Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.

[ab initio]

I believe that issue isn't whether or not you, Jude or anyone else on this site should be able to "talk" or "discuss" a given product on the site but rather whether you, Jude or anyone else on this site should be recommending fellow members purchase a product, particularly when, in the face of all the hard scientific evidence there is no proof that the product is worthwhile other than on a purely subjective basis. And more to the point under discussion that a high resolution download sound superior to the CD without conducting proper comparative listening tests.

Now of course the simple way around this is for you, Jude or anyone else on this site who makes such a recommendation to qualify that recommendation by clearly stating that the recommendation is based purely on subjective listening and that the recommendation runs counter to evidenced based objective reasoning. That I could live with (remember that is the "Sound Science" section.)

There are a couple points here:
-1- the most recent jude post that i think you are referencing is for the chesky binaural demo. This album is a collection of test tracks for testing your headphone audio equipment! Having the full final mix in all of its 24/192 overkill is exactly what you need to demonstrate whether or not hires formats are worthwhile downloads. a demo cd is the ideal candidate for one to purchase to test whether hires formats are audibly different.

-2- chesky is about the only studio i can think of that is releasing albums specifically catering to hifi enthusiasts using headphones. Whether or not you like the music styles or think that the 24/192 downloads are sonically superior is irrelevant. I am thankful that someone is producing headphone-centric music and I show support by purchasing the the demo album. I hope chesky continues releasing binaural recordings, i just hope that at some point he venutres outside the current box of genres offered and gets a little bit of vareity. Can't he get Rush to record a prog album for headphones? Anyways, the point here is that jude was encourging headfiers to support the production of quality mastered music specifically for headphones. While his suggestion to purchase the hires version isnt scientifically informed, it is economically informed--if headfiers dont buy binaural music, no one is going to make it.

-3- you neglect the possiblilty that jude is making the recommendation to buy hires in good faith. He simply might not have parsed through the scientific literature. Most people are not scientificly trained, and dont understand the difference between good science and good marketing. Furthermore, i bet most audiophiles want good sound, but dont want to spend the effort to understand the physics of good sound. I think a lot of audiophiles neglect science because it's too darn confusing to understand, especially with all the marketing noise out there designed to appear scientific to the naive. Before, you go on a crusade against every individual who doesnt understand the science aspect to audio systems, keep in mind that most folks simply cannot devote the time and mental capacity to study up on the subject. You have to patiently and persistently explain the science to the niave, because if you come off aggressive and condecending, you will be tuned out and everyone will be buying $10,000 power cables.

Cheers

 

[ralphp@optonline]

There are a couple points here:
-1- the most recent jude post that i think you are referencing is for the chesky binaural demo. This album is a collection of test tracks for testing your headphone audio equipment! Having the full final mix in all of its 24/192 overkill is exactly what you need to demonstrate whether or not hires formats are worthwhile downloads. a demo cd is the ideal candidate for one to purchase to test whether hires formats are audibly different.

-2- chesky is about the only studio i can think of that is releasing albums specifically catering to hifi enthusiasts using headphones. Whether or not you like the music styles or think that the 24/192 downloads are sonically superior is irrelevant. I am thankful that someone is producing headphone-centric music and I show support by purchasing the the demo album. I hope chesky continues releasing binaural recordings, i just hope that at some point he venutres outside the current box of genres offered and gets a little bit of vareity. Can't he get Rush to record a prog album for headphones? Anyways, the point here is that jude was encourging headfiers to support the production of quality mastered music specifically for headphones. While his suggestion to purchase the hires version isnt scientifically informed, it is economically informed--if headfiers dont buy binaural music, no one is going to make it.

-3- you neglect the possiblilty that jude is making the recommendation to buy hires in good faith. He simply might not have parsed through the scientific literature. Most people are not scientificly trained, and dont understand the difference between good science and good marketing. Furthermore, i bet most audiophiles want good sound, but dont want to spend the effort to understand the physics of good sound. I think a lot of audiophiles neglect science because it's too darn confusing to understand, especially with all the marketing noise out there designed to appear scientific to the naive. Before, you go on a crusade against every individual who doesnt understand the science aspect to audio systems, keep in mind that most folks simply cannot devote the time and mental capacity to study up on the subject. You have to patiently and persistently explain the science to the niave, because if you come off aggressive and condecending, you will be tuned out and everyone will be buying $10,000 power cables.

Cheers

A few points:
 
1) Did you the read the other responses to my post you quoted and my follow-up responses?
 
2) Bowers & Wilkins Society of Sound has issued several binaural recordings catering to headphone enthusiasts.
 
3) Since the introduction of digital audio almost the entire high end audio world has slowly become anti-science because science can be used to prove that many of their cash cows, such as expensive digital audio cables or high resolution recordings, are simply a waste of money. Therefore we, the buying public, are being told again and again and again that the science doesn't matter or that the science is somehow incomplete or misleading. Also being anti-science puts one the position of being a good friend to the high end audio industry, e.g. review the history of the Computer Audiophile site for a clear example of this concept in action - less science means more buddies in the industry and more toys to play with.
 
