The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 12-21-2015, 07:22 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 6,632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
I certainly hope my original question doesn't sound like I'm saying. "Hey, you guys are making great sounding recordings and it's gotta be your Sample Rate and Bit Depth, so come on guys, give up the big secret!"
Understood. For what it's worth, I think the big secrets are :-):

Room acoustics - this is the hardest one
Mic placement
Basic mixing stuff - adding (or not adding) reverb, and so on.
Hundreds and hundreds of hours of experimentation

It's worth trying everything, even different sample rates, it's all about learning what works - and it's never ending. But aside from practicing and trying to play better, those were what have made the biggest difference for me so far, and I assume they'll continue to make the biggest difference as I keep working on it.
__________________
Doug Young
----------------
Music on Pandora
You Tube Channel
website: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com
Fingerstyle Christmas Tunes: A DADGAD Christmas
CDs: Closing Time, Laurel Mill
Pickup tests: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/pickuptests/
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-21-2015, 10:49 PM
Explorer Explorer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
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.

...I think assuming that there is no difference is just as anti-science based.
Just to hopefully clarify about where the burden of truth lays:

One looks to see what is the default position, the null hypothesis. It can't really be proven true without extensive knowledge of everything, and can be falsified by a supported countering hypothesis. One example would be, Unicorns as magical creatures do not exist. It would be impossible to prove that there is no unicorn hiding on the far side of the universe, so it can't really be proven true. However, it would be easy for someone to disprove it by producing a magical living unicorn as evidence, falsifying the default position.

Similarly, the default position regarding these higher frequencies with regards to digital recordings would be, There are no persons who can accurately and reliably distinguish between music recorded at 44.1 and 48 or higher. You can't prove that, and even if you test every person on earth but one, that one untested person still might capable of it. It's the default position.

And it could be disproven by producing a human being who could accurately and reliably distinguish between music recorded at 441, and at 48 or higher. Even just one such person demonstrating that ability in double blind testing would disprove the null hypothesis.

Anyway, I just present this for those who might not get where the burden of proof lays, and why.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:10 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 6,632
Default

One thing that's fun, or at least interesting about higher sample rates is that if you look at the recording with a spectrum analysis tool, you see how much stuff is there between 20 and 40Khz, for example. Maybe only a bat can hear it, but it's there.

I actually saw some weird stuff recently, a big spike of activity around 33Khz. No one would hear it, but it bugged me, and I wondered if it would somehow show up as some signal degradation anyway. I traced it down to a bad cable connector. Might have been affecting other things, it just showed up clearly at very high frequencies.
__________________
Doug Young
----------------
Music on Pandora
You Tube Channel
website: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com
Fingerstyle Christmas Tunes: A DADGAD Christmas
CDs: Closing Time, Laurel Mill
Pickup tests: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/pickuptests/
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:13 PM
scripsit scripsit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
Just to hopefully clarify about where the burden of truth lays:

...
I don't think you've got the concept correct here. It's the 'burden of proof' that's called for in this case, and this falls on those making exceptional claims (ie that there are some people who can hear the difference in those sample rates). There is a good explanation of what this means here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...urden_of_proof

Occam's razor might be appropriate to bear in mind, too.

Kym
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:32 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
One thing that's fun, or at least interesting about higher sample rates is that if you look at the recording with a spectrum analysis tool, you see how much stuff is there between 20 and 40Khz, for example. Maybe only a bat can hear it, but it's there.

I actually saw some weird stuff recently, a big spike of activity around 33Khz. No one would hear it, but it bugged me, and I wondered if it would somehow show up as some signal degradation anyway. I traced it down to a bad cable connector. Might have been affecting other things, it just showed up clearly at very high frequencies.
Even on vinyl there is audio there above 20k. It is interesting. It doesn't always make it out of the tweeters.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-22-2015, 07:50 AM
Trevor B. Trevor B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
Even on vinyl there is audio there above 20k. It is interesting. It doesn't always make it out of the tweeters.
Or like a double bass part doesn't make it out of a laptop's speaker(s). BTW-Wasn't it Richard III who said, "A woofer, a woofer, my kingdom for a woofer". Then some clown gave him a puppy and we all know how that ended!!!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-22-2015, 09:12 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scripsit View Post
I don't think you've got the concept correct here. It's the 'burden of proof' that's called for in this case, and this falls on those making exceptional claims (ie that there are some people who can hear the difference in those sample rates). There is a good explanation of what this means here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...urden_of_proof

Occam's razor might be appropriate to bear in mind, too.

Kym
The first part of your statement is basically correct about missing the concept.

