 
|
Computer Audio Asylum: RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate by Phelonious Ponk Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum: RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate by Phelonious Ponk Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
For Sale Ads |
68.210.66.235
In Reply to: RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate posted by Tony Lauck on July 30, 2009 at 08:57:45:
"Informally, Kunchur has demonstrated that simplistic models of human hearing are not adequate to describe reality, and therefore that simplistic engineering approximations in the design of audio equipment may not be appropriate when designing the highest quality equipment."
More accurately, Kunchur has demonstrated that one simplistic model of human hearing yields different results than another simplistic model of human hearing. What he has NOT demonstrated, what his tests do not even imply, is anything meaningful about the complex models that are humans listening to real music through real, complex, audio reproduction systems.
That requires controlled, unsighted listening tests.
P
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 19:26:14 07/26/09 ( 72)
- Have any of you read the Audio Critic Double/Blind study.... - deskducker 00:26:17 07/31/09 ( 36)
- Better duck under that desk; - Kristian 08:54:55 07/31/09 ( 35)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - deskducker 10:32:13 07/31/09 ( 34)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Kristian 10:52:43 07/31/09 ( 33)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 22:46:23 07/31/09 ( 31)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 04:35:48 08/1/09 ( 30)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 09:11:52 08/1/09 ( 29)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 10:13:02 08/1/09 ( 28)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 20:01:03 08/1/09 ( 27)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 06:00:31 08/2/09 ( 26)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 06:48:18 08/2/09 ( 25)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 07:16:17 08/2/09 ( 24)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:22:52 08/2/09 ( 23)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 01:05:50 08/3/09 ( 22)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 04:06:20 08/3/09 ( 21)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 04:40:30 08/3/09 ( 20)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:53 08/3/09 ( 19)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:56:07 08/3/09 ( 18)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 12:09:11 08/3/09 ( 17)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 14:42:51 08/3/09 ( 16)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:27:33 08/3/09 ( 15)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 19:46:06 08/3/09 ( 14)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:24:51 08/4/09 ( 0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 02:55:41 08/4/09 ( 12)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Tony Lauck 17:29:58 08/5/09 ( 0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:05:49 08/4/09 ( 7)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 19:12:49 08/5/09 ( 4)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:46:58 08/5/09 ( 3)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 20:00:35 08/5/09 ( 2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 03:56:22 08/6/09 ( 1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:50:41 08/6/09 ( 0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Tony Lauck 17:40:32 08/5/09 ( 1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:17:37 08/5/09 ( 0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 04:13:36 08/4/09 ( 2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 07:59:20 08/5/09 ( 1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 23:19:23 08/5/09 ( 0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 06:26:29 08/10/09 ( 0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 06:50:25 08/10/09 ( 0)
RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:15:04 07/31/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 07:44:51 07/29/09 ( 14)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 09:11:05 07/29/09 ( 12)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 10:41:27 07/29/09 ( 11)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 13:04:49 07/29/09 ( 10)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 14:52:26 07/29/09 ( 9)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 22:40:02 07/29/09 ( 8)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 02:29:20 07/30/09 ( 7)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 04:09:24 07/30/09 ( 6)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 08:57:45 07/30/09 ( 3)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 09:53:13 07/30/09 ( 1)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 13:47:57 07/30/09 ( 0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 07/30/09 09:16:45 07/30/09 ( 0)
- I second the agreement... - Phelonious Ponk 07:48:46 07/30/09 ( 0)
- Completely agree with you. nt - drrd 07:03:18 07/30/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 09:04:11 07/29/09 ( 0)
Temporal resolution and RBCD - cics 13:22:50 07/28/09 ( 1)
- RE: Temporal resolution and RBCD - Ryelands 04:37:17 07/29/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 09:51:02 07/28/09 ( 6)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 11:09:45 07/28/09 ( 3)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 11:06:06 07/29/09 ( 0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - secretsquirrel 03:57:11 12/4/09 ( 0)
- Get out while you still have time! - Ryelands 06:50:55 12/4/09 ( 0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 06:42:30 07/29/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 21:14:20 07/28/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 10:34:26 07/28/09 ( 1)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 21:20:55 07/28/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 03:01:40 07/28/09 ( 0)
This is silly - audiozorro 09:05:51 07/27/09 ( 0)
RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - mls-stl 20:11:35 07/26/09 ( 8)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - drrd 03:27:22 07/27/09 ( 7)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - AstroD 00:00:32 07/28/09 ( 5)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - joeljoel1947 09:01:16 07/29/09 ( 0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 07:51:15 07/28/09 ( 3)
- another interesting test - Werner 22:45:55 07/29/09 ( 1)
- RE: another interesting test - Tony Lauck 07:16:45 07/30/09 ( 0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - AstroD 16:33:02 07/28/09 ( 0)
"It's not really that obvious" - mls-stl 10:53:45 07/27/09 ( 0)
[Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
