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

[Ron Party]

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.

Amir, I share the same confusion.

As I noted, if Dr. Olive is biased, which again there isn't a shred of evidence to support that conclusion, then his bias is in favor of higher fidelity, that is why I went to the labor of quoting language in his blog. If there is a conflict of interest, it remains unclear what is the conflict. Is it to state that the fact he is employed by Harmon caused him to design and implement a test which would skew the results in favor of CD and against compressed MP3 @ 128?

 

[amirm]

I think it is reasonable to assume that Greg worries that if we accept the results of this test as being factual, that it is prima facie evidence that double blind tests are valid. And once there, subjectivists are all wrong to use their own ears for evaluation.

It is a reasonable fear to some extent and the argument in the wrong hands, could be considered a neat trick to corner someone . But neither I, nor Sean are of the type to try to trap people that way. One test cannot be representative of all tests. And there is no shortage of poorly done DBTs which do not generate real scientific data. Imagine if Sean had used easy to encode material that sounded nearly perfect in MP3 and came back saying everyone thought MP3 = CD quality! So I would say Greg's fear is unfounded in multiple ways.

I like to encourage Greg as a valued member of our forum and one of our moderators to sit back and let the information flow. I doubt that too many people will get injured in the process of hearing what Sean has to say . Now me, that is another matter entirely .

 

[Ron Party]

I think it is reasonable to assume that Greg worries that if we accept the results of this test as being factual, that it is prima facie evidence that double blind tests are valid. And once there, subjectivists are all wrong to use their own ears for evaluation.

It is a reasonable fear to some extent and the argument in the wrong hands, could be considered a neat trick to corner someone . But neither I, nor Sean are of the type to try to trap people that way. One test cannot be representative of all tests. And there is no shortage of poorly done DBTs which do not generate real scientific data. Imagine if Sean had used easy to encode material that sounded nearly perfect in MP3 and came back saying everyone thought MP3 = CD quality! So I would say Greg's fear is unfounded in multiple ways.

I like to encourage Greg as a valued member of our forum and one of our moderators to sit back and let the information flow. I doubt that too many people will get injured in the process of hearing what Sean has to say .

I agree with everything you wrote.

Now me, that is another matter entirely .

Amir, say it ain't so!

 

[tonmeister2008]

1. 
   
   ​

I know I can tell the difference between 128k MP3 and 320k or lossless and that my preference is for the higher sampling rates. When I first bought my iPod Classic I converted my flac library to mp3 to get it on the player. I was very disappointed in the iPod's performance and posted about it on Head-Fi where I was lambasted thoroughly. I then discovered that the setting on the format converter was inadvertently set to 128k and had to retract my post.

Some of what is written in this thread reminds me of what becomes ones favorite recordings: Namely, ones that your system plays well. This is a type of self-selection. Is it not a possibility that MP3 encoding complements the sounds that the latest generation wants, and is accustomed, to hearing?

Hi Smokester

You make a couple of excellent points:

1) many consumers and professionals (including the press and many executives at audio companies) don't seem to understand the relationship between sound quality and how these following factors influence it:

a) Ipod,
b) the quality of the original recording
c ) the quality of the music encoding (lossless versus lossy: for lossy coding sound quality is significantly affected by choice of codec, bit rate, constant versus variable encoding,etc)
d) the performance of headphones.​

Among those four factors, the Ipod probably has the least influence on the sound quality. Factors b) and d) tend to be most variable, and c) can get you decent results if you make the right choices.

2) The other excellent point you make is that we tend to favor recordings that make our system sound good. That is illustrative of the "circle of confusion" problem that I raised in my previous post, and one of the nuisance variables that makes live versus reproduced listening tests problematic (i.e. the method assumes the recordings through which judge the loudspeaker to the live instrument(s) are perfect, which we know is not true).

If the recording/music industry had its act together you should be able to randomly select any recording of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring or similar work from your library and equally impress your friends with the quality of your sound system (or conversely shock them with how bad it sounds). The fact that you have to cherry pick the recordings indicates how variable the quality of recordings are, and that we need some form of standardization/calibration of the playback chain where the recordings are made.

Whether or not there is an interaction between MP vs CD preference and music style and the quality of the headphones or loudspeakers -- that is something I hope to test.

 

[MylesBAstor]

1. 
   
   ​

If the recording/music industry had its act together you should be able to randomly select any recording of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring or similar work from your library and equally impress your friends with the quality of your sound system (or conversely shock them with how bad it sounds). The fact that you have to cherry pick the recordings indicates how variable the quality of recordings are, and that we need some form of standardization/calibration of the playback chain where the recordings are made.

