(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144667)

Even if it's vinyl they convert it to digital first. Then back to analog

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144671)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144678)

people use very imperfect vocabulary like "warmth" or "fullness" to attempt to capture the effect which makes it sound fake and gay and causes others to be skeptical particularly because it's retarded boomers who are usually pushing it and mostly out of nostalgia rather than any real grasp of the audible nuances. but vinyl and other antiquated audio technologies like tube equipment do legitimately have distinct qualities that can be nice if you listen enough to sense what they're doing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144753)

if you need an ev for practical reasons but you love the sound of shifting gears you could also hypothetically rig up a sim on your car which would be incredibly gay but you might have a real reason to prefer the ev. if you love the sound of tubes then just get tubes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144780)

but not even true. setting aside children and weirdos that can hear outside the red book standard... the low sample rate can cause filtering problems. it was very noticeable 30 years years ago, but DACs have gotten better.

and for anything that might be used in future production i'd certainly prefer the more generous source.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144828)

Lower samples rate of what? 44.1 Khz? That's low to you? It's double the theoretical limit of human hearing. You think that's low? Are you crazy? And you're worried about jitter? This has been debunked lol. You literally cannot hear the noise floor or the jitter dipshit. This is such a smug retard argument for which there's no evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144832)

first understand that sound is a wave, and the sample rate has to be twice the frequency.

44.1=22.05, right at the edge of human hearing you stupid cretin.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144833)

second, you might want to latch on to the comment i made above about filters and try to understand it. i know you don't, because you clearly don't understand things that come three rungs on the ladder below that, but it is important.

third, you ("Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked(Prestige Feuds)") are fucking not a bright guy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144840)

give me the most definitive scientific research available on the ability of humans to perceive the higher fidelity of formats considered higher fidelity than red book cd

The most definitive, comprehensive, and widely accepted scientific study on this topic is a massive peer-reviewed systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (JAES).The paper, titled "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation," was authored by Dr. Joshua Reiss from the Centre for Digital Music at Queen Mary University of London.

This study is considered the gold standard because, rather than relying on a single experiment with a small group of people, it applied rigorous statistical meta-analysis to the entirety of available historical research.

The Scope of the Study

Dr. Reiss analyzed 80 publication candidates, ultimately narrowing the selection down to 18 highly controlled, published experiments that provided full, verifiable data sets.

Data Volume: The meta-analysis compiled data from over 400 unique participants.

Rigor: It evaluated more than 12,500 individual blind listening trials.

The Goal: To determine if subjects could successfully differentiate between "standard resolution" audio (16-bit/44.1 kHz or 48 kHz CD quality) and "high resolution" audio (anything exceeding Red Book CD standards, such as 24-bit/96 kHz or SACD/DSD).Key Findings: What the Data Proved

The study's conclusions forced both hardcore audiophiles and strict skeptics to compromise.

1. The Core Finding: Perception is Real, but Trivial

The meta-analysis concluded that humans can perceive a difference between high-resolution and CD-quality audio under blind conditions, and the result is statistically significant. However, the effect size is incredibly small. Across all 12,500+ combined trials, the average correct identification rate was roughly 53%.Context: A score of 50% represents complete random guessing. While 53% is mathematically "better than chance" over thousands of trials, it demonstrates that the difference is not a striking "night-and-day" auditory revelation for the general public.

2. The Multiplier: Auditory Training

The single most critical variable in the entire study was whether or not the listener was trained.

When data from untrained, casual listeners was isolated, their ability to perceive high resolution fell to near-total random chance.

When data from trained listeners (such as mastering engineers, audio students, or professional musicians) was isolated, the ability to tell the formats apart increased dramatically, pushing identification rates closer to 60%.Dr. Reiss noted that almost all the statistical variation between the 18 separate studies could be explained by one factor: whether the participants had been trained to know exactly what micro-artifacts or transient details to listen for.

3. Stimulus Selection Matters

The study also revealed that the ability to perceive high-fidelity audio depends heavily on the choice of music. Listeners were far more successful at identifying high-resolution audio when using longer samples (more than 30 seconds) and tracks with intense, sharp transients—such as the sudden pluck of an acoustic string or the strike of a metal cymbal. This aligns with theories suggesting higher sampling rates better preserve microsecond timing data in sound waves.

Other Notable Context: The Meyer & Moran Defeat

Before Dr. Reiss's 2016 meta-analysis, the most famous study cited by skeptics was the 2007 Meyer & Moran Study (also published via the Audio Engineering Society).Over a year-long period, researchers tested 60 members of an audiophile society across 554 blind trials.

They inserted a CD-quality bottleneck (16-bit/44.1 kHz) into a high-end SACD/DVD-Audio playback system.

The audiophiles guessed correctly exactly 49.8% of the time.

Why Reiss changed the narrative: While Meyer & Moran proved that an average audiophile cannot walk into a room and instantly spot a CD-quality filter, Dr. Reiss's meta-analysis demonstrated that when you zoom out to thousands of trials and focus strictly on trained ears listening to targeted audio cues, human perception can technically resolve details beyond the Red Book CD barrier.

Would you like to explore the specific neuroscientific or physiological theories (like time-domain transient resolution) that explain how trained ears pick up these differences? Or would you prefer a breakdown of how to train your own ears using an ABX test?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144830)

It's all poppycock and 3% over random guessing is statistical noise. It could easily be attributed to some other factor for instance in some blind tests larger file sizes take longer to load. That's an identifiable marker that could easily skew tests among many other possibilities. The fact that some people with training did better could again likely be someone who knew an identifiable marker in the file itself just like a marked card in a deck.

