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]

The manufacturer's specs for the FF 800. Unweighted SNR is claimed to be <-100 dB, might be lower in 44.1 kHz mode, though.

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

Do you expect even more significant differences between high rez and low rez with better gear? Do you expect that the music material used had anywhere close to -100 dB SNR? No & no. I smell much more desire for pissing match than reason, let alone any contribution to clear up why there might be a reported difference against all orthodox knowledge about the thresholds of human hearing.

This post has been edited by googlebot: Jul 19 2010, 20:25

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

The manufacturer's specs for the FF 800. Unweighted SNR is claimed to be <-100 dB, might be lower in 44.1 kHz mode, though.

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

Do you expect even more significant differences between high rez and low rez with better gear?

In terms of measured differences, I would expect more significant differences between high rez and low rez with better gear. I would hope that my views on the adequacy of 44/16 as a distribution format for listening to music are well known. That means that I don't expect any audible differences to be found if the 44/16 stuff is up to snuff.

Do you expect that the music material used had anywhere close to -100 dB SNR?

Of course not! To get a reliable outcome not only does the music have to have a > 100 dB SNR, so does the listening room and the entire reproduction chain. Then there are the problems of the ear itself.

There are commercial recordings kicking around that have dynamic range on the order of 85 dB, but that is it. To listen to them in a normal listening room with say a 45 dB SPL noise level the peaks would have to be about 130 dB SPL which is more than enough to cause a signficiant threshold shift in the listener's ears.

No & no.

Of course, but we're dealing with people who don't know that they are on mission impossible and don't believe us when we suggest that they are. The only way they are going to change their minds is if they prove it to themselves. As long as their experiement has holes big enough for me to drive a truck through, their hope can always spring eternal. I'm just trying to help them do the cleanest experiment they can from their own viewpoint.

I smell much more desire for pissing match than reason, let alone any contribution to clear up why there might be a reported difference against all orthodox knowledge about the thresholds of human hearing.

I think you need to step back a second and look at the facts that are before you. When I was doing experiments like these I did exactly what I'm trying to suggest to these folks. I used audio interfaces that had 105, 110 and 116 dB dynamic range. Do I need to post the S/N of my LynxTWO to prove that I still have it? If I'm the person you seem to want to libelling me as being, why did I do that (at my own personal expense)? Hint: it had nothing to do with piss. It was all about a search for truth.

IMO part of a good clean job of studying a situation may include overkilling it from a quality standpoint, even when "You know better".

When I did these experiments back about 9-10 years back, I didn't know all of the reasons why it couldn't work that I know today. Once I had the results before me, I gathered relevant facts to confirm or deny the result that I had before me. Then theory matched results and I could confidently move on.