[Psalad]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Probably true, but as one who keeps bringing up " the science " I would think you would understand the goal of "science" is to eliminate variables that could even possibly skew results , not create them.

Sheesh dude, why the snark?? Not at all necessary.

Point is, if one cannot hear the difference between two separate converters running at two different sample rates, then chances are one cannot hear the differences between two sample rates. The differences are greater in my example. Of course, as you might suspect, I already knew it was impossible for myself to hear the difference in these converters, because.. yea, I tested them.

I just bought a new interface, a Focusrite Clarett. I will be having some fun doing a test of that soon as well.

Yes I think in order be touted as objective science the minimum would be the same converters.

...I never claimed my simple listening exercise to be ANYTHING near "objective science."

And if that is good enough for you then and that's good enough for you . Although isn't it interesting that those who say they can hear a difference say their testing methods are "good enough" for them.

Look, it's "good enough" until I find a better test. See, I've done a bunch of tests. But, I have learned a great deal about listening.

Putting aside the question of exactly how accurate 8 channels of conversion in single box multi purpose $800 and $600 interface units are actually going to be and what that might possibly mean or not ?

A great question, and one that can easily be understood with simple listening tests. I don't find it that much of an inconvenience to test this stuff.

Sure, it gives you something else to complain about in the methodology.. and sure, maybe it's fair enough in a way, but my own testing shows me there really is no audible difference in decent modern converters, at least the ones I've tested.

So I definitely agree my testing is flawed and imperfect, but it's only through direct blind listening tests can we really learn about real difference vs. perceived differences. Bias is strong and unavoidable.

In summary and back to the beginning. I have yet to be convinced that the "testing" being done so far , really does meet the minimum standard of eliminating enough variables, to actually establish a baseline of "science". That would then arguably cast the burden of proof to those proffering an alternate view.

Thus I do not feel the need or weight of burden of proof, to justify my personal opinions or choice of sample rate or the need or to conduct a test to justify it.

Anyway, I guess you and I differ in our approaches. Carry on, and if you ever decide to do a test, please invite me, I love to learn.