However as stated in the wiki artical

Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments.

And to misquote Hamlet "therein lies the rub"

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.

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"



And further there are arguably not really "exceptional" claims being made from either side " No one is claiming that you are actually "hearing" those ultrasonic frequencies. 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)
Also that those higher frequencies can have effects on the human brain ( also backed by science) and at 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.

The total lack of consensus on this and thus the ongoing debate over whether or not those effects result in either improving the music positively and whether or not people can actually determine this. IMO renders the entire notion of "burden of proof" meaningless.


And with that being my final thoughts on the subject, carry on.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud

Last edited by KevWind; 12-22-2015 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-22-2015, 12:27 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-23-2015, 07:15 PM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,017
Default

Quote:
These are NOT my final thoughts on the subject... For me any new evidence that comes to light will impact my understanding.
Humm thought I was done here but given you are spiting my words back at me and the transparent subtext of your statement, it desperately needs clarification.

In no way shape or form does offering some final thoughts on a subject within the context of bowing out of a forum thread, imply or indicate any unwillingness to consider and revisit understanding based new evidence.

At best that is how did you put it ? " faith or guessing or magical thinking" and certainly lacks any scientific acumen. At worst it is injecting ad hominem-esque inference and belongs in the open mic forum.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
I think you are incorrect, and I will go step by step as to why.
Thats OK I think you are incorrect and I will also go step by step as to why.

Quote:
1. It's proven that humans can't hear above 20khz. Most human hearing drops off far below that actually.
This is actually incorrect. It is not "proven that humans cant hear over 20k"

#1 The correct statement would be. It has been tested and accepted that the statistical norm for human hearing range is 20 to 20k.
While many, particularly older people's upper range limit is lower than 20k, rarely but occasionally some people test slightly higher.

#2 I think your notion of the accepted science of human hearing range, while correct within the particular subject that it actually relates to (the statistical normal range of human hearing) , is correct.
But That is not actually the same discussion nor the complete science to be weighed against or the sole determining science , involved in the discussion of digital sample rates with science , mathematics and rounding errors and implementation issues of digital sample rates and conversion . Which involves much much more science than just the human hearing range .

Quote:
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.
As stated this is actually a skewed misinterpretation of the Nyquist theorem .

#3 The Nyquist theorem was not about human hearing range period.
It is about the relationship of speed over time to digitally sample and accurately reconstruct an analog waveform .

Nyquist sates "sampling frequency must be twice the bandwidth of the input signal."

The Nyquist theorem states that " a signal must be sampled at least twice as fast as the bandwidth of the signal to accurately reconstruct the waveform;
If a time-varying signal is periodically sampled at a rate of at least
twice the frequency of the highest-frequency sinusoidal component
contained within the signal, then the original time-varying signal
can be exactly recovered from the periodic samples "



The Nyquist theorem is based on the minimum sample speed necessary to reconstruct the waveform.
And Shannon Nyquist was not about, nor did it determine that 44.1k was quote " enough to capture the entire range of human hearing."

Applying Shannon Nyquist as a mathematical minimum, it was Sony et al, that prevailed in the early sample rate wars and thus it was decided that 44.1k was an adequate minimum and should be the standard for CD playback.


Quote:
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.,
Thats all fine and dandy And I would agree. BUT that has nothing to do with what I have said, ergo can't be something I could be incorrect about ?????


Quote:
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.
Here you are confusing and mashing together the two different statements I made about claims being made .

I said one claim was an about higher freq. possibly having effects on freqs in the audible range being based in science, what I was referring to was things like sub harmonics (in the audible range) of fundamentals ( sitting above the audible range and above the capability of 44.1 K ) I don't think the existence of sub harmonics is "just a guess" And I clearly stated the claim about the effects on the brain also effecting the music was speculation.




Quote:
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.
Finally something actually about digital sampling sort of .

"but still, nobody has been able to prove this is a problem in a double blind test." This is another probable misstatement. A more accurate statement would be . Nobody has actually done a double blind test that is not based on flawed methodology about comparing recording and playback of different sample rates. You keep ignoring this but it is in fact very important.

So yes while "the science specifically about the range human hearing" stays intact. While that sounds nice that is not the science of digital sampling.
There is arguably no qualified science bearing on things like the effect of filters on digital audio at various sample rates. There is arguably not really any significant amount of applicable scientific AB testing of the science of digital sampling to act as an established baseline that burden of proof can be shifted to disproving it .




Quote:
The established assumptions are based on the science that exists.. humans cannot hear above 20khz.
Yes the you keep repeating this over and over
BUT that science is only about average human hearing toping out at or below 20k..
It is not based on and is not adequate to be the baseline for the much more complex science, math, rounding errors and implementation compromises specifically involved in digital sampling and conversion.

