Dr. Sean Olive: New Evidence That Gen Y'ers Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

[Gregadd]

Amir we have had this discussion before. I assure you I have nothing personal against you or Sean Olive.

In rendering what is an opinion to the members of this forum it is fair game to divulge that persons affiliations and stated goals. While certain biases are not automatic disqualifiers they do have a heavy influence in evaluating said opinion. How can you possibly complain that soemone points out your goal when you have stated it?
In the field of ethics the profit motive is generally considered at the top of bias list. Followed by that, is the personal and professional philosophy of the individual rendering the opinion. If you put your opinion out there you can expect that opinion to be challenged by those who disagree. I think that is why we call these discussion posts."

It is my opinion that the purpose of high fidelity system is to reproduce music as close to the original event as possible. That is certainly not going to occur if you stated from the outset that is not your objective. I think a stereo should provide an exact replica of the original recording event. This apparently is not Sean's goal . I am reminded of the "booming" systems installed in cars by young men in my neighborhood. Not for me ,but it's their money. His (Sean)stated goal is to create something pleasing that he can sell to his employer and the general public. The fact that he arrived at the pleasant sound by using what he claims is a scientific method does not make it any less subjective. A goal that you appear to share with Sean based on our previous discussion. That does not make either of you bad. Manufacturing products the public likes for a profit is at the heart of our economic system.
Unlike Sean my opinions about music reproduction affects my system only. Sean has a much wider influence than I. It is unlikely that I can change his mind. Maybe I can influence those who would otherwise accept his unchallenged opinions verbatim. Indeed when anyone on this thread expresses an opinion designed to influence the public on what the goal their sound reproduction should be,I think I have a right to comment. Let the reader be the final arbiter of the validity of those opinions.

My goal and I think the goal of most audiophiles is to recreate the live event. You are correct that it is often difficult but not impossible to accomplish this goal. Somebody knows what it sounded like. We record the same instruments using the same recording devices millions maybe even billions of times. I doubt very seriously that users of MP3 players are being frustrated because my mp3 makes a Steinway sound like a Yamaha. Most high end systems are not that resolving. indeed as both you and Sean have stated that is not your goal. It appears your goal is to merely to create a sound that is pleasing to the listener. If you really have the ability to discern the difference because you own a system capable of such resolution and are that familiar with the two pianos, you can often find out by reading the album cover. Many music lovers such as myself have favorite groups with witch we are very familiar. We have been to their concerts and have all their recordings. Assuming the recording and our system is of a sufficient resolution we can try to distinguish the two.

I could go on to refute every claim in your post such as explaining industry jargon and professional listeners. I think I have made my point.

 

[amirm]

Greg, I will say this simply: I don't read any of the stuff you are attributing to Sean or me for that matter. I am at a loss as to where you are reading all of that into his posts (and again, mine).

This thread was simply about an experiment he ran. The experiment data is not an opinion. It is not subject to his bias unless you can show that in how he created the test. And just in case you are not looking, his experiment was to validate your hobby as mattering to the next generation .

Sean has been great in telling us who he is, and signing his posts with a link to his blog where people can know all they want to know about him. So there is no game is being played to hide professional bias.

Sean works for a very respected high-end Audio/Video company including brands such as Revel. As such, his efforts are in support of this hobby, not against it. If he worked for Bose and came here showing studies that their audio systems are just as good as yours, I could understand everything you have to say. But this is the exact opposite. He ran a study where even young people found quality differences between CD and MP3. That should be music to the ears of the forum members, not the voice of a shill for his company.

Your objection as best as I can figure out is that anyone who uses double-blind tests, must automatically be catering to mass market and not care about high fidelity audio reproduction. This is not logical to me as there is no proof that if I use DBT tests, I automatically am biased to build inferior products.

 

[Gregadd]

As plainly as I can state it.

I have nothing against blind tests per se. I do think that ABX is flawed.
If you and Sean are committed to live music as the standard then that is the end of the discussion. My memory suggests that both indicated that the goal was to make a pleasing sound form a compressed signal that was pleasing to listeners and marketable to employers. If that is not true then end of discussion.
I do not know of any bias on the part of you or Sean. Much ofmy information on Sean was obtained as a result of amy own Google search. If I suggested such. I apologize. Potential conflicting obligations or motives must be revealed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That is whether or not there is a conflcit in fact. Remember nobody thinks their opinion is biased. They are just right.

