Re: 384kHz PCM ???

"Bobby Owsinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> There was no scientific method and analysis.  There was no attempt to
> do so whatsoever.  We were just curious if we could here the
> difference, and all the people involved could with no problem.

The problem is that due to the generally-agreed-upon absence of scientific
method and analysis, exactly what you perceived is extremely easy to
question.

> Was  there another reason other than the higher sampling rate?  Maybe.

There's no doubt that sighted cues, inadequate level matching, and
inadequate time synchronization of musical samples will lead to positive
identification, even when both sonic alternatives are exactly identical.

> Was it because our methodology was flawed?  We had no methodology so
> maybe that was the reason, or maybe not.

The obvious thing to do is to repeat the experiment with proper controls and
see what happens.

> All I know is that with a PT HD system, 192k sounded better to my ears
> (and all others involved) when we did the experiment. I'm actually
> shocked that more people don't try this, considering the number of HD
> systems out there.

I'm shocked how many people who claim the skills and resources to do this
with proper controls, don't. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but
I've done this sort of thing 100's of times. Thousands of people have taken
advantage of the files from my www.pcabx.com web site and done the same
thing, as well.

> I have no interest of doing a "scientific" experiment.  It's too
> boring for me (and doesn't make me any money).

Well, that's a common response. It's exciting to brag about your equipment,
and its not exciting to put it to a proper test. After all, you might find
out that the bigger numbers don't actually give better sound, and that could
be a real drag.

> I'll just rely on the
> empirical for now and leave the scientific to people who enjoy it and
> are better at it than I ever could be.  Then I'll read the AES paper
> and hopefully learn something new.

If you did listening tests that you knew were seriously flawed, why didn't
you report that they were flawed initially?

> The only reason why I posted in the first place was because there
> seemed to be a lot of purely theoretical discussion on the subject
> yet no one talking about what they actually heard.

That's simply not true.