Ivo
February 18th 04, 10:11 PM
I apprecciate your detailed comments and respect all possible (
although quite contraversial) resources. But simply said: in MY SETUP
(Mytek AD, Millennia, Schoeps, Neumann etc.) recordings in 96kHz sound
REASONABLY better than in 44 kHz. Thatīs all. (Only one with no ears
would not hear that). No theory can change it and I have absolutely no
reason to persuade anyone about it. I just wanted to share it for
those who are interested to know. If I have a time, I may post some
samples, but cannot promise it at the moment.
It is a bit more complicated to move in 96 kHz but not everyone feels
like sacrifying beauty of thing to a comfortable life ...
Bye.
Ivo
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Ivo" > wrote in message
> om
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Ivo" > wrote in message
> >> m
>
> >> If you didn't do level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests
> >> the evidence of your ears is highly contaminated by evidence from
> >> your eyes, and hearing evidence unrelated to sound quality.
>
> > If we are talking about very subtle differences, then maybe your
> > remark should be considered. But these are not subtle differences at
> > all, this is clear like night and day ...
>
> You probably don't know how many times people have said this, only to be
> embarrassed by their own performance in level-matched, time-synched,
> bias-controlled tests. I've been there and done that, more times than I can
> count. I've seen dozens of well-meaning people take this particular fall,
> including myself.
>
> Why did I get into the PCABX thing? I'd taken this fall way too many times,
> but I didn't think I could get away with always saying "no comment" and
> still be happy with myself. Curiosity got the best of me. I figured out how
> to make a wide range of listening tests with reasonable controls be far
> easier, more accessible for as many people as possible, and repeatable.
>
> If you've got a halfways decent DAW, the sample rate issue is already laid
> out for you at:
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
>
>
> and
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>
>
> If you tell me that "these two speakers sound different" or "these two mics
> sound different" without out a carefully-run listening test, I'm prone to
> believe it. I've been there done that many times with and without the
> controls, and that sort of comparison rarely comes out sounding the same,
> even with every conceivable reasonable control in place.
>
> If you tell me that "these two good amps sound different" or "these two
> sample rates > 38 KHz sound different" without a carefully-run listening
> test, I'm prone to be skeptical. I've been there done these many times with
> and without the controls. This sort of comparison rarely comes out sounding
> different with the even just the basic controls in place. I've seen it done
> by enough different people and with enough different systems and samples
> that it isn't just about me.
>
> If you search the RAP archives you'll find people like Massenberg and Katz
> saying the same basic thing; results, controls - your whole basic DBT and
> sample rate enchilada. Now, try to tell me that they don't have the proper
> resources at their disposal to evaluate this issue!
although quite contraversial) resources. But simply said: in MY SETUP
(Mytek AD, Millennia, Schoeps, Neumann etc.) recordings in 96kHz sound
REASONABLY better than in 44 kHz. Thatīs all. (Only one with no ears
would not hear that). No theory can change it and I have absolutely no
reason to persuade anyone about it. I just wanted to share it for
those who are interested to know. If I have a time, I may post some
samples, but cannot promise it at the moment.
It is a bit more complicated to move in 96 kHz but not everyone feels
like sacrifying beauty of thing to a comfortable life ...
Bye.
Ivo
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Ivo" > wrote in message
> om
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Ivo" > wrote in message
> >> m
>
> >> If you didn't do level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled tests
> >> the evidence of your ears is highly contaminated by evidence from
> >> your eyes, and hearing evidence unrelated to sound quality.
>
> > If we are talking about very subtle differences, then maybe your
> > remark should be considered. But these are not subtle differences at
> > all, this is clear like night and day ...
>
> You probably don't know how many times people have said this, only to be
> embarrassed by their own performance in level-matched, time-synched,
> bias-controlled tests. I've been there and done that, more times than I can
> count. I've seen dozens of well-meaning people take this particular fall,
> including myself.
>
> Why did I get into the PCABX thing? I'd taken this fall way too many times,
> but I didn't think I could get away with always saying "no comment" and
> still be happy with myself. Curiosity got the best of me. I figured out how
> to make a wide range of listening tests with reasonable controls be far
> easier, more accessible for as many people as possible, and repeatable.
>
> If you've got a halfways decent DAW, the sample rate issue is already laid
> out for you at:
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm
>
>
> and
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>
>
> If you tell me that "these two speakers sound different" or "these two mics
> sound different" without out a carefully-run listening test, I'm prone to
> believe it. I've been there done that many times with and without the
> controls, and that sort of comparison rarely comes out sounding the same,
> even with every conceivable reasonable control in place.
>
> If you tell me that "these two good amps sound different" or "these two
> sample rates > 38 KHz sound different" without a carefully-run listening
> test, I'm prone to be skeptical. I've been there done these many times with
> and without the controls. This sort of comparison rarely comes out sounding
> different with the even just the basic controls in place. I've seen it done
> by enough different people and with enough different systems and samples
> that it isn't just about me.
>
> If you search the RAP archives you'll find people like Massenberg and Katz
> saying the same basic thing; results, controls - your whole basic DBT and
> sample rate enchilada. Now, try to tell me that they don't have the proper
> resources at their disposal to evaluate this issue!