I don't believe anyone is biased just because they use DBT. A person can be biased for a plethora of reasons. Some of which are not even rational. What I suggested is ,if you goal is to create a product that is merely subjectively pleasing to the listener derived from a compressed signal that is admittedly missing some of the musical artifacts of the original, then that would lead to a substandard result. Logically then if my premise is wrong then so is the conclusion. If the premise Is correct....
I hope no one was offended.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Me thinks Sean is somewhere ahead of the curve if I read his posts correctly in that he's not trying to prove that everything sounds the same.

I also like that they have a "listening" panel that allows them to test their ideas and see if it results in audible changes. That said, I don't think that all immediate audible changes are necessarily for the better; instead, many turn out in the long run to be wearing.

Have to say Greg that I don't think that all audiophile want fidelity to the original recording; instead, it seems that many still want a technicolored product. Hearing some of these products, I think that I wish music sounded that way but it doesn't.

 

[Jay_S]

Have to say Greg that I don't think that all audiophile want fidelity to the original recording; instead, it seems that many still want a technicolored product. Hearing some of these products, I think that I wish music sounded that way but it doesn't.

Some good points. Fidelity is an appealing concept. But for many recordings the concept of a "replica" is only a concept; in the case of most studio recordings there is nothing to be faithful to. And live recordings? Much of the time, I don't know whether I would want to hear exactly the same thing at home.

I don't necessarily want technicolored stereo equipment, but I do want products that are fun to listen to and lack annoying colorations or fatiguing distortions. Yes, this usually requires equipment classified as "hi fi" or "high end". But since I find fidelity to be a complex and ambiguous idea, I don't have any expection that a particular upgrade will result in higher fidelity. More listening enjoyment? Definitely. But higher fidelity? A possible result, but not necessarily the best metric for me.

 

[FrantzM]

Me thinks Sean is somewhere ahead of the curve if I read his posts correctly in that he's not trying to prove that everything sounds the same.

I also like that they have a "listening" panel that allows them to test their ideas and see if it results in audible changes. That said, I don't think that all immediate audible changes are necessarily for the better; instead, many turn out in the long run to be wearing.

Have to say Greg that I don't think that all audiophile want fidelity to the original recording; instead, it seems that many still want a technicolored product. Hearing some of these products, I think that I wish music sounded that way but it doesn't.

'tis not often that I find myself in complete agreement with Myles ... ... I would go further and say that there is a rising tendency toward Audio Relativism.. It could be summarized by "If it sounds good to me then it is good" ... I. also have heard some of these "pleasing" systems and even for their owners they are far from accurate but ..hey, they like it so it must be good ..
I also welcome any serious and scientific studies that would allow us to relate objective measurements to perception. I also welcome the use of trained listeners. We, audiophiles, have, if not systematically but along the course of listening to audio systems and (hopefully) to live music, trained ourselves to hear nuances. I would venture that many of us are not "average" listeners, so explaining, correlating, what we hear to hard data is welcome ... That there is a profit motive is not a real concern to me as long as the science is sound and peer reviews available.. Our favorite high end manufacturers are in for the money too .. How else can you explain the rising prices of High End components ? Too often the "proof" they present are anecdotes and the production of a (our) sound checkbook ...

Frantz

 

[Steve williams]

The way I see it (or hear it) is that we play LP's, Cd's and tapes all of which are mastered differently. We all collect different versions of the same album because they sound different. What Myles (and myself included ) is saying is that a little flavor specific to one's ears is not necessarily a bad thing. These arguments take me back to the days when "graphic equalizers" were the rage and basically we were setting it for a flavor that appealed to our ears. Now there are more sophisticated methods such as TacT etc