You are absolutely kidding yourself. It's also extremely pathetic that you can't even use your own words and need a robot to do it for you. Extreme loserdom.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144834)

You are being too cd-absolutist overall. But I think you are right that under realistic listening conditions, improvements over redbook are small. Problem is you are trying to act like its settled, saying that its mathematically impossible to improve on and violates physics, which isn't true. It's not a settled claim. It's an ongoing engineering and perceptual question.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144849)

but discussion is ruined by people on both sides because poor people use it as a chance to take out their resentments towards things they can't have while discourse within the "hobby" is polluted by vain and slothful boomers in need of an obsession and an incinerator to consume their cash.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144861)

Your explanation about non-audio related tells is only a hypothesis. It could hypothetically explain some experiment under some design. But to overturn this specific result, you'd need to identify the cue and show that it produces the observed pattern.

I'm not saying there is definitely an effect or that it's a big one, just that you are overclaiming by saying it is 100% imperceptible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145046)

Oh shit thought I was responding to hatp here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145072)

I have strong doubts that the test would have been that scientific down to the level where we knew beyond a doubt that there was actually substantially more auditory information in the file than the other one, far beyond the range of human hearing. You would really need a lot of special tools to achieve this. And you would somehow have to be able to explain why information captured at many times the maximum range of human hearing was even audible.

Unless your entire theory is that the larger bit bucket is better for anti aliasing and reconstruction and you have personally abandoned the idea that anyone can hear up to 96 kHz. But hopefully you at least acknowledge that there's no information in say a Beatles record that was actually captured above the range of human hearing and even if somehow we could debunk the science of human hearing and refute it, at least you would still acknowledge that in 99.99999% of recorded music there is no information beyond the limitations of the equipment used in the recording which we know has no chance of going up to 96 khz and beyond or whatever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145083)

But the question whether somebody discriminate a high sample rate version from a 44.1/48 kHz version is just a broader question than that. Aside from ultrasonic source content, filtering, conversion and other parts of the reproduction chain can create audible band differences.

I'm not trying to argue here that normal adults are hearing a 40 kHz sine wave. There are other ways two playbacks can become discriminable. A higher sample rate changes constraints on the entire conversion chain. Anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters can be different. Different filtering can alter the signal inside the audible band. Other stuff too. There are lots of things to take into account here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145091)

I will get you some more information on why anti aliasing and jitter is negligible in a higher bit bucket when I have the time to sift through all the bullshit online. I think you will be convinced. Once you understand the science you will look at the 53/47 split more differently. I'll get back to you when I have a moment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145101)

The aggregate listening data in the study shows a small above chance effect. So the scientific question is what produced that effect. If you can identify a confound that explains the 53/47 result then fine, that's an argument. Saying the underlying effect must be zero because the mechanisms you considered should be inaudible isn't though.

What reason do you have for doubting the results? You don't think its possible that the conclusions of the paper are correct and that the cause is unknown? It might not be one single thing, it could be an aggregate of different effects.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145118)

A pass line bet in craps is so close to a 50% that can appear random, but over time the negative EV is certain. Same thing here.

If you set up an eye exam with an 8 and a B such that only someone with 20/10 vision could perceive the difference, the results would come out slightly over 50% that people can perceive the difference. There's a measurable and techically perceivable difference between the 8 and B, but only an extraordinarily perceptive person would he able to perceive the difference.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145087)

You just disregard evidence you don't believe and then claim ot doesn't exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145003)

Audio engineers developed the formats to try and make more money and it's failed every time. Neil Young's Pono player. SACD/DSD. There's a lot of money to be made selling snake oil to rich boomers. Did you know that gold cables don't sound better than copper wire but cost a hundred times more? Hi res audio has completely failed as a product every time it's been tried. But I guess some people made money off of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145011)

Regardless, studies show the difference exists but is negligible. Idk why you get so emotionally invested in being right that there's no perceptable difference period. It doesn't matter. Why can't you just accept that theres at least some evidence there is when even they conclude it's negligible?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145032)

Red book CD is fundamentally a hi res format. It is higher than humanity's maximum theoretical capability to process in your brain as sound. This is an incontrovertible cold hard fact of reality. It's as real as gravity. It's like saying there's a place you can go where a 200 lb person can actually be the same size and density of matter but only weigh 150 lbs because ReAsONs. Some things are just not true because they're not true. And we don't need to propagate lies or tell ourselves lies. We have the data. The Science is settled here. It's over and your side lost in a 100-0 landslide but you're repeating Reddit nonsense because you adopted something you read online. God only knows why you are prone to falling for this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145036)

If it's so settled by science then it would be easy to cite something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145044)

This is the most commonly used microphone in human history. It does not capture any ultrasonic information. It only goes up to 15 khz.

Now that you're not arguing for ultrasonic audio information anymore, are we merely talking about file size? You think that the same audio information in a much larger file size sounds better because of the anti aliasing algorithm and filter cutoff point? Same captured information, just a much larger file size. You think that makes a difference?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50145112)

Do you think DACs are complete flame? Like how can an expensive hardware device convert zeroes and ones into analog any better than all your other devices that do this? Seems like complete flame but people buy em.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144774)

makes sense to me, that's for sure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144748)

Iron Butterfly In a Gadda da Vita

Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2#50144781)