JJZolx wrote: > Most audiophiles think ABX testing is worthless. Why would they want to > ABX these samples? It's like telling an atheist to try praying to some > god or another and seeing if they get any results. > > I'm also not sure what exactly the point would be of encoding them both > at 24/96 when many people think that the 96 kHz encoding itself is > detrimental to sound quality. That includes many audiophiles who prefer > 44.1 kHz. > > Good luck with this test. I imagine you'll get quite a few people who > are already convinced that hi-res audio is a scam and will come back and > confirm to you there's absolutely no difference.
Wow... When did "many audiophiles" prefer 44.1kHz and think 96kHz would be detrimental!? Monty's well known page about 192kHz makes sense and certainly you can get some intermodulation distortion with that much overhead; but I think most reasonable audiophiles / engineers would consider 96kHz about the sweet spot for maintaining high quality and reasonable file size. The reason to keep at 96kHz is precisely because that is the sweet spot IMO and most DACs measure exceptionally well with that sample rate these days plus the effects of digital filtering is reduced compared to 44/48kHz given that extra octave. Well, as Wombat states, I do have a little more faith in humanity :-). My interest is *not* as a proof to the audiophiles. To be honest, the faithful are a small percentage and as you indicate, unlikely to change (granted I know I've converted a few of them to the "dark" objective side in the last year!). However, my sense is that those guys are diminishing as a group. Each year that goes by, I think their influence will diminish for many reasons I won't go into here. I'm more interested in opening up a discussion and an opportunity to the folks just starting to "get into" audio and the whole idea of high-resolution. For now, the "ship has sailed". The test has begun, and it's great to see the detailed responses people have entered already. I hope this provides an opportunity for those who are not as technical to experience the "difference" for themselves and contribute to a body of data which can at least try to answer whether larger file size, and higher expense would be audibly beneficial. --- Yes, the reason I would not do an Internet 44kHz vs. 96kHz test is that it's way too easy to spot the difference. I have some faith in humanity; but not *that* much :-). The only way to try something like that is with controlled testing in one's home / listening room with test subjects. As for advertising on other boards, I encourage folks to pass the site around! I do go to other boards as well and over the weeks will put in similar posts like this one... I figure we have 2 months. So as not to hammer my FTP site, I figure I'll just let the visitors to the blog and this forum have the first crack at it! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101386 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
