jkeny wrote: > Well this guy, ultmusisnob, stated that he had a decided preference for > high-res material in his "normal" sighted, long-term listening.
That might well be, but as your quote shows, he states rather clearly "The above results contribute ***nothing*** to the established science of 192/24 versus 44.1/16 and human hearing", so we should not draw any such conclusions from it. > Your interpretation is just one such angle, another would be that what > is easily differentiated in long-term listening becomes very difficult > to differentiate in this form of testing & requires some very specific > techniques & test material to do so i.e it is a reflection on the test > itself rather than on the material being tested. That is something you might choose to speculate, but I don't think that thread provides any evidence for or against such a theory. > > > > > They do establish that when I say, "It sounds better to me", I am > > reporting a provable reality, not a placebo effect.> > > I think that is a rather too strong a statement to conclude from that specific test (as shown by the other comments in that thread). Anyway, let's not get sidetracked - I think we can conclude that it is possible that some differences might require training and concentration to pick out - anything beyond that is speculation, unsupported by empirical data. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
