[Thad-E-Ginathom]

 
Huh?   Read my posts, I don't need to hit you people with links, there's no test, I"m not your professor. This is a discussion, no one owns fact.
 
I understand ABX listening tests, I've participated, and I'm designing a better test to judge musical enjoyment.
 

 
I didn't think that ABX tests were to test "musical enjoyment." It seems to me that they set out to answer questions such as "A and B sound different to me: am I imagining it, or is it it for real?"
 
Having established difference, preference and enjoyment are different matters, but what if, having decided that you prefer A to B, you then cannot tell the difference in a blind test? It would be a strange (and possibly dysfunctional?) brain that did not have its perceptions altered by bias and expectation. It is the way our brains work.
 
Quote:

   
I got tired of complaining and no one doing anything about it, so I'm doing it myself. It might take me a bit but I'll get there.
 
 
 
 

Well, good! The more the merrier.
 

 

Question about the psyche of you folks -- is there any other digital standard you argue against improving?  Did you avoid HD TV when it came out? I didn't get one until 2012 myself.  
 
Do you take low resolution digital pictures and post them to photo sites? Or do you take them full quality then reduce them to 20% JPG and throw out the original?
 
Do you swear there is no better gaming technology than Nintendo?
 
Do you work happily on a 286 or other computer from the 80's?
 
Do you use dial-up?
 
I'm the Mr. Vintage in my circles, so you types really fascinate me. Is there any other senses in the human body you think can be recreated with 256k of data?
 

 
Question about your psyche --- do you understand what examples. analogies, etc work, and are relevant and appropriate?
 
Not one of the above examples even suggests, to anybody but a marketing man (higher numbers, better, right?) that higher sampling rates in audio necessarily give better sound.
 
Words such as High-resolution have been borrowed from the visual world, where they mean something and make sense. It is not technical: it is just a marketing man's text.
 
 

 

[castleofargh]

 

 
Huh?   Read my posts, I don't need to hit you people with links, there's no test, I"m not your professor. This is a discussion, no one owns fact.
 
I understand ABX listening tests, I've participated, and I'm designing a better test to judge musical enjoyment.
 

 
I didn't think that ABX tests were to test "musical enjoyment." It seems to me that they set out to answer questions such as "A and B sound different to me: am I imagining it, or is it it for real?"
 
Having established difference, preference and enjoyment are different matters, but what if, having decided that you prefer A to B, you then cannot tell the difference in a blind test? It would be a strange (and possibly dysfunctional?) brain that did not have its perceptions altered by bias and expectation. It is the way our brains work.
 
Quote:

   
I got tired of complaining and no one doing anything about it, so I'm doing it myself. It might take me a bit but I'll get there.
 
 
 
 

Well, good! The more the merrier.
 

 

Question about the psyche of you folks -- is there any other digital standard you argue against improving?  Did you avoid HD TV when it came out? I didn't get one until 2012 myself.  
 
Do you take low resolution digital pictures and post them to photo sites? Or do you take them full quality then reduce them to 20% JPG and throw out the original?
 
Do you swear there is no better gaming technology than Nintendo?
 
Do you work happily on a 286 or other computer from the 80's?
 
Do you use dial-up?
 
I'm the Mr. Vintage in my circles, so you types really fascinate me. Is there any other senses in the human body you think can be recreated with 256k of data?
 

 
Question about your psyche --- do you understand what examples. analogies, etc work, and are relevant and appropriate?
 
Not one of the above examples even suggests, to anybody but a marketing man (higher numbers, better, right?) that higher sampling rates in audio necessarily give better sound.
 
Words such as High-resolution have been borrowed from the visual world, where they mean something and make sense. It is not technical: it is just a marketing man's text.
 
 

 

ask him to give back the link with his ideas about a proper test. if he didn't edit it, it's hilarious.

 

[arnyk]

 
 
ABX tests are garbage for music testing. They are completely counter to how we enjoy music.

 
 
Assertion without evidence. Do you understand what a logical argument is?