You think it is and thus warrants the placement of "burden of proof" , I think it isn't.......... that is what we disagree on.

Apparently you need to believe that your decision to record in 44.1 is based in science, because "people can't hear above 20k". And that anybody who decides to record in higher rates is must be doing so because of bias or wishful thinking.

But of course the probable truth is you tried it and determined you could not hear a difference. Or it wasn't worthwhile.
And the truth is others try it and determine they can hear a difference or it is worthwhile.

And I am guessing the important truth is : None of the myriad people, from home recordists to top level recording engineers, really give a second thought as to who you think the "BURDEN OF PROOF" is on....




.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud

Last edited by KevWind; 12-23-2015 at 07:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-23-2015, 08:56 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Humm thought I was done here but given you are spiting my words back at me and the transparent subtext of your statement, it desperately needs clarification.
I was having a little fun, it was not meant as snarky.. no "transparent subtext." Sorry if it came off that way.

Quote:
This is actually incorrect. It is not "proven that humans cant hear over 20k"

#1 The correct statement would be. It has been tested and accepted that the statistical norm for human hearing range is 20 to 20k.
While many, particularly older people's upper range limit is lower than 20k, rarely but occasionally some people test slightly higher.
Yep.. maybe a little pedantic, as I think you know what I mean, but I have no objection to your correction.

I don't think it matters though in the bigger picture, or at least I don't think so, as either way 44.1 covers frequencies that most, if not all, humans can hear.

Quote:
As stated this is actually a skewed misinterpretation of the Nyquist theorem .
OK, I guess, but why?

Quote:
#3 The Nyquist theorem was not about human hearing range period.
It is about the relationship of speed over time to digitally sample and accurately reconstruct an analog waveform .
Not sure how you misinterpreted my point, but we are saying the same thing.

Quote:
And Shannon Nyquist was not about, nor did it determine that 44.1k was quote " enough to capture the entire range of human hearing."

Applying Shannon Nyquist as a mathematical minimum, it was Sony et al, that prevailed in the early sample rate wars and thus it was decided that 44.1k was an adequate minimum and should be the standard for CD playback.


Thats all fine and dandy And I would agree. BUT that has nothing to do with what I have said, ergo can't be something I could be incorrect about ?????
44.1 was chosen because it matched current science about normal human hearing, and was a suitable sample rate. They chose it based on the science of hearing at the time and what was understood about how humans hear.

If there is new evidence and science discovers more data about human hearing that is inconsistent, lots of people will change their minds... and people will change the commonly used 20-20k human hearing range.

Quote:
I said one claim was an about higher freq. possibly having effects on freqs in the audible range being based in science, what I was referring to was things like sub harmonics (in the audible range) of fundamentals ( sitting above the audible range and above the capability of 44.1 K ) I don't think the existence of sub harmonics is "just a guess" And I clearly stated the claim about the effects on the brain also effecting the music was speculation.
Sub harmonics aren't a guess. The impact and the ability for humans to hear are a guess.

Quote:
"but still, nobody has been able to prove this is a problem in a double blind test." This is another probable misstatement. A more accurate statement would be . Nobody has actually done a double blind test that is not based on flawed methodology about comparing recording and playback of different sample rates. You keep ignoring this but it is in fact very important.
Lots of tests have been done. You can keep criticizing the methodology, and that's fine. Maybe you are right. But at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven, and when it is, I (and everyone else) will take notice. Until then... no proof is no proof. You and everyone else is welcome to develop a better test.

I have done my own blind tests using multiple methodologies. I'm sure they are flawed, but at the end of the day... I can't hear it, and so far, nobody else has either in blind testing.

Quote:
There is arguably not really any significant amount of applicable scientific AB testing of the science of digital sampling to act as an established baseline that burden of proof can be shifted to disproving it .
We disagree with your conclusion.

Quote:
Apparently you need to believe that your decision to record in 44.1 is based in science, because "people can't hear above 20k". And that anybody who decides to record in higher rates is must be doing so because of bias or wishful thinking.
It's not really about me, to be honest. I have no care what sampling rate I record at, I have enough horsepower to record at whatever rate I choose.

My decision to record at 44.1 is based on my own experience, as well as the current understanding of human hearing and based on my current understanding of digital sampling. There is no "what if" or magical thinking involved, no blue sky ideas about what might be audible. I make my decision about what is known. If what is known changes, I will change with it.

