|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
In Reply to: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate posted by Tony Lauck on July 26, 2009 at 19:26:14:
Tony Lauck wrote:
Recent scientific papers [. . . ] show that RBCD is not transparent and that higher sampling rates are needed.
This is first-rate science, super stuff. I am most grateful for your bringing it to our attention. If (like me) you find Milind Kunchur's original papers slightly heavy going, the link on the "Prop Head" thread also includes a short review article by George Foster and an "FAQ" by Kunchur aimed at "audiophiles".
These are more approachable and a good place to start. However, even those with little interest in psychological experimentation will find much of interest in the full papers.
An amusing but interesting point in the "FAQ" reads:
"There is a certain dichotomy between audio engineers and HiFi enthusiasts on the one hand (who are more knowledgeable of high-level audio gear and advanced techniques) and the formal psychoacoustics research community on the other hand (who are responsible for establishing the official standards and thresholds).
"The first group does not seem to conduct controlled blind tests of publishable standards (of all the JAES papers I read on this subject, I didn't find a single one that reported controlled listening tests).
"I wanted to [bring] the different disciplines together and point out that the some of the earlier conclusions regarding the limits of hearing may actually be more closely related to limitations in the equipment."
Oops.
Dave
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 07/28/0903:01:40 07/28/09 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