 

[arnyk]

   
I disagree entirely - and, in fact, I would assume the opposite. If a particular production company is going to offer both "standard res" and "high-res" versions of a given disc or song for sale, and is going to charge more for the high-res copy, then I would most certainly expect them to do their best to ensure that "the more expensive premium version" would sound "better" than "the economy version" - whether that simply means being more careful in production - or even means deliberately "degrading" the quality of the cheaper copy. (Just as I would expect a given car company's $120k model to be "better" than their $20k model - even if they have to deliberately compromise the performance of the cheaper model to maintain that relationship.) If there are any ways in which they can improve the quality, then the premium version will definitely get them first and, if there are any corners to be cut, then the economy version will see them cut first.

If this is true why is it that something like half of the SACDs and DVD-As released in the first 5 years after the formats were introduced were based on low resolution masters? The basic argument seems to be a tired reiteration of the worn out false idea that you always get what you pay for and the most expensive alernative is the best alternative. Do you really go into every store and buy the most expensive product so that you are sure to get the best?

 

[interpolate]

I'm a great believer in scientific prognosis however not of marketing projectile claims by advertisements. Didn't they say CD was indestructible?
 

 

[castleofargh]

  I'm a great believer in scientific prognosis however not of marketing projectile claims by advertisements. Didn't they say CD was indestructible?
 

very fragile as a freesbie, you need to take out at least 30CDs if you want to get any fun.

 

[KeithEmo]

If this is true why is it that something like half of the SACDs and DVD-As released in the first 5 years after the formats were introduced were based on low resolution masters?The basic argument seems to be a tired reiteration of the worn out false idea that you always get what you pay for and the most expensive alernative is the best alternative.Do you really go into every store and buy the most expensive product so that you are sure to get the best?

 
The problem here is that you're trying to read each of my "claims" in isolation - when, in fact, they all contribute.
 
Claim #1: If someone is selling multiple versions of the same product, similar but at different price points, it will be easier to sell the more expensive product if you can demonstrate some obvious superiority. (So, if you plan to charge more for the high-res download, then it does make sense to try and arrange things so it does sound noticeably better.)
 
Claim #2: Because many people, and Americans in particular, have a tendency to believe that "they get what they pay for", they tend to believe that more expensive products are better. (So, all else being equal, and no actual difference being there, they will tend to imagine that the more expensive one sounds - or tastes - better.)
 
Claim #3: Expectations in general affect what people experience. One such expectation is that more expensive products are better, but there are many others. In your specific example, lots of money and advertising was spent to convince people that SACDs and DVD-A discs are in fact "better" - which sets an expectation that they are superior. This would still have had some effect if the prices were the same. However, by also pricing them a bit higher, the two "expectation modifiers" work together.....  and people think: "It's the more expensive premium product AND I've heard they sound really good" - which gives them a stronger bias to expect a difference than either individual thing by itself.
 
There's an excellent book called "Influence" by Cialdini that goes into a lot of detail about all the different ways of influencing people - which talks about #2 and #3. There is one well known case where a liquor manufacturer introduced a new "top shelf" brand at the same reasonable prices as their "normal" products - and was greeted with rather poor sales. The solution was to simply raise the price by about 50%, while leaving the product untouched - and the result was that sales improved dramatically. (People were simply unwilling to believe that it was 'a top shelf product" because the price wasn't "top shelf".
 
My Claim #1 doesn't really fall into the category of "influence" since I'm suggesting that a manufacturer might deliberately reduce the quality of the cheaper product to ensure that the more expensive product is better, or that they might be willing to simply sell very similar products, and use various methods to manipulate people into perceiving that the more expensive product was better. Of course, real life isn't always so simple, so they may do a little of both.
 
To answer your question, I don't generally buy "the most expensive product"; however, if a company offers a line of several products at different price points, I tend to avoid the lowest priced one - because I do tend to be suspicious that they may have deliberately omitted important features to make that product distasteful enough to convince people to buy a more expensive one. ("Yes, we said we would sell you one for $10, and we wouldn't lie, but that $10 one is really cheesy - you really want at least the $20 one.") It's a pretty standard strategy to offer a very inexpensive alternative that you know is inadequate so you can claim the really low price, but not sell that low-profit unit to many customers.  
 
In general, what I've found is that, when a product line contains several similar products, the very lowest priced one is inadequate, the highest priced model includes lots of extra luxury features I really don't need, and, somewhere in the middle of the line, is the product that isn't missing any important features, but also doesn't have too many expensive luxury extras.

