44.1 vs 88.2 ABX report at AES Options

[2Bdecided]

Here:

http://www.aes.org/events/128/papers/?ID=2252

P18-6 Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz—Amandine Pras, Catherine Guastavino, McGill University - Montreal, Quebec, Canada
It is currently common practice for sound engineers to record digital music using high-resolution formats, and then down sample the files to 44.1 kHz for commercial release. This study aims at investigating whether listeners can perceive differences between musical files recorded at 44.1 kHz and 88.2 kHz with the same analog chain and type of AD-converter. Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1 kHz, 88.2 kHz, and the 88.2 kHz version down-sampled to 44.1 kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a blind ABX task. Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and their 44.1 kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and files recorded at 44.1 kHz.
Convention Paper 8101

Was anyone at the presentation? Has anyone bought the paper?

Cheers,
David.

[googlebot]

1. The study shows at least the intent of objectivity and one of the authors even registered here to face up to possible criticism. So lets not treat them as nuts just for publishing something that could be read as proposing high rez delivery. I also believe, that the study, as it is, might have some statistical flaws. But lets give the authors credit for being here to discuss this.
2. You find it hard to argue with high-rez nuts on the grounds of science and reason, still you criticize the study's authors for not playing by the nuts' rules and use a nut-compatible audio interface. That could be a valid hint if the study had shown clear signs of indistinguishability and was under heavy flax by high-rez nuts. But the tone of this discussion, so far, is rather why and if we have got significant positive results. So why not follow that path first? I don't see how criticizing the use of the Fireface helps here.

This post has been edited by googlebot: Jul 19 2010, 17:11

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

[lI don't see how criticizing the use of the Fireface helps here.

Doesn't anybody else see a problem with using an audio interface with A-weighted SNR of only 89 dB in an attempt to prove that the CD format with *unweighted* SNR of more like 96 dB sounds worse?

If I was designing a test that designed to show the inadequacies of the CD format, I would think that the test system should have a SNR that is much better (at least 10 dB better) than that of the CD format. Otherwise, the audio interface in the test system is the weakest link, not the so-called "Low rez" CD format.

There are reasons why I own audio interfaces with 110 and 116 dB SNR...