[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..
But in general, a large "n" is desireable, especially
for something as subjective as musical evaluation,
since by definition it is subjective. A large "n",
especially spread among a large "n" of individuals,
normalizes other factors...physical condition,
differences in listening acuity, mood at the moment,
age, etc.

The problem with that is just as everyone believes they
have above average intelligence, all audiophools believe
they have above average hearing.

In that regard it was interesting to find (from this
month's Stereophile editorial) that John Atkinson's
hearing is 'only' good to about 15.5 kHz -- like mine!
And like a great many 'audiophiles' of a certain age, I'm
sure.

While I take comfort that I'm not alone, it does make me
wonder again why high end mags so often implicitly or
explicitly endorse much-higher-that-redbook sampling
rates for home audio formats.

Pick one:

"It is only money"

"Hope springs eternal"

"If you can't convince them with logic or reliable evidence, dazzle them
with larger numbers:


Or pick another.....perhaps they have something (better transient response,
perhaps?) that *is* audible in the normal hearing range, even for we
"oldsters".

I sense a '44.khz sampling doesn't capture *really fast events*' fallacy
coming on. Accompanied by misleading links to square wave reproductions,
no doubt.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I sense a '44.khz sampling doesn't capture *really fast events*' fallacy
coming on.

But surely it's no fallacy *IF* you define "really fast events" as anything
less than 1/22 mS :-)
(And before you break out the flame thrower, I am NOT claiming that is
necessary for audio)

MrT.

[Peter Larsen]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

[Harry Lavo quoted]

Or pick another.....perhaps they have something (better
transient response, perhaps?) that *is* audible in the
normal hearing range, even for we "oldsters".

I sense a '44.khz sampling doesn't capture *really fast
events*' fallacy coming on. Accompanied by misleading
links to square wave reproductions, no doubt.

Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample rates 44.4 and
384 kHz? - on the high setting I found myself listening for the sound
from the tape on the reels. Based on that demonstration at the Danish
AES chapter this spring I think Harry has nailed it.

Try yourself with a quality sound card, if you do not have a high
quality digital recording, then play a record and digitize it and listen
to the scratches and clicks.


Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in
message
Steven Sullivan wrote:

[Harry Lavo quoted]

Or pick another.....perhaps they have something (better
transient response, perhaps?) that *is* audible in the
normal hearing range, even for we "oldsters".

I sense a '44.khz sampling doesn't capture *really fast
events*' fallacy coming on. Accompanied by misleading
links to square wave reproductions, no doubt.

Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample
rates 44.4 and 384 kHz?

Poor silly me, I don't have any 384 KHz converters, I only tried 192 KHz,
and just plain old 15 ips analog tape.

on the high setting I found
myself listening for the sound from the tape on the
reels. Based on that demonstration at the Danish AES
chapter this spring I think Harry has nailed it.

Two words: sighted evaluatuon, also likely neither level-matched or
time-symched.

Try yourself with a quality sound card, if you do not
have a high quality digital recording, then play a record
and digitize it and listen to the scratches and clicks.

Been there, done that. You were listening to the tech presentation, not just
the music.

[Peter Larsen]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample
rates 44.4 and 384 kHz?

Poor silly me, I don't have any 384 KHz converters,

Neither do I, but it was an obvious experience with the first transfer
made with my first Midiman Audiophile that it sounds better the higher
the sampling frequency. It was not suprising that higher sampling
frequency is better, but it was surprising how much better.

See also:

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Two words: sighted evaluatuon, also likely neither
level-matched or time-symched.

Same converter, ie. level matched and time-synced, but yes - not blind.
If you want to discount it for that reason, then do so.


Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample
rates 44.4 and 384 kHz?

Poor silly me, I don't have any 384 KHz converters,

Neither do I, but it was an obvious experience with the
first transfer made with my first Midiman Audiophile that
it sounds better the higher the sampling frequency. It
was not suprising that higher sampling frequency is
better, but it was surprising how much better.

See also:

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Pretty numbers and graphs.

Two words: sighted evaluatin, also likely neither
level-matched or time-symched.

Same converter, ie. level matched and time-synced, but
yes - not blind. If you want to discount it for that
reason, then do so.

Done. Sighted evaluations of high-bitrate converters are for people who
either want to be audio voyeurs, or have more money and time than brains.
Sighted evaluations are just a bogus sales technique.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample
rates 44.4 and 384 kHz?

Poor silly me, I don't have any 384 KHz converters,

Neither do I, but it was an obvious experience with the first transfer
made with my first Midiman Audiophile that it sounds better the higher
the sampling frequency. It was not suprising that higher sampling
frequency is better, but it was surprising how much better.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the S/N ratio go down with
Midiman cards when you up the sample rate? Not saying that it becomes
audible, but I seem to recall it being measurably worse at 96 kHz
than at 44 khz, on my M-Audio 2496.

For the record I haven't noticed any difference, obvious or otherwise,
when using it at 88 vs 44.1 -- unless you count file size.
But I haven't blind-compared the sample rates either.

See also:

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Two words: sighted evaluatuon, also likely neither
level-matched or time-symched.

Same converter, ie. level matched and time-synced, but yes - not blind.
If you want to discount it for that reason, then do so.

Done. Sighted bias can be surprisingly strong in such situations.
It's got to be accounted for. I'm surprised a chapter of the
AES didn't adhere to AES testing recommendations in that regard.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Peter Larsen wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Have you tried listening to the same converter at
sample rates 44.4 and 384 kHz?

Poor silly me, I don't have any 384 KHz converters,

Neither do I, but it was an obvious experience with the
first transfer made with my first Midiman Audiophile
that it sounds better the higher the sampling frequency.
It was not suprising that higher sampling frequency is
better, but it was surprising how much better.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the S/N ratio go
down with Midiman cards when you up the sample rate?

