> > However, I think we always need to be aware of the power of > suggestion. Not > dismissing your claims at all, but many people, when they do an A/B > test > expect to hear a certain difference, so that¹s what they hear. I¹ve > certainly noticed that with microphone ³shootouts² etc. - when people > don¹t > know what it is they are listening they become much less sure of their > preferences. > > It really should be a double blind test, where nobody knows which > track > they are listening to until the end. If there is a clear difference > that is > heard every time, then I think we have something pretty concrete. > > Blair > -- > blairfisher@shaw.ca > > That's basically how they did the test, for a lot of audio folks coming through the room (did it in a hotel room suite where it was quieter.) They'd play the same performance, and have people guess which was 192k. Not everyone could tell the difference, but a majority of the pros there could. And they didn't alternate a/b either, but would sometimes play the higher resolution performance twice or three times in a row before playing the lower res performance, and vice versa. They were showing off the recorder (one of the first that could record at that frequency; this was at least several years ago) and the amp/speaker playback combo. Les