Originally Posted by Audionut11
Originally Posted by arnyk
You can reproduce the hamonics above 16 KHz right in your face, but they add nothing that you can reliably perceive.
But as a consumer you cannot provide me with reliable data to show this.
Well, maybe not as a consumer, but let me put on this other hat. ;-)
There is plenty of science to show that there are natural harmonics above our audible sensory perception.
Yes, but as you say, they are above our audible sensory perception.
I raised the point about lower then audible frequencies because it is very easy to notice the effects.
..as long as you stick to invalid sighted evaluations. Some of us do better work than that!
If I was to listen to your test samples and claim I heard a difference, on what grounds would you be able to assure me that I'm just hearing things!
I came pretty close to death for health reasons here a few months back, and so my patience for idle speculation is not so much.
What do you actually hear?
I think the point being is that there is science to show that the other points made in the guide are correct. The last point even has quotes that counter claim each other.
The guide is correct in many areas.
That the Meyer-Moran tests leave no room for continued disagreements is an occasion for the most delicious Schadenfreude on the part of electronic soundalike advocates like yours truly. I stated my suspicions that SACD was no improvement over CD seven years ago, in my review of the first Sony SACD player.
Since you hide your true identity behind a bogus alias, you can say what you will and I can ignore it as I will because you could be some 12 year old with delusions of grandeur. ;-)
“The Meyer/Moran test is persuasive, but I am open to the idea that some further research may prove it to be not the last word on the transparency of 16/44. Still, I’d expect the audible differences between 16/44 and higher resolutions to be subtle at best, and I am sceptical of any claims otherwise.”
All findings of science are provisional and may be changed by future findings. Truisms based on that shed remarkably little light.
The real question is how low can I set the brick wall filter, and not hear a difference
But this is skeptical at best.
No, the question is very relevant, and claims that the brick wall must be set higher than 22 KHz lack reliable evidence.
Of course, so much so that many of us will argue with the claim that they are inaudible. They may not get to us through our ears
Where's the beef?
You seem to have problems with speculation, and then you dump what seems to be a pile of it in my lap.
I'm not all that much amused, except by the irony of the self-contradiction you seem to be engaging in.
As far as Meyer and Moran goes, they may have been bushwhacked by the music industry who sold a lot of low-bandwidth recordings as the Emperor's new hi rez clothes. Some say that it is probable or at least possible that up to half of the so-called hi rez recordings that Meyer and Moran used were from legacy and other compromised sources that never had significant content > 22 KHz. They were only sold that way, which was probably petty fraud. Meyer and Moran took them at face value, with the results that the percentage of the recordings that even had something > 22 KHz to hear was low enough to possibly affect their experiment.
Eventually some experimenters found out about the compromised so-called hi rez recordings. The loss of high frequencies shows up in measurements and some of those measurements have been published. However, high end reviewers had been ooohing and aaahing about the compromised recordings for quite a while at that point, and none of them blew the whistle on the music industry until later on if at all.