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I hope this doesn't throw the thread off track... I can understand preferences .. We are not dealing with perfect transducers/reproducers and they will favor certain area of the frequency spectrum .. This may have a better midrange not as a good the treble or the bass, etc .. What I object to are these often expensive components which color the sound in a uniform fashion through these everything acquire a coloration which may be judged "good" by some ... that a fender sound like a Gibson or a Steinway liek a Bodendorfer is almost lost in the discussion ... This is becoming more and more prevalent in High End Audio... I surmise this: What are we after if the recording not to be a replica as best as we can of the original ? Else we can simply remove the vocable High Fidelity from all our discussions ... which will be further irrelevant since we are discussing about taste ONLY?

back to the subject at End .. The new generation can discern better sound .. in this days of Terabyte HDD for $30 and ever increasing processing power, could it be that mp3 is on its way out, could it be that kids will be carrying their collection in lossless formats? .. Coul it be that he future is looking a little better ? ... wouldn't you say ?

Frantz

 

[Gregadd]

Hi

I hope this doesn't throw the thread off track... I can understand preferences .. We are not dealing with perfect transducers/reproducers and they will favor certain area of the frequency spectrum .. This may have a better mid range not as a good the treble or the bass, etc .. What I object to are these often expensive components which color the sound in a uniform fashion through these everything acquire a coloration which may be judged "good" by some ... that a fender sound like a Gibson or a Steinway like a Bodendorfer is almost lost in the discussion ... This is becoming more and more prevalent in High End Audio... I surmise this: What are we after if the recording not to be a replica as best as we can of the original ? Else we can simply remove the vocable High Fidelity from all our discussions ... which will be further irrelevant since we are discussing about taste ONLY?

back to the subject at End .. The new generation can discern better sound .. in this days of Terabyte HDD for $30 and ever increasing processing power, could it be that mp3 is on its way out, could it be that kids will be carrying their collection in lossless formats? .. Could it be that he future is looking a little better ? ... wouldn't you say ?

Frantz

I agree totally..

The point I am trying to make is why do we have to reinvent the wheel? Is not the path to High Fidelity (high fidelity not perfect fidelity )already blazed? Not only are we blazing a new path to the same place at considerable time and expense ,we are casting doubt on whether the old path is the right one. It never bothers me when others take off on their own trail and find a new path. I always know eventually they are coming to close down my path and force me to pay to re travel theirs.

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

Regarding MP3, this format was created during the days of scarce resources, meaning limited bandwidth, memory, processing power, and so forth, namely things that cost somebody money. Now, today, almost all of these scarce resources are abundant, but it takes a while for entire communities (usually a generation) to forget about what was, and to design for what is.

To my ears, MP3 always sounded dreadful, on car radios all the way up to reference grade equipment (sounding progressively worse as the underlying system improved). Apart from the strain and distortion in timbres, the evaporation of the soundstage, there was always some kind of swirling confusion going on, as if the music was floating on top of boiling water.

The current version of Windows Media audio comes in a lossless format, as was pointed out. While the lossy versions don't always convey the entirety of the music, the differences are inoffensive in nature, meaning the music is pleasant, euphonic, and overall seems much more complete and spatially stable than MP3 does. Of course with the Seagate 1.5 TB USB drives (five year warranty, no less) at Costco selling for $90, everything can be ripped to WAV without worrying about disk space.

Regarding video codecs, it's amazing the very high degree of compression (bits in versus bits out) that still produces rather engaging imagery. These same levels of compression would destroy music completely. I wonder how it's possible to get away with this in vision, but not in audio? Presumably motion is a big part of allowing this to happen, given that the spatial and temporal resolution of the human visual system for moving objects, and anything outside the fovea is pretty low.

Sean? Any ideas?

And as Steve pointed out, mastering is different depending on the delivery codec and distribution format. Some absolutely wonderful CDs can sound rather strangely in high-resolution versions; the mastering is different, and possibly not as well done.

My personal preference is for gear that reproduces the recording as neutrally as possible. If it's a poor recording, too bad, but that's the way it is. Colorations, in my experience, get really tiring over time. One's attention is drawn to the constant coloration, regardless of the music, and this is no fun.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree totally..