Whether or not there is an interaction between MP vs CD preference and music style and the quality of the headphones or loudspeakers -- that is something I hope to test.

The problem is that the recording industry has proven time and time again that it will always select THE least common denominator, not the best. After all, especially in today's economy, it's all about the allmight dollar. (it's already been discussed ad nauseum why the music industry adopted the CD format and quite frankly it had little to do with sound). Ergo that's where the audiophile labels stepped in. But the problem with the audiophile labels is that they don't in general have the kind of cash to get top flight artists on their labels. Even look at Alan Silver back in the '60s. He was pretty good at A&R and found a bunch of young musicians who later went onto to stardom! But Khan, de Plata and Moravec were virtually unknown back then

Now there are a few studios where they take some pride in their product but as a whole the industry is really changing IMHO away from the classic music business model and moving toward home recording. Nowadays a bunch of kids can record in their garage and put it up online and I'd venture to say a lot of the younger gen get their music d/l in this manner. So standardization is going to be difficult if not impossible.

 

[Gregadd]

Myles-The untold story is how many great artists are without contract. Can you imagine Joni Mitchell having to shop her new album like a kid on the rise. (See her interview on The Tavis Smiley Show PBS) Ironically the industry was hoisted on its own petard. Digital actually made home studios easier and with the internet the Industry's iron grip on radio play lists and distribution is not so critical.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles-The untold story is how many great artists are without contract. Can you imagine Joni Mitchell having to shop her new album like a kid on the rise. (See her interview on The Tavis Smiley Show PBS) Ironically the industry was hoisted on its own petard. Digital actually made home studios easier and with the internet the Industry's iron grip on radio play lists and distribution is not so critical.

Oh so true. And most orchestras lost their contracts too. Many orchestras (and other classical groups) went to self production.

I guess the shame of it all is that a best selling classical or jazz release nowadays is 5000-10,000 copies. Compare that to rock where it best seller is 10^6 copies ;(

 

[FrantzM]

Oh so true. And most orchestras lost their contracts too. Many orchestras (and other classical groups) went to self production.

I guess the shame of it all is that a best selling classical or jazz release nowadays is 5000-10,000 copies. Compare that to rock where it best seller is 10^6 copies ;(

No shame , just a matter of tastes ...

To come back to Greg last post in this thread, there is movement of which we have not seen the end: Direct distribution by the artists or entity they control. This is the next step in Music IMO.
On another front, the widespread availability of decent recording gear will allow more artists to record, produce and distribute at lesser costs... Processing power is increasing by the day while prices are decreasing ... A Digital Audio Workstation capable of the highest fidelity can be had for around 10 K these days complete with hardware and software... Drop the file on the Internet and Voila!! .. The "album" sells ... In reality this is more complex but this is what we are going toward and fast ...
To come back to the original post/thread... The fact that people would choose the better format given the choice is encouraging.. Storage price is decreasing precipitously, and it is a matter of time before mp3 at the lowest rate 128 Kb/s may not be needed ..

Now I have put my flame suit on ..

Many would be surprised to hear how good mp3 at 320 Kb/s sounds ON CERTAIN MUSIC .. and no not only rock but classical as well ... more than decent in many instances ... On comparison the CD is definitely better on the same playback system but on its own much better than one would expected ...
try it you may be surprised ...

Frantz

 

[Gregadd]

Romeo-Arise fair sun and kill the envious moon. Or the more pedestrian better is the enemy of good and the best is better still.

 

[Jay_S]

Many would be surprised to hear how good mp3 at 320 Kb/s sounds ON CERTAIN MUSIC .. and no not only rock but classical as well ... more than decent in many instances ... On comparison the CD is definitely better on the same playback system but on its own much better than one would expected ...
try it you may be surprised ...

Frantz

No flame needed. I agree that the 320kbps sound can be surprisingly good (though I'd love to retest that conclusion on the big Steve Williams system). But since this is the Whats' Best Forum, and storage is cheap, the good news is that we don't need to worry about mp3 unless it is the only thing available.

 

[Steve Williams]

No flame needed. I agree that the 320kbps sound can be surprisingly good (though I'd love to retest that conclusion on the big Steve Williams system). But since this is the Whats' Best Forum, and storage is cheap, the good news is that we don't need to worry about mp3 unless it is the only thing available.

FWIW, last year when Marty visited he plugged his iPod into my preamp and played several music selections. They sounded astonishingly good.