Depends on how you define SNR, among other things. If you say that the
measurement bandwidth is the bandwidth of the device, increasing bandwidth
should hurt SNR, all other things being eqyal.

Not saying that it becomes audible, but I seem to recall it
being measurably worse at 96 kHz than at 44 khz, on my
M-Audio 2496.


Varies with the product. I seem to recall that the 2496 does work like that.

My measurements of the AP 24192 show improving dymamic range as sample rate
goes up.

For the record I haven't noticed any difference, obvious
or otherwise, when using it at 88 vs 44.1 -- unless you
count file size.
But I haven't blind-compared the sample rates either.
See also:

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Two words: sighted evaluatuon, also likely neither
level-matched or time-symched.

Same converter, ie. level matched and time-synced, but
yes - not blind. If you want to discount it for that
reason, then do so.

Done. Sighted bias can be surprisingly strong in such
situations. It's got to be accounted for. I'm surprised
a chapter of the AES didn't adhere to AES testing recommendations in that
regard.

AES sections are not all that carefully supervised, IME.

[Peter Larsen]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the S/N ratio go down with
Midiman cards when you up the sample rate?

Check the noise spectrum. After a power supply upgrade I have some hf
noise that wasn't there with the 300 watt psu that was in the box
previously.

Done. Sighted bias can be surprisingly strong in such situations.
It's got to be accounted for. I'm surprised a chapter of the
AES didn't adhere to AES testing recommendations in that regard.

This did not constitute "a test", it was a vendors invited
demonstration, I thought I had made that sufficiently clear, thank you
for asking.

regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in
message
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the S/N ratio go
down with Midiman cards when you up the sample rate?

Check the noise spectrum. After a power supply upgrade I
have some hf noise that wasn't there with the 300 watt
psu that was in the box previously.

Done. Sighted bias can be surprisingly strong in such
situations. It's got to be accounted for. I'm surprised
a chapter of the
AES didn't adhere to AES testing recommendations in that
regard.

This did not constitute "a test", it was a vendors invited
demonstration, I thought I had made that sufficiently
clear, thank you for asking.

Here's what you said, Peter:

"Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample rates 44.4 and
384 kHz? - on the high setting I found myself listening for the sound
from the tape on the reels. Based on that demonstration at the Danish
AES chapter this spring I think Harry has nailed it."

Since you agreed with Harry and his disagreement with the many test results
that preceeded it, what are you doing Peter? Are you saying that a loose
demonstration is more credible to you than a well-run test?

[Peter Larsen]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's what you said, Peter:

"Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample
rates 44.4 and 384 kHz? - on the high setting I found myself
listening for the sound from the tape on the reels. Based on
that demonstration at the Danish AES chapter this spring I
think Harry has nailed it."

Since you agreed with Harry and his disagreement with the
many test results that preceeded it,

I didn't read that far back in the thread, but it has been my opinion
since the first time I heard the difference between sound sampled with
different sampling frequencies that higher sampling frequency sampling
has cleaner transients. It has been my experience with DAT's, with the
Midiman cards, with FR2 and also at that demonstration.

what are you doing Peter? Are you saying that a loose
demonstration is more credible to you than a well-run
test?

Arny, what I say is exactly what I say above, I don't know what tests
you talk about so please do not assume that I have made any comment on
them. I had better repeat what it is I agree in:

[Harry Lavo quoted]

perhaps they have something (better transient response,
perhaps?) that *is* audible in the normal hearing range,
even for we "oldsters".

Do you make an abx test before you move a mic at a recording session?


Regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's what you said, Peter:

"Have you tried listening to the same converter at sample
rates 44.4 and 384 kHz? - on the high setting I found
myself listening for the sound from the tape on the
reels. Based on that demonstration at the Danish AES
chapter this spring I think Harry has nailed it."

Since you agreed with Harry and his disagreement with the
many test results that preceeded it,

I didn't read that far back in the thread, but it has
been my opinion since the first time I heard the
difference between sound sampled with different sampling
frequencies that higher sampling frequency sampling has
cleaner transients. It has been my experience with DAT's,
with the Midiman cards, with FR2 and also at that
demonstration.

Sighted evaluations noted.

what are you doing Peter? Are you saying that a loose
demonstration is more credible to you than a well-run
test?

Arny, what I say is exactly what I say above, I don't
know what tests you talk about so please do not assume
that I have made any comment on them. I had better repeat
what it is I agree in:

[Harry Lavo quoted]

perhaps they have something (better transient response,
perhaps?) that *is* audible in the normal hearing range,
even for we "oldsters".

Ah, the usual golden ear audiophile disparaging comments about people who
can't hear what they hear. ;-(

Do you make an abx test before you move a mic at a
recording session?

That's an insulting question, no answer deserved.

[Peter Larsen]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I didn't read that far back in the thread, but it has
been my opinion since the first time I heard the
difference between sound sampled with different sampling
frequencies that higher sampling frequency sampling has
cleaner transients. It has been my experience with DAT's,
with the Midiman cards, with FR2 and also at that
demonstration.

Sighted evaluations noted.

I never made any other claim, if you want to discount it, feel free to
so do.

[Harry Lavo quoted]

perhaps they have something (better transient response,
perhaps?) that *is* audible in the normal hearing range,
even for we "oldsters".

Ah, the usual golden ear audiophile disparaging comments about people who
can't hear what they hear. ;-(

What's your errand Arny?

Do you make an abx test before you move a mic at a
recording session?

That's an insulting question, no answer deserved.

Well, since you answered it obviously was not insulting, nor was it
intended to, I was just showing you how you take things outside their
context.


Regards

Peter Larsen