Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad
Kev, seems to me the burden of proof is on people who say there is a difference with audio content above the frequencies humans can hear.
Until there is evidence from scientific testing, any difference that exists is outside science and not quantifiable. So by definition I think it's anti science.
Like I said, I'm open to learning otherwise. Maybe there are people who are hearing "something"... that maybe I can't hear, or that disappears in a/b/x testing, or that is impossible to quantify so far.
|
Except of course Lavry's statement about 44.1 rolloff is about a rolloff starting in the range that people can hear.
Seems to me that the assumption of requiring "the burden of proof" is for people saying something like "the law of gravity on earth is changeable" Applicable to something that has an objective well established body of evidence, that would then place the burden of proof on the new contrary idea.
I think there is no such credible objective well established body of evidence that higher sample rates sound the same.
Until there is credible evidence that objectively compares recording and playback on the same system with the least amount of other variables as is currently technically possible. (Which does not seem to be case in the skewed evidence presented so far here and elsewhere ) . I think assuming that there is no difference is just as anti-science based.
This has been interesting but speaking of changing the law of gravity I have to go defy the law gravity by becoming weightless and breath underwater during our local scuba challenge evening cheers