 

[FrantzM]

Where they in mp3 or Lossless ? Did the IPod go through a dock like the Wadia ?

Frantz

 

[Steve Williams]

Where they in mp3 or Lossless ? Did the IPod go through a dock like the Wadia ?

Frantz

Went direct into my preamp.

I'll verify with Marty the format and let you know

 

[Ron Party]

I agree that the 320kbps sound can be surprisingly good (though I'd love to retest that conclusion on the big Steve Williams system).

As Amir has often stated, and I have no doubt Dr. Olive would wholeheartedly concur, MP3 @ 320 and CD are almost indistinguishable from one another absent some training and careful selection of source material.

On the subject of training, which is deserving of its own thread here - perhaps I will start one in the near future - Dr. Olive and Harmon are in the process of making available a new computer based listener training program which, it is my understanding, they hope to make available for free to recording engineers, students, audio reviewers, and us general audio consumers to increase consumer awareness and appreciation for higher quality audio recording and reproduction.

You can read more about it here:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/05/harmans-how-to-listen-new-listener.html

I personally look forward to it, even though I strongly suspect I will be quite humbled when I learn I did not know nearly as much as I thought I knew in evaluating sound quality.

 

[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.

I thought of a clarification to what I was trying to say here:

One experiment is to vary the capabilities of the playback system until original albums sound, by concensus, the best.

The other experiment is to take a less-than-perfect, but constant, playback system (including compression) and play various albums to see which one(s) sound the best.

While the latter may seem like an ill-posed problem (in my mind it could be parsed into testable hypotheses) there is no question that you could pose it to many audiophiles and they would have no problem answering it in the context of the own system. I would also contend that we all do this selection process of finding the "best albums" (perhaps) unconsciously on our own systems and by extension wonder if it helps define the "taste" of individuals who listen mostly to compressed music.

 

[LesAuber]

In reading through this I'm surprised at the amount of controversy generated over a test that in the end simply proved that people, given the opportunity, can still hear. I do wonder if the results would have been the same if conducted sighted. I have little contact with teens but we have a fair number of early twenty somethings come through on co-op programs. When the subject of music comes up I find the number of them that are convinced as in true believers that low bit rate MP3 sounds as good as CD with no interest in learning or hearing that there is a difference is on the order of a 100%.

I expect this belief will be the biggest obstacle to overcome if the industry and hobby is going to continue in any recognizable fashion. Not that they prefer one over the other or can't hear the difference, just that they're convinced that there isn't one.

 

[Gregadd]

OTHO when hearing my system without knowing the source they are always impressed. Their curiosity is piqued. My point is given the oppurtunity to excercise their prejudice for different storage media , they will. Given the oppurtunity to listen to good music they will. We already have multiple sources of excellent music. Why do we continue to reinvent the wheel?

 

[LesAuber]

Beats me. Though I expect that some of the reinvented wheels would have done better if the corporate lawyers had stayed out of it. Having to have a separate set of good DACs in a player plus the clutter of extra cables for an analog pass through all added cost to SACD for instance. All to satisfy the need to have a proprietary link if the signal left the player as anything but analog. Again screwing the folks that bought the software. The rest likely just converted analog to 128 kb/s mp3 and went on.

Overcoming the prejudice is the trick. It takes something like not knowing to demonstrate the difference. Same thing happens with LP. But if they won't come to listen there's not much else to do.

 

[tonmeister2008]

OTHO Why do we continue to reinvent the wheel?

A cynic would say the reason is profit: to get everyone to replace their equipment and music collection for the nth time; vinyl, 8-track, cassette tape, CD, R-DAT, Mini Disc, Laser Disc, DVD, MP3, AAC 128, DVD-A, SACD, AAC 256, FLAC 24/96k BLU-RAY, vinyl.....? Did I forget a format?

 

[MylesBAstor]

A cynic would say the reason is profit: to get everyone to replace their equipment and music collection for the nth time; vinyl, 8-track, cassette tape, CD, R-DAT, Mini Disc, Laser Disc, DVD, MP3, AAC 128, DVD-A, SACD, AAC 256, FLAC 24/96k BLU-RAY, vinyl.....? Did I forget a format?

Yes reel to reel tape, specifically, 15 ips 2 track reel to reel. Blows away anything you mentioned. The we could talk about 71/2 ip/2 track (the other tape formats are eminently forgettable for sound quality).

And it was all about mass quantities. Vinyl could be produced faster and in larger quantities than tape. Then came along CDs (complete dreck). Then came along internet music d/l (even bigger dreck). Every one's been a step down in quality while appealing to a wider audience (so to speak).