The point I am trying to make is why do we have to reinvent the wheel? Is not the path to High Fidelity (high fidelity not perfect fidelity )already blazed? Not only are we blazing a new path to the same place at considerable time and expense ,we are casting doubt on whether the old path is the right one. It never bothers me when others take off on their own trail and find a new path. I always know eventually they are coming to close down my path and force me to pay to re travel theirs.

I might also add Greg that there are many paths to audio nirvana! Truth be told, our systems will never be like live music. And there are always tradeoffs in the design of equipment and speakers. In the case of speakers, there are some audiophiles who value dynamics (they might be horn or big speaker lovers), those who value resolution, neutrality, midrange and speed (they might be electrostatic owners), those who value full frequency response (big, dynamic speakers), or those who value soundstaging (fill in the blank).

 

[amirm]

The reason video is so much easier to compress (achieving nearly lossless quality at just 5% of the original!), is that the source has high degree of redundancy. A person standing in front of the building takes little to compress. If the person moves but the building does (duh! ), you only need to retransmit the person, not the building. Ditto for sky, the set in a movie scene, etc. In sharp contrast, audio is a mess. Most instruments generate transients that are not predictable and there is nothing that compares to the background of video in audio. As a result, near lossless audio compression requires 30 to 40% of the source on the average.

The other reason is that the eye is not as critical of an instrument as the ear. We can throw away half the color and you don't even notice it. We can't do anything like that in audio.

On the other hand, people can freeze video and analyze it to death, finding any artifacts. Can't do that to audio. So if you are a "pixel peeper," you may not be satisfied with video as much as a person just watching the movie whole.

 

[Ron Party]

Greg, I will say this simply: I don't read any of the stuff you are attributing to Sean or me for that matter. I am at a loss as to where you are reading all of that into his posts (and again, mine).

Nor do I, nor does anyone on any of the other on-line fora where Dr. Olive has posted about his test.

This thread was simply about an experiment he ran. The experiment data is not an opinion.

Exactly.

It is not subject to his bias unless you can show that in how he created the test.

Indeed, if Dr. Olive had any bias in designing and conducting this test, which anyone would be hard pressed to prove, his bias would be to skew the design and test in favor of higher fidelity, not against it. A casual reading of the many studies he has undertaken clearly demonstrates a body of work designed to improve music production and reproduction.

Sean works for a very respected high-end Audio/Video company including brands such as Revel. As such, his efforts are in support of this hobby, not against it. If he worked for Bose and came here showing studies that their audio systems are just as good as yours, I could understand everything you have to say. But this is the exact opposite. He ran a study where even young people found quality differences between CD and MP3. That should be music to the ears of the forum members, not the voice of a shill for his company. [Emphasis added.]

Exactly.

Read his blog. The very first paragraph states:

Sound quality in mainstream music recording and reproduction is all but dead, at least according to the media reports published over the past year. [Footnotes omitted.] On the music production side, music quantity (as in volume and decibels) matters more than quality and dynamic range. Record executives and producers are forcing artists to squash the dynamics and life from their music in order to be the loudest record on the charts. [Footnote omitted.]. Listening to one of these albums can induce an instant migraine, making you wonder if the record companies aren’t secretly owned by the makers of Excedrin.

If this isn't an introduction written by someone who wants to improve music production and reproduction, then what the heck is?

After making reference to the Berger study, which seemingly supported the notion that Gen Y'ers preferred a lesser sound quality, Dr. Olive writes:

If someone doesn’t soon stand up for Generation Y and show some evidence that they care about sound quality, its death may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

And, finally, Dr. Olive concludes his blog with the following:

The audio industry should not discount the potential opportunities to provide a higher quality audio experience to members of Generation Y. The popular belief that they don’t care about or appreciate sound quality needs to be critically reexamined

 

[The Smokester]

Understood that higher fidelity is usually prefered. I'm glad it works out in such a "common sensible" way.

I guess I am thinking of a "less of evils" situation which is slightly different. For example, if one has an audio system comprised of monitors only, then one probably gravitates to albums of chamber music or voices--something where the mid-range is most important. Albums with a lot of deep bass just aren't going to make sense on such a system as they just don't fit through the window of the system's capabilities.

