"bob" <nabob33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fjsgbt0opk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Here's the first paragraph of their Conclusion section:
> "The results of this test indicate that listeners more
> often than not identify high-resolution audio as being
> similar in quality to the unprocessed analog audio.
IOW, they mostly fail to hear a difference.
> This conclusion, based on listening to the audio scene
> captured and reproduced with microphones and loudspeakers
> limited to 20 kHz bandwidth, indicates that high-sampling
> conversion system seems to be more transparent and
> provides a higher degree of fidelity to the analog
> reference."
????????????????
> Here's what their data says: Out of 54 trials with that
> limited bandwidth, subjects chose the high-sampling-rate
> system as closer to the original analog feed 31 times.
I sense a conclusion that they were randomly guessing coming on.
> That's not even statistically significant at the 90%
> confidence level. So by their own data, they can't reject
> the possibility that their subjects could not tell the
> difference between 352.8 kHz sampling and 44.1, even
> under the best scenario.
So much for the hypothesis that the audio CD format is somehow deficient.
> What's odd is that, when they used mikes and speakers
> with a bandwidth extended to 100 kHz, the high sampling
> rate did substantially worse (23/60).
Random guessing sometimes works out that way. Reams have written by
ignorant
audiophiles about the meaning of worse results than random guessing. In
the
end, worse than random guessing is probably best interpreted as being an
indictment of the experiment.
If people are truely producing independent results, then their results
will
converge to random guessing when they can't hear a difference. When they
are guessing wrong more often than 50%, the hypothesis that they are
producing independent results can be questioned.
> That result is
> highly counterintuitive, and the authors twist themselves
> into pretzels trying to explain it, with no success.
They don't want to admit that their results are critical of the over-all
quality of the experiment.
> So they're making claims their own data don't fully
> sup****t and they can't explain. I think there's no there
> there.
Agreed.
|