Quote:
And I am guessing the important truth is : None of the myriad people, from home recordists to top level recording engineers, really give a second thought as to who you think the "BURDEN OF PROOF" is on....
...and why you or I choose to record at a particular sampling rate, but that doesn't mean we can't have a conversation about it on a board for fun. Ultimately that is why we're here.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics

Last edited by Psalad; 12-23-2015 at 09:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-24-2015, 08:21 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
I was having a little fun, it was not meant as snarky.. no "transparent subtext." Sorry if it came off that way.



Yep.. maybe a little pedantic, as I think you know what I mean, but I have no objection to your correction.

I don't think it matters though in the bigger picture, or at least I don't think so, as either way 44.1 covers frequencies that most, if not all, humans can hear.



OK, I guess, but why?



Not sure how you misinterpreted my point, but we are saying the same thing.



44.1 was chosen because it matched current science about normal human hearing, and was a suitable sample rate. They chose it based on the science of hearing at the time and what was understood about how humans hear.

If there is new evidence and science discovers more data about human hearing that is inconsistent, lots of people will change their minds... and people will change the commonly used 20-20k human hearing range.



Sub harmonics aren't a guess. The impact and the ability for humans to hear are a guess.



Lots of tests have been done. You can keep criticizing the methodology, and that's fine. Maybe you are right. But at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven, and when it is, I (and everyone else) will take notice. Until then... no proof is no proof. You and everyone else is welcome to develop a better test.

I have done my own blind tests using multiple methodologies. I'm sure they are flawed, but at the end of the day... I can't hear it, and so far, nobody else has either in blind testing.



We disagree with your conclusion.



It's not really about me, to be honest. I have no care what sampling rate I record at, I have enough horsepower to record at whatever rate I choose.

My decision to record at 44.1 is based on my own experience, as well as the current understanding of human hearing and based on my current understanding of digital sampling. There is no "what if" or magical thinking involved, no blue sky ideas about what might be audible. I make my decision about what is known. If what is known changes, I will change with it.



...and why you or I choose to record at a particular sampling rate, but that doesn't mean we can't have a conversation about it on a board for fun. Ultimately that is why we're here.
Fair enough.

Having ruminated about this subject overnight , it finally struck me what might be a better explanation as to why I think the "established science" the science you hold up as the foundation for " the end of day", Is flawed reasoning and not sufficient to establish a baseline for the subject of the effect of higher sample rates in music.

And here is why, in virtually all of the science and testing used to establish the baseline for "the range of human hearing" the method used, is to generate a simple, single frequency at a time (virtually always a single sine wave) and then test up to what point in the frequency range can humans no longer detect a single frequency.

And and as you say that science stands ,,,, in that context.

But obviously music is not a single frequency at a time, it is complex multiple frequencies at any given time. And there are scientifically well established and known complex interactions involved in the generation and perception of complex musical frequencies.

Therefore the science that established as baseline for human ability to detect a single frequency at a time, is not sufficient to establish a baseline for the subject of the ability to detect the far more complex multiple musical frequencies combined with the added complexity involved in AD/DA sampling.

So that leaves the actual testing that has been done involving music and sampling .

Quote:
We disagree with your conclusion.
"We" ????? cute OK I'll play

You contend there have been lots of "tests"
Yet invariably when people refer to or link to an actual published test, 7 or 8 times out of 10 it is the same single "test" your Mix on line article link, referred to.
This specific test:
"The Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback"

Which by it's method and title is incapable of establishing
if music "recorded, mixed, and played back" in higher samples is detectable from the same music "recorded mixed and played back" in 44.1 k..

"We" think that logically all three criteria is the minimum criteria necessary to make a valid test. By the simple fact that digital sampling is intrinsically involved in and effects , #1. getting the analog signal into digital, #2. handling and processing of digital data during mixing and #3. getting the digital data back out to an analog signal. To eliminate any one of the three elements in a test method is inherently flawed.

Yes there are probably some some other tests, although when googling on line, either you are linked to that single AES test or to one of the many linked so called tests. Which are simply posts in forums where somebody says - joe audiophile or joe recording engineer and friends are rumored to have conducted a test invariable using similar limited methods, or offering no methodology at all .