 

[Gregadd]

I was listening to the radio and (WETA)they were broadcasting their young artist program. A young cellist was interviewed and revealed he also played electric guitar. He revealed that he was heavy into vinyl because it just sounded so much better than cd. Further inquiry revealed he was building his own tube amp for his guitar. He reached these conclusions by his own ear without the aid of any studies or magazine reviews. Somewhere someone had exposed him to the possibilities. If you expose humans to the best it will open their mind to the possibilities. They will excel. We may never be able to duplicate the live event. It will be a sad day when we give up trying.
When I turn on the the music and take a momentary break from reality.The artist tries to convey who was born, who died, who inspired them, who broke their spirit.who was true to them, who cheated on them, why they quit, why they persevered, or just dancing or being silly. If my stereo can get out of the way of that illusion nothing else really matters.

might also add Greg that there are many paths to audio nirvana

Yes but only one destination. The recreation of the original event. If we abandon that goal we surely shall be loss in the wilderness.

 

[Gregadd]

Perhaps one should take a look at Dr. Olive's entire body of work and not just his lament of the current situation. Bias is not necessary to hold the wrong opinion. Nor does the lack of bias make ones opinions immune from challenge.
I should remind myself what I advise young lawyers. Rarely will a witness recant his position on cross examination. He can however be forced to answer a series of questions that will expose his error.

I assume everyone has good motives. Until proven otherwise Does that mean that all our opinions are beyond reproach? Has not valid scientific opinions been prpoven wrong or modified over time?

Quite frankly I doubt if I am the first to challenge his opinions. Nor will I be the last. I wager he is a big boy and can defend himself. l hope he cntinues to contribute here and look forwrd to the lively debates.

 

[Ron Party]

Perhaps one should take a look at Dr. Olive's entire body of work and not just his lament of the current situation. Bias is not necessary to hold the wrong opinion. Nor does the lack of bias make ones opinions immune from challenge.

So please do. Look at his entire body of work. But please educate yourself before forming any conclusions. Just look at your complete misunderstanding of lossy, lossless and compression as those terms were and are consistently used not only by Dr. Olive but everyone else, as Amir pointed out to you. And please educate yourself on the scientific method. It will serve to further an honest and credible discussion.

Moreover, Dr. Olive will be the first one to tell you - and I think he already has stated this here (?) and certainly in other on-line fora - that one of the reasons that he posted the initial test results is exactly so people can comment and make suggestions on how to improve the test design and implementation. He already has stated he intends to conduct further studies. It is this very transparency of the scientific method that elevates it above sighted methodologies which inherently involve things like expectancy and confirmation biases and produce unreliable, unrepeatable results.

Finally, on this subject, if you think he is biased, notwithstanding the fact you have not a shred of evidence to support such belief, then conduct the study for yourself. Indeed, any one for him/her-self can conduct this same blind study to determine his/her preference for MP3 @ 128 vs. CD, in his/her own room with his/her own equipment, using any source material he/she deems appropriate, and listen for as long as he/she cares.

I assume everyone has good motives. Until proven otherwise Does that mean that all our opinions are beyond reproach? Has not valid scientific opinions been prpoven [sic] wrong or modified over time? [Emphasis added.]

I'll put aside the concept of scientific *opinion* versus consensus within the scientific community for now.

However, as noted ad nauseum, the data is the data. If you think he misinterpreted the data, explain why. If you think he designed and/or implemented an inherently faulty test, explain why. Prove his bias. Prove him wrong. Just don't confuse the person (Dr. Olive) with the test (the scientific method). So far all I've read is that you believe he's biased because you believe it is possible he is biased.

 

[Gregadd]

So please do. Look at his entire body of work. But please educate yourself before forming any conclusions. Just look at your complete misunderstanding of lossy, lossless and compression as those terms were and are consistently used not only by Dr. Olive but everyone else, as Amir pointed out to you. And please educate yourself on the scientific method. It will serve to further an honest and credible discussion.

I am sure Dr. Olive has plenty of work with which I am not familiar. He has probably forgot some of it himself. I was at least familiar with those points I discussed.
Lawyers have legalese. i took a legal writing course recently where we examined a section of a contract. All the lawyers agreed they had no idea what he was talking. A consult with lawyer who wrote admitted it was intended to to be confusing. To suggest hat everyone knows what they mean is is not only naive but wrong. As to scientific method I have an honors degree in mathematics.