4) Just as there are several sections on the this forum that gleefully toss science aside (e.g. Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) and High-end Audio Forum), there are sections like this one (Sound Science) which embrace science and serve as a counter-balance to all the anti-science filling other parts the forum.
 
5) If anything I did had the power to make anyone buy $10,000 power cables I would become a cable manufacturer in a heartbeat

since I would love to have my very own yacht.

 

[ferday]

   
3) Since the introduction of digital audio almost the entire high end audio world has slowly become anti-science because science can be used to prove that many of their cash cows, such as expensive digital audio cables or high resolution recordings, are simply a waste of money. Therefore we, the buying public, are being told again and again and again that the science doesn't matter or that the science is somehow incomplete or misleading. Also being anti-science puts one the position of being a good friend to the high end audio industry, e.g. review the history of the Computer Audiophile site for a clear example of this concept in action - less science means more buddies in the industry and more toys to play with.
 

 
it's nothing to do with digital, at all.  the high end audio world has always been anti-science.

 

[bigshot]

it depends on your definition of high end audio. Back when I started out in the 1970s, there was no such thing as audiophiles. We had hifi nuts back then. The approach was definitely scientific, because lots of hifi nuts built their amps from kits. The only luxury item status was the finish on the wood on the speaker cabinets.

I think the beginning of audiophoolery did start with digital audio. There were all kinds of crazy theories on why digital audio was lousy, none of which were based in science. I see lots of impressions from people that indicate that they are still thinking of digital audio the way they did about analog... generation loss, veils, etc. Back then, those things existed. Today they don't.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I think the beginning of audiophoolery did start with digital audio.

It started going off the rails a bit before that, namely with cables.

se

 

[kraken2109]

-3- you neglect the possiblilty that jude is making the recommendation to buy hires in good faith. He simply might not have parsed through the scientific literature. Most people are not scientificly trained, and dont understand the difference between good science and good marketing. Furthermore, i bet most audiophiles want good sound, but dont want to spend the effort to understand the physics of good sound. I think a lot of audiophiles neglect science because it's too darn confusing to understand, especially with all the marketing noise out there designed to appear scientific to the naive. Before, you go on a crusade against every individual who doesnt understand the science aspect to audio systems, keep in mind that most folks simply cannot devote the time and mental capacity to study up on the subject. You have to patiently and persistently explain the science to the niave, because if you come off aggressive and condecending, you will be tuned out and everyone will be buying $10,000 power cables.

Cheers

 
My main point was that Jude is the 'frontman' of an audio forum and he shouldn't be spreading misinformation so a sponsor can make money. If it is true that he doesn't know anything about digital audio, it worries me that he is considered suitable for the job. I mean this in no disrespect to him.
Point 3 doesn't really work seeing as this is an enthusiast forum. The focus should be on knowledge.
 

   
So if Jude (or I) like something that happens to be made by someone who sponsors the site, he shouldn't talk about it?   That's basically what you're saying. 
 
I like the music, personally, and appreciate the effort to make better recordings, since I have more expensive than average gear for a member here. The nice thing here is that we can discuss these topics freely and put forth out opinions (as long as we aren't being rude).
 

You seem to have missed my point. I have no problem with a video saying 'hey look at this cool album guys'. My problem is when viewers are told to spend extra money on something pointless, which is the case in that video. This forum should be for education, not for the spread of misinformation and marketing snakeoil.
Sure, I am biased against companies like HDTracks and you might not be. But I feel my dislike for them is justified since it seems to me like they're cheating people out of their money through lies.

 

[ab initio]

 
A few points:
 
1) Did you the read the other responses to my post you quoted and my follow-up responses?
I fail to see the relevance here.
 
2) Bowers & Wilkins Society of Sound has issued several binaural recordings catering to headphone enthusiasts.
Cool, I just checked them out. It seems that you need a paid subscribtion to browse the music? I'd really like to see what's in the browse the catalog and see if there are any albums I want to purchase. Bummer.
 
3) Since the introduction of digital audio almost the entire high end audio world has slowly become anti-science because science can be used to prove that many of their cash cows, such as expensive digital audio cables or high resolution recordings, are simply a waste of money. Therefore we, the buying public, are being told again and again and again that the science doesn't matter or that the science is somehow incomplete or misleading. Also being anti-science puts one the position of being a good friend to the high end audio industry, e.g. review the history of the Computer Audiophile site for a clear example of this concept in action - less science means more buddies in the industry and more toys to play with.
This is why we need to patiently debunk the junk marketing that is coming out of the industry. Having the option to buy the HiRes version of a album is not evil; rather, it's pretty neat. Telling people that they need to buy all their music in 24/192 because otherwise they'll be missing "nuance detail" in the music if they only listen to 16/44.1 is evil.
 
4) Just as there are several sections on the this forum that gleefully toss science aside (e.g. Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) and High-end Audio Forum), there are sections like this one (Sound Science) which embrace science and serve as a counter-balance to all the anti-science filling other parts the forum.
 I disagree with the absolutism of this statement. The other forums do not absolutely toss science aside. They forbid folks demanding ABX testing to validate all subjective claims in the other forums. You can bring as much scientific evidence to the discussions there (and I often do), you just cannot degenerate all the threads into hateful "I can hear it!/No you can't/Prove it!" bickering. Like I have written on this forum before, ABX testing does not equal science. blind testing is a useful tool for performing experiments, but it is only one such tool.
 
