[Psalad]

Originally Posted by KevWind

There are no "established common assumptions" involved in whether or not recording higher sample rates vs 44.1 can be distinguished . Because to my knowledge no studies or tests have been done that have actually established this, that involve both recording and playback.

I think you are incorrect, and I will go step by step as to why.

1. It's proven that humans can't hear above 20khz. Most human hearing drops off far below that actually.

2. Some people believe there can be some "feeling" of music above 20khz, something that humans can "sense," and that may or not be true. But the burden of proof is on those with the views that are currently outside of science.. i.e., those who believe you can somehow feel music above 20khz. It's not up to science to prove these people are wrong. Until science proves there is some way to sense or feel audio above 20khz, it's a moot point... it's faith or guessing or magical thinking. It could be we don't know how to measure it yet or whatever. But until that point, science stands. One could make any outrageous claim and state it's up to science to DISPROVE the claim... it could be that unicorns communicate at 40khz and that frequency is important to those who believe in unicorns. But stating science needs to first DISPROVE this claim (and any other non-scientific claim) is misunderstanding what science does IMHO>

3. Nyquist theorem states, essentially, that doubling of the sample rate is enough to capture the entire range of human hearing. This is true as well, and barring any evidence in #2, it can be said that the sample rate is high enough.

4. Lavry and others have made seemingly valid claims about the impact of filters on human hearing, especially filtering that begins in the range of human hearing. This makes sense and seems logically plausible, but still, nobody has been able to prove this is a problem in a double blind test. So again, like #2, the science remains intact, until additional evidence comes into play. So, again, the burden of proof is on Lavry and people who agree with him.

There is no consensus as to whether or not recording in higher sample rates can have an effect the on audible range that is able to be accurately determined. Which means there are no "established assumptions"

The established assumptions are based on the science that exists.. humans cannot hear above 20khz.

The one claim is that those higher frequencies do have a effects on the frequencies in the audible range ( which is in fact based in the science)

That is an exceptional claim IMHO, and one that needs scientific verification. Otherwise it's just a guess. I have seen some of the research that shows there can be brain reaction to sound above 20khz, but the question about how that impacts music listening is still open.

this point the speculation those effects could possibly relate to the overall perception of the sound being effected, even if not specifically being present in audible range.

That speculation is in need of more research, but until there is research to the contrary, the existing science stands. There is existing consensus already. Science is consensus.

These are NOT my final thoughts on the subject... For me any new evidence that comes to light will impact my understanding.