Zp 24/96

Isn't this chestnut a lot easier to put to bed than the ones involving equipment? Take a 24/96 file, downsample it to 16/44 and run both in a double blind test. Level matching should not be the issue it ends up being when change of equipment is involved.

No need to rely on what other people say, test for yourself and see if you hear a difference.

Or am I missing something?

Or am I missing something?

1. Double blind tests aren't always easy to run (although plugins like the one for foobar2000 make it somewhat easier).

2. The audiophile brigade have poured enough scorn on it that people have their doubts.

It's the "science doesn't know everything" and "there are still things that are unexplained" argument which leads people to believe in ghosts and homoeopathy.

Cheers,

Keith

Isn't this chestnut a lot easier to put to bed than the ones involving equipment? Take a 24/96 file, downsample it to 16/44 and run both in a double blind test. Level matching should not be the issue it ends up being when change of equipment is involved.

No need to rely on what other people say, test for yourself and see if you hear a difference.

Or am I missing something?

Already been done, peer-reviewed, and published. Participants ranged from students to trained listeners. Nobody heard a difference.

Still doesn't stop the "trust your ears (except when it comes to double-blind tests)" crowd. Doesn't even slow them down. They are plucky, I'll give them that.

1. Double blind tests aren't always easy to run (although plugins like the one for foobar2000 make it somewhat easier).

2. The audiophile brigade have poured enough scorn on it that people have their doubts.

It's the "science doesn't know everything" and "there are still things that are unexplained" argument which leads people to believe in ghosts and homoeopathy.

Where one is switching back and forth between hardware, I agree that DBTs are not easy to set up. But for this comparison, the hardware is unchanged, volume controls need not be moved around. Should be easy to ask some one to switch back and forth, not knowing which is which.

But if people doubt a scientific way to eliminate all but what their ears tell them, and rely on others saying that there is better SQ from 24/96 more than trusting the unbiased evidence of their own ears, there is nothing to be said.

But if people doubt a scientific way to eliminate all but what their ears tell them, and rely on others saying that there is better SQ from 24/96 more than trusting the unbiased evidence of their own ears, there is nothing to be said.

It's a problem that's been around for a very long time:

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -- Hippocrates

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -- Hippocrates

True, and one can understand this prevailing when the science needs a lab/equipment for it to be carried out. What is puzzling in this case is the reliance on other people's opinions - of either camps - when it is not a hard task to evaluate things for yourself at home with no investment and little effort.

A Wikipedia article on Belief Bias which references an article (and others) on Hostile Media effect. Adds a little bit of light to the heat.

This can lead to the conclusion that "the experiment is ill conceived or executed," "there is something wrong with the music files or conversion programs", or (gasp) "I'm not good enough", because there must be a difference, right?

A Wikipedia article on Belief Bias which references an article (and others) on Hostile Media effect. Adds a little bit of light to the heat.

This can lead to the conclusion that "the experiment is ill conceived or executed," "there is something wrong with the music files or conversion programs", or (gasp) "I'm not good enough", because there must be a difference, right?

I once had a long, protracted discussion with someone who believed all the energy needed to run the world could be extracted from seawater by separating Hydrogen from Oxygen via electrolysis. He was repeatedly told about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states you need as much energy in as you get out of the reaction, and the net result would be a negative amount due to inefficiency in the process of electrolysis.

This argument went on for pages and pages, with him insisting it was possible, and everyone else trying to explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in increasingly more layperson language. He kept up the "Well science doesn't know every thing!" mantra, and the rest of us kept up with the explanations of the scientific method, etc. When he finally understood what the 2nd Law states and how it applies to electrolysis, do you think he capitulated? Heck no! He came right back and said "Well, Laws are made to be broken!" :rolleyes:

When he finally understood what the 2nd Law states and how it applies to electrolysis, do you think he capitulated? Heck no! He came right back and said "Well, Laws are made to be broken!" :rolleyes:
Made the day, reading that, and having a good belly laugh!!

Made the day, reading that, and having a good belly laugh!!

It was pure comedy. One of his arguments was "Well if that Law is true, how come we can burn oil or coal and get more energy out than it takes to drill/dig for it?" He truly thought he had found a loophole in the Laws of Thermodynamics. The explanation that oil/coal's energy comes from being compressed in the Earth's crust over millions and millions of years was ignored.