Moreover, Dr. Olive will be the first one to tell you - and I think he already has stated this here (?) and certainly in other on-line fora - that one of the reasons that he posted the initial test results is exactly so people can comment and make suggestions on how to improve the test design and implementation. He already has stated he intends to conduct further studies. It is this very transparency of the scientific method that elevates it above sighted methodologies which inherently involve things like expectancy and confirmation biases and produce unreliable, unrepeatable results.

Transparency Quite frankly I looked at the doctors blog and it s lack of detail was somewhat troubling, is. What is a trained listener? What music and equipment were utilized. When i clicked on the link it had expired. not his fault. iI am sure you would argue that's not important because everybody already knows it. I am sure he has nothing to hide.
Unreliable repeatable results? I assure you my stereo sounds like music every time I turn it on. Sometimes better than others. As an audiophile that's' all that matters to me.

Finally, on this subject, if you think he is biased, notwithstanding the fact you have not a shred of evidence to support such belief, then conduct the study for yourself. Indeed, any one for him/her-self can conduct this same blind study to determine his/her preference for MP3 @ 128 vs. CD, in his/her own room with his/her own equipment, using any source material he/she deems appropriate, and listen for as long as he/she cares.

You need to take an Ethics course. At that course they would teach you the difference between conflict of interest and bias in fact. Bias is a completely subjective term. I know you don't like that word. Bias can never be proven. Then what you do is is identify the conflicting interest. To determine potential bias you evaluate those conflicts against the opinion or assertion to determine if the conflict is so strong that it has an effect on credibility. Many have strong conflicts of interest. Often the strength of their opinion or assertion of fact blots out any question of bias. In Dr. Olives case I merely pointed out his conflicts of interest and his stated goals. It is then is up to anyone considering his opinions or research to make his own assessment.



I'll put aside the concept of scientific *opinion* versus consensus within the scientific community for now.

However, as noted ad nauseum, the data is the data. If you think he misinterpreted the data, explain why. If you think he designed and/or implemented an inherently faulty test, explain why. Prove his bias. Prove him wrong. Just don't confuse the person (Dr. Olive) with the test (the scientific method). So far all I've read is that you believe he's biased because you believe it is possible he is biased.

I had this problem with a drug test. The judge refused to allow me to argue A DEA chemical analysis might be defective. It was a scientific test and reached a scientific conclusion based on accepted scientific tests(Shortly thereafter that DEA was subjected of a huge scandal regarding falsified test results.) Of course the court of appeals ruled against the judge saying that it was ann opinion based on alleged facts. I should have unfettered ability to argue defects in the facts(data) and his conclusion that is was in fact cocaine.
Finally
I was advising others . As I have and continue to look at his work I am not impressed by those who claim their conclusion is superior merely because they used ". science. " I have a degree in mathematics and am at least vaguely familiar with scientific methods. At the inception of my participation in this hobby I was an objectivist. As educated as I considered myself to have been I could not ignore what my ears heard. I have no desire to continually indulge in audio 101 and argue against flat earthers. Again my apology to Dr. Olive if I offended him in any way. I've already wasted to much of my time on this. There is lot more on this site that makes me enjoy my sIereo and exercise my desire to share it with others. I leave this to you and others who are impressed.
I refer you my discussions with Roger Sanders of SandersSounsystems On the Speakers thread. I queried him on his theories and expressed my doubts. He has an obvious conflict of interest. His motive to sell his product. He was not the least bit offended and gave detailed descriptions of his positions. I never figured that a disagreement with anyone would ruffle so many feathers.
I'm done.

Enjoy the music. I know I will.

 

[amirm]

Greg, you have me totally confused with these posts and from the PMs I have received a number of others are in the same boat.

So can you please answer one and only one question: do you disagree with the results of Sean's tests that show young people did manage to prefer CD to MP3?

You don't need to say why. I am just trying to figure out what battle you are fighting.

 

[Gregadd]

I'm done.