 

[arnyk]

Claim #1: If someone is selling multiple versions of the same product, similar but at different price points, it will be easier to sell the more expensive product if you can demonstrate some obvious superiority. (So, if you plan to charge more for the high-res download, then it does make sense to try and arrange things so it does sound noticeably better.)
 
Claim #2: Because many people, and Americans in particular, have a tendency to believe that "they get what they pay for", they tend to believe that more expensive products are better. (So, all else being equal, and no actual difference being there, they will tend to imagine that the more expensive one sounds - or tastes - better.)
 
Claim #3: Expectations in general affect what people experience. One such expectation is that more expensive products are better, but there are many others. In your specific example, lots of money and advertising was spent to convince people that SACDs and DVD-A discs are in fact "better" - which sets an expectation that they are superior. This would still have had some effect if the prices were the same. However, by also pricing them a bit higher, the two "expectation modifiers" work together.....  and people think: "It's the more expensive premium product AND I've heard they sound really good" - which gives them a stronger bias to expect a difference than either individual thing by itself.

How does all of the evidence-free speculation above square with posting on a forum titled "Sound Science"

 

[dprimary]

 
Oh I have to disagree here - a mix engineer and musician work to improve the sound coming from the instruments, usually so they mix together in a pleasing and artistic way.  A mix is a piece of art designed to enhance the material, not degrade.
 
Much of this is style, but I don't consider an electric guitar degraded after going through the pedal board and amp. I don't consider a snare degraded after it runs through a plate reverb. And I definitely don't consider anything degraded after running through a nice Focusrite EQ.
 
Overall - arranging the song, building the parts, layering the voices, and putting a mix on a song should not degrade it at all, it should improve every last bit of it as an overall work of art. If it degrades it, just record the band live and call it a day.
 
 
As far as comparing to live - it is different. Standing in front of the stage and listening to a rock band with 3-part harmonies is thrilling. But I can't hear all the separation and full spectrum of sound in most live environments. I love live the best, in person. If i'm going to listen to a pre-recorded, mixed piece of music the studio version will provide me with the best overall sound quality.

You are talking about production not audio quality. You are building up the mix in a pop production. You can polish the audio but you can't get more then what you started with. 
 
Considering the amount of times I have unplugged a guitar from a chain of pedals and directly into the amp after a guitarist complains about they can't get a good tone, and then they are amazed at the rich tone that was always there. 
 
Compared to the right microphone in the right place in a nice room a snare with plate reverb is second best. How many plate reverbs are still working? All EQ's have side effects, often the side effects are greater then what you are trying to correct. Many of the recordings of the last 10 years would sound much better if anyone tried the bypass button.
 
If the music is classical or jazz there is no mixing, overdubs, or effects. Microphone selection , preamps and placement is everything.
 
The change in sound quality is greater with a few inches of mic placement, then the difference between between 16/44.1 and 24/88.2 has ever been.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

 
In general, what I've found is that, when a product line contains several similar products, the very lowest priced one is inadequate, the highest priced model includes lots of extra luxury features I really don't need, and, somewhere in the middle of the line, is the product that isn't missing any important features, but also doesn't have too many expensive luxury extras.

 
In other words, you have more or less the same expectations and biases that most of us have (err, more or less) which is why the marketing guys have such ranges, with different price points, available.
 
I'm not accusing you of being a marketing man, or anything really rude like that ( ), but you manufacture/sell stuff, right? You must be aware of at least some of the psychology of buying and selling stuff?
 
I try, as a buyer, to be aware, but that still, often, does not change my behaviour. I want to buy a more expensive model when I go shopping. I can even get really pissed off if the salesman is an honest guy listing all the reasons why the cheaper one is just fine for me!

 

[arnyk]

 
Claim #1: If someone is selling multiple versions of the same product, similar but at different price points, it will be easier to sell the more expensive product if you can demonstrate some obvious superiority. (So, if you plan to charge more for the high-res download, then it does make sense to try and arrange things so it does sound noticeably better.)

 
The problem here is that we're talking audio where sound quality is usually determined by sighted evaluations that are inherently debilitatingly flawed as I have explained here without credible rebuttal many, many times.
 