5) If anything I did had the power to make anyone buy $10,000 power cables I would become a cable manufacturer in a heartbeat

since I would love to have my very own yacht.
I've got a soldering iron. Want to start a company?

Cheers

 

[bigshot]

It started going off the rails a bit before that, namely with cables.

se

Perhaps the introduction of hard sell commissioned salespeople at places like Pacific Stereo might be ground zero.

The anti-science bias in the other forums extends far beyond just double blind testing. When the split happened, that was the definition, but it's since evolved beyond that.

 

[ferday]

It started going off the rails a bit before that, namely with cables.

se

 
although i wasn't there (and hopefully none of you), it seems to me it "started" when the at-the-time inferior "discs" were trying to replace the audibly superior wax cylinders (1900's)...the format wars have never ended since then.  loudspeaker silliness has been around since the 40's at least.  it's all semantics anyways LOL but i enjoy the history stuff...there are a few fun to read (if not entirely accurate) history of hi-fi articles floating around the web
 
i've been heavily into mountain biking for 25 years.  it's pretty easy to say 'back then we were just a bunch of bike nuts" but truth be told i was just a gear hound with less money to spend on gear, so it was substituted with passion. nostalgia tends to have a nice rosy hue doesn't it  

 

[ab initio]

   
My main point was that Jude is the 'frontman' of an audio forum and he shouldn't be spreading misinformation so a sponsor can make money. If it is true that he doesn't know anything about digital audio, it worries me that he is considered suitable for the job. I mean this in no disrespect to him.
Point 3 doesn't really work seeing as this is an enthusiast forum. The focus should be on knowledge.

Well, like I said, he could be acting in good faith, naively spreading misinformation. But, as the the head of head-fi, I think it is his duty to back anyone who is providing a fairly unique service that caters directly to headphone users, which Chesky's binaural recordings do. Whether or not Jude is aware that scientific evidence suggests that 24/192 has no audible benefit over redbook CD for home listening, I do not know. But, since this is an internet forum for the general public and not a scientific journal, there is no reason to assume that anybody here has any grasp for the underlying physics of audio recording, reproduction, and hearing. If he was "Dr Jude" I might hold him to a higher standard, but for all I know, he's some dude who loves HiFi music and headphones. You shouldn't expect everybody discussing on these forums to have engineering degrees in electrical and mechanical engineering. People are here because they want to talk about music, their expensive HiFi equipment, and for MegaBuck system wankfests. I think the people who arrive at head-fi looking for answers are more likely lurking or dumped here after googling, rather than actively participating. Of course, there are exceptions.
 
Cheers

 

[ab initio]

The anti-science bias in the other forums extends far beyond just double blind testing. When the split happened, that was the definition, but it's since evolved beyond that.

 
True, but the rules don't prevent me from going into other forums and providing well-reasoned suggestions to those asking questions which start from false premises (e.g., here). You can bark math and numbers and provide proofs and textbook references all you want as long as you don't mutter ABX anywhere. The thick-skulled zealot might not like it, but it might help the casual googler that stumbles across the thread looking for answers. Who knows how many lurkers might benefit? I lurked for years before I signed up for a headfi account. There were some long and nasty discussions once-upon-a-time (namely, before I joined) regarding audibility of ps jitter, and I lurked and learned from the well reasoned arguments and filtered out the BS.  
 
Cheers

 

[bigshot]

Well if I had to point to one difference between when I started out in hifi and today, I would have to say the difference involves the DIY attitude. In the 60s and 70s, if you wanted a really good sound system, you built a nice kit amp from Heathkit, you got plans for speaker cabinets and built them in your garage, and you read magazines to get circuit diagrams and to find parts suppliers. Now, high end audio is more like a religion. You go to a fancy store or website where a counsellor advises you to have faith in things you don't fully understand. All you have to do is peel back the long green and make a donation and hopefully the sound god smiles upon you. If not, pull out the wallet and make another donation.

 

[Steve Eddy]

My main point was that Jude is the 'frontman' of an audio forum and he shouldn't be spreading misinformation so a sponsor can make money.

What's the misinformation? That's all on the subjective side of the street. If someone says something sounds better to them, what's to argue?

se

 

[kraken2109]

What's the misinformation? That's all on the subjective side of the street. If someone says something sounds better to them, what's to argue?

se

The misinformation is claiming something sounds better when it is physically impossible for said thing to sound better.
If I told you I could hear sound at 30kHz, that would be misinformation, surely? Or would you just decide that's subjective?

 

[Steve Eddy]

The misinformation is claiming something sounds better when it is physically impossible for said thing to sound better.

"Sounds better" is purely subjective. Our subjective experiences are what they are regardless of what may be behind them and aren't necessarily an accurate reflection of the physical reality. In other words, we may subjectively perceive differences even when there are no actual audible differences. So how can you possibly say that it's physically impossible for something to "sound better" to someone?

se