#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Music: Spotify, Bandcamp Videos: You Tube Channel Books: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), Christmas Carols for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), A DADGAD Christmas, Alternate Tunings book Online Course: Alternate Tunings for Fingerstyle Guitar |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Music: Spotify, Bandcamp Videos: You Tube Channel Books: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), Christmas Carols for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), A DADGAD Christmas, Alternate Tunings book Online Course: Alternate Tunings for Fingerstyle Guitar |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...urden_of_proof Occam's razor might be appropriate to bear in mind, too. Kym |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com Taylor 710 sunburst Epiphone ef-500m ...a few electrics |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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!!!
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 Last edited by KevWind; 12-22-2015 at 10:18 AM. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
#54
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
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. Thats OK I think you are incorrect and I will also go step by step as to why. Quote:
#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 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:
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. 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. 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:
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.... .
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 Last edited by KevWind; 12-23-2015 at 08:21 PM. |
#55
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com Taylor 710 sunburst Epiphone ef-500m ...a few electrics Last edited by Psalad; 12-23-2015 at 10:01 PM. |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 Last edited by KevWind; 12-24-2015 at 10:04 AM. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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:
Quote:
- 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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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?
|
|
Tags |
acoustic guitar, logic pro x, sample rate |
|