Fi systems in nice rooms. The thing that always struck me is that changing an interconnect wire will almost always be noticeable. The difficulty came in deciding whether noticeable meant 'better'.
To me 24/96 and above are obviously technically better and represent the future of recording, but the average consumers' analogue replay chain is getting worse negating any benefits.
I am also bored of buying CDs so compressed at mix and mastering that I don't like listening to them (e.g. last QOTSA album).
Old 13th August 2014
  #238
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Dude, you've said a lot of things. Should we have a quote-fest?

If your subjective experience should carry no more public weight than mine nor mine than yours, then THAT simply underlines why reasonable people who don't want to bog down in endless I-hear-it-you're-deaf go-arounds use objective measurement in the form of test gear -- which is highly revelatory of performance characteristics -- and which is why both analog and digital gear designers use objective measurement to guide their designs.

And why, when such 'reasonable people' do talk about the vagaries of human perception and the very wide variegation of perception among humans, they resort to what a century and more of perceptual science has revealed to us about human perceptual systems.

Do reasonable people use their ears? OF COURSE they do. They are the first line and often last line of testing. But if reasonable people need to COMMUNICATE with others and discuss their experience, they realize that their experience is, indeed, personal, peculiar, subjective.

That experience might change -- for the individual -- tomorrow, even a few hours -- or a few yawns -- from now. That makes it hard to sort out EVEN on the strictly individual level.

When we then try to take those personal perceptions into the social and technical arena, reasonable people keep in mind that idiosyncratic, subjective nature of personal experience and so typically try to contextualize their observations within more objective, universal frameworks when possible.
I can appreciate what you are saying AND I find the subjective or intersubjective more accommodating to different personal experiences. If somebody takes the stance of objectivity that has a way of dismissing everybody else. And in the case of Meyer-Moran we have a single study that has not been repeated by others that is all of a sudden the authority that dismisses what lots of people experience. What if they screwed up?
Old 13th August 2014
  #239
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Ok, here are a 16 bit and a 24/192 version of something I recorded for another thread. Both were recorded with a Prism Orpheus at 24/192, a couple DPA 4011s in XY through a Pacifica. No processing, so they are not loud.
there's only one file
Old 13th August 2014
  #240
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
I can appreciate what you are saying AND I find the subjective or intersubjective more accommodating to different personal experiences. If somebody takes the stance of objectivity that has a way of dismissing everybody else. And in the case of Meyer-Moran we have a single study that has not been repeated by others that is all of a sudden the authority that dismisses what lots of people experience. What if they screwed up?
As I noted earlier (or elsewhere?), I think it would be great if someone took the time and expense to replicate the long series of Meyer-Moran trials -- it was not just one set of people on a given day but hundreds in a number of situations -- in a properly controlled, experimental lab environment.

That said, the methodology of Meyer-Moran has been well exposed and analyzed for flaws, there were a large number of trials with quite consistent results, and, in lieu of more and/or 'better' data, it's reasonable to put a certain amount of weight on the results.

Conversely, though we have a large body of formal perceptual science supporting the notion of a ~20 kHz nominal upper boundary on human perception of sound in free air -- a body of understanding that the Meyer-Moran study fits solidly within -- there is precious little science suggesting earlier scientists have got it wrong and what little there is, at best, suggestive and far from conclusive -- and has been the subject of a number of methodological as well as interpretational criticisms of varying weight.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump