Shouldn't we upgrade the 20-20 audible range ?!

[Mnyb]

I think he's fighting the people like me who reckon CD does it all and there's no point in higher bandwidth for playback.

+1 Given that in fact the 44.1 filtering can be done well enough* , historically it may not always been the case ( in the early dawn of digital hence why this idea persists ).
Most of amir's DAC measurements show no real issues and NTTY's CD player measurments show similar results .

* the small passband is(was) a technical challenge , but its does not lead to the conclusion that this requirement is not met by almost all equipment ?

 

[SSS]

Bandwidth beyond 20 kHz is absolutely necessary in order to enjoy dogs and cats and probably mice with ultrasonic music to make them happy feelings. LOL

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I think he's fighting the people like me who reckon CD does it all and there's no point in higher bandwidth for playback.

definitely crucial to go to war against an obsolescent format

 

[Mart68]

1 Given that in fact the 44.1 filtering can be done well enough* , historically it may not always been the case ( in the early dawn of digital hence why this idea persists ).

Even then unless you've got to the end of the line with speaker capability that's still something to worry about first before you get down to the minutia of how perfect the reconstruction filter is. Had a listen to a system with Chord DAVE and M-scaler the other day, wasn't anything special because the speakers weren't so great.

 

[Mart68]

definitely crucial to go to war against an obsolescent format

Maybe not so obsolescent:

'When was the last time you bought a CD?'

'In the last month' - 52%
'I don't buy CDs' - 6%

784 votes

When was the last time you bought a CD?

www.hifichoice.com

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Maybe not so obsolescent:

gonna say yeah pretty obsolescent:

 

[Mart68]

gonna say yeah pretty obsolescent:
View attachment 542625

It's not less popular, it's just that its appeal has become more selective

Seriously though sales are slowly rising again and these charts don't include sales of used CDs. Almost all those I buy are second-hand likewise with all the other CD buyers I know.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

sales are slowly rising again and these charts don't include sales of used CDs.

sales are rising from almost nothing. they are still negligible.
and you are right that they don't include sales of used CDs, but charts also don't show the (MUCH MUCH MUCH larger quantity) of shared or pirated files, and streaming's domination is not well reflected in sales data since it is, well, nearly free and thus completely exploitative of artists.

CDs are not obsolete, but they are obsolescent; they are now the domain of zealots and enthusiasts only, and regular people who don't fit those categories never really even consider them. (It pains me to say this--I release music on CD on a regular basis!)

 

[Mart68]

sales are rising from almost nothing. they are still negligible.
and you are right that they don't include sales of used CDs, but charts also don't show the (MUCH MUCH MUCH larger quantity) of shared or pirated files, and streaming's domination is not well reflected in sales data since it is, well, nearly free and thus completely exploitative of artists.

CDs are not obsolete, but they are obsolescent; they are now the domain of zealots and enthusiasts only, and regular people who don't fit those categories never really even consider them. (It pains me to say this--I release music on CD on a regular basis!)

True they are no longer mass-market but they persist nonetheless. I'd argue they still represent the best of the physical formats. Sure a lot of people who buy them copy them onto hard drive, but they want to have control over which mastering they get to listen to. There's currently no replacement for that.

 

[krabapple]

I think he's fighting the people like me who reckon CD does it all and there's no point in higher bandwidth for playback.

CD's bandwidth isn't 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

 

[Mart68]

CD's bandwidth isn't 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

I didn't say it was?

The hi rez argument moved on a few years back from 'We can hear the high harmonics, or 'We can hear the added air and space' to 'Better reconstruction filters' but I don't agree they are audibly better anyway.

 

[krabapple]

I'm asking welwynnick just who is claiming 20Hz-20kHz is the absolute range of human hearing, such that we need to 'upgrade' it, according to him?

The point about true CD range was already made much earlier in the thread. It did not deter him.

So maybe you should let him answer.

 

[vintologi]

It's one or the other.
Yes, the title is misleading, and in the ASR thread many objected that it was a test of filters, instead of DACs.

I go along with that, and took it instead "as proof that some people can hear beyond 20kHz".
Since he got a good win rate in a good number of tests, the result has a high degree of confidence.
I don't think it needs to be repeated as it was a Foobar2000 ABX DBT. It's a real, trustworthy result, it's what everyone wants to see.

If you want to see another one, here's another Foobar2000 ABX DBT on HydrogenAudio by googlebot, who compared 24/96 and 16/44 tracks. He identified them 16/16, which is high confidence. Two other participants went over 95% confidence.

The problem with comparing 24-96 to 16-44.1 is that then you don't know for sure if it was the sampling rate or bit depth that made the difference if you are able to get to a statistically significant result in a blind test.

If it is indeed the sampling rate the next natural step is to make sure there wasn't any audible IMD and to also test how high you need to raise the sampling rate before nobody is able to tell the difference.

There are some formal studies showing 44.1 KS/s not to be transparent but general in these is that the people still had a hard time actually hearing a difference.

Here nobody got it correct more than 70% of the time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068631_Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_441_kHz_vs_882_kHz

It might simply be the case that ultrasonics can be audible within complex signals in which case it would be interesting to see if we can figure out the actual mechanism behind that (such as some non-linear affect within the ears).

I am aware of 2 studies that controlled for that by using a separate super-tweeter and found ultrasonics to have an impact:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4005747/

Frontiers | High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness

High-resolution audio has a higher sampling frequency and a greater bit depth than conventional low-resolution audio such as compact disks. The higher sampli...

www.frontiersin.org

I have seen a lot of people claiming that the first hypersonic effect study wasn't replicated but it kinda was by that second study.

Personally i don't really trust EEG results or similar and i prefer proper statistical data from listening tests: We do have some statistically significant tests but most of these tested 44.1 KS/s where the effect of the filters might even be audible directly for some people.

I actually did a test where i compared 24-96 vs 24-54 but as you might expect i am having trouble telling which is which in proper blind test to the point where i consider waiting until i have a better amplifier (with frequency response to at least 50 Khz) before i try that again.

972.4 MB folder on MEGA

7 files and 3 subfolders

mega.nz

 

[krabapple]

I am aware of 2 studies that controlled for that by using a separate super-tweeter and found ultrasonics to have an impact:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4005747/

Frontiers | High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness

High-resolution audio has a higher sampling frequency and a greater bit depth than conventional low-resolution audio such as compact disks. The higher sampli...

www.frontiersin.org

I have seen a lot of people claiming that the first hypersonic effect study wasn't replicated but it kinda was by that second study.

Which found not that people consciously heard ultrasonics, but rather, that they achieved a more 'relaxed attentional state' when ultrasonic content was present..

Yeah, hmm.

Meanwhile, Joe Golden Ear routinely claims to consciously hear a difference between hi rez and redbook.

Personally i don't really trust EEG results or similar and i prefer proper statistical data from listening tests:

mmm-hmm

 

[vintologi]

Which found not that people consciously heard ultrasonics, but rather, that they achieved a more 'relaxed attentional state' when ultrasonic content was present..

Note that other studies and listening tests found that (some) people could correctly pick which was hi-rez but that is was very hard to do so. That's what i found with my tests as well so far. Perhaps some people can consciously pick up on it or it's simply about training (might be that only some people can successfully train themselves to be able to do it).

 

[krabapple]

Any day now I feel like you'll be citing Reiss 2016.

 

[Julf]

Any day now I feel like you'll be citing Reiss 2016.

I guessed, before even checking the link, that it would be Oohashi again...

Researchers from NHK laboratory have attempted carefully but unsuccessfully to reproduce Oohashi's results.

 

[vintologi]

I guessed, before even checking the link, that it would be Oohashi again...

Researchers from NHK laboratory have attempted carefully but unsuccessfully to reproduce Oohashi's results.

That's not a replication attempt with regard to brain activity from ultrasonics.

Seems like it was a test where they tested untrained listeners only so nothing particularly surprising with the results.

Main thing i wonder is if untrained listeners would be able to hear a difference on better speakers (the ones they used doesn't seem particularly good).

 

[pablolie]

gonna say yeah pretty obsolescent:
View attachment 542625

The sales are market trends, and do not reflect sound quality in any way. Clearly streaming dominates the market. No one can claim its success is based on superior sound quality - merely on convenience.

 

[pablolie]

... or it's simply about training (might be that only some people can successfully train themselves to be able to do it).

Plenty of tests prove that. As does my own experience: I can differentiate between 320k and Red Book pretty much 100% of the time... IF *I* pick the song. You need certain patterns to be present. Yes, training required so one knows what to look for, and avoids songs that do not show said patterns. Anyone that claims that can hear the difference with any kind of music track, anytime, is an ignorant liar, sorry.
Incidentally, I have also established I could not care less about the difference for music enjoyment. I'll never again shall waste my time with these silly tests.