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.

[hciman77]

I read the full paper and I think there may be some transitive errors here.

It looks like in some cases listeners can detect a difference between 88.1 and 44.1 native , not between 44.1 down and 44.1 native and not between 88.1 and 44.1 down for the same material. This implies that 44.1 native lacks something but 88.1 to 44.1 retains what was lost in the 44.1 native. This does not appear to make sense since both 44.1 native and 44.1 down have the same limits (give or take dithering concerns) - I am confused by this. ???

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

I read the full paper and I think there may be some transitive errors here.

It looks like in some cases listeners can detect a difference between 88.1 and 44.1 native , not between 44.1 down and 44.1 native and not between 88.1 and 44.1 down for the same material. This implies that 44.1 native lacks something but 88.1 to 44.1 retains what was lost in the 44.1 native. This does not appear to make sense since both 44.1 native and 44.1 down have the same limits (give or take dithering concerns) - I am confused by this. ???

When you have confusion like this, the problems are usually procedural. I don't know if it was the statistics or the technical details, and it could be both. It appears that projects involving so-called "hi rez" audio are popular senior year/graduate thesis projects. The problem has been studied for at least a decade without conclusive results that satisfied enough people to put an end to this sort of thing.

Right now, it seems clear that projects like this are a great way to show how sighted evaluations create strong perceptions that become subtle or non-existent when sufficient experimental rigor is added.

IME there is nothing different about hearing as compared to any other human performance issue. Do enough clean trials and do your statistics right and the results are asymptotic to the same result, over and over again. Historically, the asymptote in this realm is that high rez past the CD format either doesn't matter or it matters very little.

We need to be chasing the big, slow, meaty rabbits that hop about all over the place like micing and speakers and rooms; not the skinny fast rabbits that only come out in vanishing numbers at night.

[2Bdecided]

We need to be chasing the big, slow, meaty rabbits that hop about all over the place like micing and speakers and rooms; not the skinny fast rabbits that only come out in vanishing numbers at night.

I like that analogy.

Problem is (for the industry) is that it's very easy to create and sell you something to "solve" the "problems" caused by the skinny fast rabbits. I mean, how hard is it to handle twice as much data, twice as fast? Wait a couple of years, and most of the problem is solved by default. Whereas micing, speakers and rooms? That would need real research. It's audio FFS - who wants to throw money at that?

(with all due credit to those companies who are out there solving real problems.)

Cheers,
David.