So far "We" have been unable to find even one test of which the method involves all three elements, that " is logically the minimum, criteria necessary to establish a baseline for testing.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud

Last edited by KevWind; 12-24-2015 at 09:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-24-2015, 09:12 AM
Trevor B. Trevor B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,011
Default

I was just curious about what sample rates people set on this forum who record acoustic guitar. Ultimately, it's like everything else. I'll just have to experiment with different sample rates and see if they make any difference to me. Keep in mind that until fairly recently I believed there were little leprechauns inside my television who made it work. Then came flat screen TVs and I'm thinking,"how can leprechauns, even really small ones, fit inside something that skinny?" So while I acknowledge the importance of science and have even come to accept there are no little leprechauns in my TV or my laptop (it's also too skinny) I'm still superstitious enough to believe there may be some intangibles beyond the Nyquist Theorem at work with different sample rates so remain curious as to what sample rates people on the AGF like to set.
Thanks to KevWind and Psalad for the fascinating and in-depth debate.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-24-2015, 11:35 AM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
And here is why, in virtually all of the science and testing used to establish the baseline for "the range of human hearing" the method used, is to generate a simple, single frequency at a time (virtually always a single sine wave) and then test up to what point in the frequency range can humans no longer detect a single frequency.
This is sensible, lots of what you write is sensible, but given how difficult it is to successfully hear the difference between higher sample rate audio and 44.1k, I think it's pretty likely they got it right.

If being able to hear the difference requires one to be in a perfect room, with some perfectly designed tests, then maybe that itself is good enough for me. That seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me. How would you argue? Many tests have been done, by both individuals and experts.

The AES test method I believe is listed here: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Here is a link to the paper itself which can be purchased: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2

You again might be right there is something different in music compared to tones that might make things different when it comes to audio listening. Sure, why not, seems possible right? That might very well be possible. Next step would be a scientist would take that thought and test it... knowing the burden of proof is with existing science, he would then create a test for his hypothesis. He wouldn't ask the other side to prove tones are good enough. The existing science is the baseline.

Quote:
"We" ????? cute OK I'll play
This was meant to read as we (you and I) disagree, but I see how you might take it otherwise, I didn't word it well. Please assume I'm NOT being snarky, as I hope it's perfectly clear there is a complete absence of snark in this conversation from my side, OK?

Quote:
So far "We" have been unable to find even one test of which the method involves all three elements, that " is logically the minimum, criteria necessary to establish a baseline for testing.
I have no problem with your thought process, or Lavry's for that matter. You both make very good logical arguments for the potential need for higher sample rates. But the proof for me still comes out in the testing. The reasons why it is so important to test are:

- Expectation bias is HUGE when it comes to audio..I'm sure you're aware of how the human bias makes objective testing very difficult
- Humans can only "remember" audio qualities for a matter of seconds (making comparison difficult)
- Moving your head just a little bit, as we've all experienced, changes the sound in a significant way (making comparison difficult)

So in the absence of testing, you have... just faith, and magical thinking. I too was one of the people who really thought 96k made a "night and day" difference. The openness! The imaging! Finally I can really hear cymbals again. But then I tested myself, and I believe it to be my own expectation bias.

You've made some clear arguments about the limitations in every test that you have seen, and that is fine, but I would love to see you design a better test... and actually why not create the e2e test yourself? I'm not at all being snarky, just to be clear. I would enjoy seeing a better test, even participating in it. You might find a way to prove there really is a difference!

But in the meantime we have a lot of evidence showing the lack of audible difference in blind testing, which goes to show one thing for certain... IF there is a difference, one that has been so difficult to prove, the difference cannot be heard in casual listening. It can't be heard in a/b testing so far. So I conclude if there is a difference, that difference is tiny and irrelevant. I think that's a pretty logical conclusion, and it drives my thoughts as to why 44.1 is the right choice.

Oh and one thing we haven't discussed is how much of existing modern gear might have non linearities at frequencies above 20k, which is another reason why at a very minimum one should pay attention to specs in the gear one uses if they use higher sample rates.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-24-2015, 12:03 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
So while I acknowledge the importance of science and have even come to accept there are no little leprechauns in my TV or my laptop (it's also too skinny) I'm still superstitious enough to believe there may be some intangibles beyond the Nyquist Theorem at work with different sample rates so remain curious as to what sample rates people on the AGF like to set.
Thanks to KevWind and Psalad for the fascinating and in-depth debate.
Thanks, I enjoyed the conversation too.

BTW, for me, I try and keep the magic in the music creation, not the music recording side, but that said... there is a long tradition of recording studio as magical music creation too, so it's all good.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-24-2015, 04:09 PM
Trevor B. Trevor B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
Thanks, I enjoyed the conversation too.

BTW, for me, I try and keep the magic in the music creation, not the music recording side, but that said... there is a long tradition of recording studio as magical music creation too, so it's all good.
Yeah. I wonder what Gandalf would have come up with had he turned his hand to (or waved his magic staff at) digital home recording?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Tags
acoustic guitar, logic pro x, sample rate

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=