We simply can’t tell
Yes this has been done but further proof that our ears simply aren’t good enough to differentiate between higher and lower resolution audio. http://www.mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/
Sorry, but I’ve been hearing this bollocks for 20 years now, and it’s the same thing now as it was then - bollocks.
I’ve heard the same thing about SD/HD video, cassette vs vinyl, DAB vs FM, etc etc.
The simple fact is that there ARE individuals out there who can tell the difference between one medium and another.
Yep I find it surprising too but the double bind tests appears to validate this argument. There increasingly seems to be more and more evidence to argue that even the best of ears has difficulty telling.
I feel that this:
is enough to suggest that people CAN tell… You see a difference between people who work with sound for a living compared to the average person…
Also, I’m willing to bet that if you performed the tests on the peoples’ OWN equipment, the rate of correct responses would shoot up dramatically.
That almost suggests that the difference in quality is so minimal, that people need special systems to tell the difference. That doesn’t really lead support that it is that much better.
I don’t think anyone can argue that there IS a difference. If there wasn’t, then roughly 50 percent of the people (regardless of lucky guesses or not) wouldn’t be able to be correct on that survey. There is the other side of this argument as well though. Seeing how even audio engineers are getting only 50% right along with the average person, it speaks to a more to the point issue on this topic. That is that even though it’s 50%, it’s not some overwhelming difference, and more to the point, if only 50% are getting the difference, that backs up the fact that there is only a minimal difference on a test that gives people good odds on getting it right even if they don’t know.
At the end of the day, a lesser than best quality format is more than up to snuff if half the people can’t tell the difference.
52.7% isn’t enough to be proof. It means they got it wrong 47.3% of the time. Anyway I thought it was an interesting article worth sharing.
I need my 24 BIT 96 KHz sample mastered in a $2.8 million studio so it sounds pristine on my $5 Chinese iPod earbuds.
It certainly proves that if you were playing in a nightclub to a crowd entirely made up of audiophiles and sound engineers, that maybe one of two of them could tell a difference. But they’d all be arguing about it all night anyway. Seriously, screw that club.
Yea, it’s not proof that there’s is a difference. I’m saying that it’s not proof that there ISN’T a difference. It’s just something we don’t have the ability to prove yet. With the numbers, though, I would lean towards that there is a difference. It’s just so minute that certain people are blessed with the ability and others aren’t (seemingly 50/50).
@lethal_pizzle lulz.
Those maths don’t add up. If nobody could tell the difference then people would still get it right 50% of the time. If half the people could, you’d get a 75/25 split.
The variance from this is tiny and probably within the margin for error. The results suggest that about one audiophile in twenty-five can tell the difference.
The design of the experiment should account for probability of people merely guessing it correctly through repetition eliminating the 50% correct if nobody could tell the difference.
I didn’t read through the methods, but if they didnt do that, the study is severely flawed.
Simply brilliant…!!!
Yeah. I just skimmed the article and they state that nobody consistently got it right, which means that we’re looking at a larger group of people overperforming by far less.
Or is it that they think they can tell a difference? The whole audiophile world is a odd thing to me because it seems like so much of it can be perception of the mind, not just the ears.