In the minds of many audiophiles the demonstrations of obvious superiority is any reviewer's claim, any blogger's claim, any audiophile's claim no matter how inherently flawed and therefore irrelevant.
 
One of the best large-scale examples of this was given during the first 5-7 years after the introduction of SACD and DVD-A when audiophiles almost universally praised it, but in fact about 50% of all recordings were based on low resolution masters. 
 
The recordings were low resolution, but the public was told that they were high resolution and sold them at the higher price point. The "Obvious superiority" did not in fact exist.
 
This is obviously fraud. Do you support massive fraud like this?:

 

[FFBookman]

  You are talking about production not audio quality. You are building up the mix in a pop production. You can polish the audio but you can't get more then what you started with. 
 
Considering the amount of times I have unplugged a guitar from a chain of pedals and directly into the amp after a guitarist complains about they can't get a good tone, and then they are amazed at the rich tone that was always there. 
 
Compared to the right microphone in the right place in a nice room a snare with plate reverb is second best. How many plate reverbs are still working? All EQ's have side effects, often the side effects are greater then what you are trying to correct. Many of the recordings of the last 10 years would sound much better if anyone tried the bypass button.
 
If the music is classical or jazz there is no mixing, overdubs, or effects. Microphone selection , preamps and placement is everything.
 
The change in sound quality is greater with a few inches of mic placement, then the difference between between 16/44.1 and 24/88.2 has ever been.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, I totally agree.  There's all sorts of way to enhance, degrade, or modify the audio.  Of course performance is more important than any format or gear down the line. 
 
But I'm talking about distribution formats specifically, and I'm using production stories to give an example of what type of "polish" is lost when you degrade the audio format just for commercial purposes.
 
Most of the stuff removed from an MP3 is the "polish" of the instruments, this provides the depth, the placement, the timbre of the instrument. When that is attacked through lossy compression, AFTER being degraded with downsampling and dithering there is a noticeable drop in overall data in the sound.  This 2-step degradation is what I am working to remove from existance.
 
Of course, Apple tried to fix it and got it wrong. They pushed for 24bit masters for everyone (mastered for iTunes), got rid of the 16/44 standard, just so they can make better sounding 256k versions in their AAC format. It's asinine.
 
Apple:
"Give us the highest quality possible, so we can make tiny versions to sell at full price."
 
Plus the MP3 model sets the price standard and that's not even treated uniformly, because people don't understand the math: 
 
Apple sells 10 songs @ 256k for $10
and
Ponomusic sells the same 10 songs @ 3800k for $18
 
which is the better value? (assuming the masters are >= 3800k)

 

[sonitus mirus]

  Apple sells 10 songs @ 256k for $10
and
Ponomusic sells the same 10 songs @ 3800k for $18
 
which is the better value? (assuming the masters are >= 3800k)

 
That is easy.  For me, 10 songs at $10 is a bargain compared to 10 songs at $18.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

Originally Posted by FFBookman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
...
 
...
 
...
 
Most of the stuff removed from an MP3 ... ... ...

 
MP3 (my bold)?
 
Did you move the goal posts away from >16-bit/>44.1k lossless audio? Move them to lossy audio formats where you might have some chance of demonstrating actually degraded  sound?
 
Whether people can actually hear the difference between high-rate lossy and lossless is a whole other story. The goal posts in this thread are about 24/96-and-above lossless audio.
 
I've put the goal back in the right place: perhaps you'd like to take another kick?

 

[arnyk]

   
Most of the stuff removed from an MP3 is the "polish" of the instruments, this provides the depth, the placement, the timbre of the instrument. When that is attacked through lossy compression, AFTER being degraded with downsampling and dithering there is a noticeable drop in overall data in the sound.  This 2-step degradation is what I am working to remove from existance.

And the reliable evidence to support the above apparently unsupported claims is exactly where? Without reliable evidence the above is just heavy breathing, bragging, pontification, speculation, you pick the uncomplementary word. I'd bet money that if you were forced to save your life by ABXing a bunch of well-made MP3s from the high resolution recordings that for this test we will make them from, there would be a whole lot of random guessing followed by the unfortunate demise of someone we all know and love but know better to take his words at face value.