Re: What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?

"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
in message
news:a63a85d4-bb01-43ba-bcd0-7429f7088619@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> i have never completely accepted that ABX testing is
> better than "same/difference testing" (what i used to call "AB testing")
> for the  question we are trying to answer here.

ABX is based on same/difference testing. ABX facilitates same/difference 
testing.

> ABX is for answering the question: which is better?

Not really. It is for answering the question: are they the same or 
different?

>  or  which is  closer?  does synthesizer A sound more like a real piano
> or does  synthesizer B sound more like the real piano?

The ABC/hr test does a better job then ABX at doing that sort of thing.

> even though i am politically very liberal, as an
> engineer, i am *very* conservative.

No problem.

> say the issue is Monster Cable.  the claim
> is that  Monster Cable sounds better than 10 gauge lamp cable.

The more reasonable claim would be that Monster Cable sounds better than
13 
gauge lamp cable because much of the better Monster speaker cables are the

equivalent of 13 gauge stranded wire.

> now, being  conservative, i am willing to grant Monster Cable the
> benefit of doubt  in that if people can actually hear a *difference*,
i'm
> willing to let  their claim that they sound better go without challenge.

I wouldn't call that being conservative. My flavor of conservatism would 
oblige me to test for better sound, even if I found that they sounded 
different.

> but if  people *cannot* hear a difference, then i am not willing
> to accept, > even tentatively, that Monster Cable sounds better.

That's just common sense. Sounding better implies sounding different. No 
difference, no better sound. Logic.

>  for it to sound  better, it has to at the very least, sound different.

Agreed.

> since "better"
> and "worse" is a subjective thing (like clean vinyl vs. CD),

Another view is that any uncontrollable change is a degradation. IOW
louder 
or softer or the intentional application of a tonal ****ft is OK, but if an

inherent and irreducable result of some operation, then that change is 
undesirable.

Since it is impossible to avoid audible changes during recording and
playing 
back using the LP format, the difference has to be undesirable.