jkeny wrote: > Well there are a number of reports of people differentiating high-res in > Foobar ABX testing which you seem to ignore or are unaware of. This > doesn't mean that they can hear > 20KHz which is just the usual > unthinking objectivists over-simplified mantra. >
I agree that discussing whether one can hear > 20 KHz is a lesser-productive approach to the problem. If I get in front of a good robust tweeter I can still hear pure tones @ 22 KHz if they are loud enough. At least I could the last time I tried. In relialble listening tests involving hi rez material such as those I've already posted links here for, not so much. Listening to pure tones ignores a very strong property of the human hearing system called Masking. The question of interest when one is listening to music is not what pure tones you can hear because music is almost never composed just one pure tone > 10 KHz. In fact no standard western musical instrument I know of produces fundamentals that high. What is up there is harmonics and any signal with harmonics is not a pure tone. Rather the question relates to hearing the absence of sound. Trouble is, the absence of the perception of a sound can exist in the presence of that sound. That's called Masking. Masking is why things like MP3s work at all. If there wasn't masking in the human ear MP3s would be impossible, not unpleasant just plain impossible. The bottom line is that masking is a far better explanation for the absence of reliable perception of sounds > 20 KHz. BTW the more common number for general absence of percpetion of sounds in music is more like 16 KHz. > > Here's an '_interesting_thread_' > (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/850044-foobar-2000-abx-test-redbook-vs-192-24-a.html) > on Gearslutz from 2013 showing positive Foobar ABX logs of a recording > engineer repeatedly being able to differentiate redbook from 24/192 on > different equipment & with different music. It's interesting because his > description of how he did it & what he focused on & how difficult it was > to maintain his focus shows how difficult ABX testing is for this sort > of difference. If you read the thread you will see his comments but I > extract the relevant ones here: As has been told you many times jkeny and which we apparently can't get you to recognize is that just one isolated report of some kind of listening experience is meaningless. That is just science. Produce a result and any good scientist that is interested will ask about how many times the result has been replicated and by whom. So, I want to see replication of that result before I grant an opinion about it. I want to see the files involved, since they obviously exist. I want to turn them over to a listener that I trust and see what findings he develops. Where can I find this information, Mr. jkeny? I looked at your links and found no such thing. Please help me! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103684 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
