• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

David Chesky on Streaming Convenience vs Sound Quality

Actually, he did. It’s part of the Theory of Relativity.
I think your awareness of sarcasm is absent here.

This is the wrong room for your act.
 
Ok since you insist: for starter, the way we use a singular microphone to simulate our auditory system.
This HAS to be a troll.
 
They had until a young physicist named Albert Einstein started to question the whole reasoning around universal gravitational rotation and poked some holes in it.

What is "universal gravitational rotation" ? Are you referring, in some very contorted way, to one of the tests Einstein proposed that explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?

The whole earth is spinning, I know you don’t feel you are moving but you are.

There is a very simple reason for that...
 
That’s my point. It can also change, just like the theory that I knew in high school about gravity changed. It’s no longer about masses but involves time-lenses. That’s ok. We are moving forward. I wish I could see where we will be in the year 5000.
Funny thing is that cannonball still fly through the air and whatever you drop from a high window will still fall to the ground according to Newton's laws, just like they did the day before Einstein came up with relativity, and in fact everything you learnt about gravity at high school still works for the practical purposes we generally need to work out.

Let's say a quantum theory of electricity is worked out and things there get a bit weirder in theory rather than hypothesis. What difference will that make to all of our practical purposes? None. Computers won't suddenly calculate different results. Electric lights will still glow at the same levels in the same colours. Even audio circuits and -gasp- streaming audio over Ethernet will still function in exactly the same way, produce the same results, the same measurements, and used in our audio systems will produce the same outputs as before. The same laws and rules and physics and maths will apply. People properly designing audio systems will use the old model and it will still serve its purpose as before.

Yes, there will be change in audio in the future, probably combined with whatever happens to video, but I personally am certain that if we woke up one of our current luminaries in a thousand years' time, and showed them the great advances made, the audio related principles behind it all will still be completely understandable to them.
 
who am I to say that he didn't?
If you don't have the necessary understanding of the technology then you can't.

Those of us who do, know that if the two systems return a zero null, then there is no difference in the sound waves reaching his ear. Of course we can't tell him his brain doesn't alter his perception of those sound waves between his ear and conscious perception - because it probably does.

But we can tell him (and people have), that is what is happening. We can also hold the view that his refusal to engage with that reality, in order to allow himself to make untrue statements about his product and thereby increase sales - is unethical. And we can hold him to account for that.
 
Last edited:
I just don’t believe that gives anyone the right to attack him personally.
True - no-one should be calling him a smelly fart pants. Questioning his professionalism and ethics is 100% fair game though. Just as we would the worst used car salesmen.
 
I don't know much of anything about David Chesky. Wiki says he's a musician. A poster here has repeatedly referred to him as Dr. Chesky. What's his PhD in? I'm just curious, that's all.
 
A few years ago I did a "blind" test. I took three versions of one song. One was a ripped CD, one was CD quality streaming, the third was 24/96 streaming. I put all three in a playlist and set it on random. I proceeded to go outside to do some yard work. Every 15 minutes or so I'd come inside the house and see if I could tell which version was playing. Well, I found myself guessing, and guessing wrong most of the time. This was my experience. However, I can't use my data point to refute Mr. DC's data point of his experience. If he says he experienced it, then who am I to say that he didn't? I may have an idea as to why he experienced what he did, but I'm not going to throw out the data point because it isn't supported by my opinion or my hypothesis.

But it's not even really a data point, is it? It's a claim with no backing, not a data point. And we throw it out because it has no backing and because it goes against understanding of digital audio, which is more than just "supported by my opinion or my hypothesis."
 
I think all streaming services use TCP these days, not RTP/RTCP (real time protocol) over UDP.
I do not know what protocol each service uses. E.g. this page https://www.muvi.com/blogs/what-is-audio-streaming/ says:

RTP is an open standard and is widely supported by many audio streaming software and hardware solutions. It is used by popular audio streaming services, including Spotify and Pandora, and is also used by video conferencing platforms like Zoom and Google Meet.
Yes, it would make sense for musical services like the mentioned Spotify and Pandora to use a protocol where the pace is controlled by the client (like HTTP download), but I do not know what they actually use. Please do you have any more specific info?

Internet radios use RTP, but that's the type of "push" streaming I was talking about.
 
I like frozen peas... they have the most nutrients, unless you grow your own. So I do wonder what sound frozen peas have. Should I put some on top of my streamer?
I much prefer mushy peas with fish and chips, & pies. Its not all about maintaining nutrients! Is there an audio equivalent of mushy peas? I might like that with some of my brighter CDs... (And don't say "tone control" that's like mashing the frozen peas... just doesn't do the job... need something more subtle... I wonder if placing a can of mushy peas on my CD player would work?)
 
Internet radios use RTP, but that's the type of "push" streaming I was talking about.
Older ones maybe, but newer ones also use ICY, HLS and DASH which are variations on http progressive streaming. When the BBC moved to these a few years back it broke streaming to most of the then-available internet radios. Their test stream had changed codec but not protocol, so manufacturers were caught off guard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/help/questions/about-bbc-sounds-and-our-policies/codecs-bitrates
 
Older ones maybe, but newer ones also use ICY, HLS and DASH which are variations on http progressive streaming.
Thanks for the info update. These protocols are not RTP-based, but since they transfer live streaming, they also embed the server timing. The client cannot say "send me samples faster" or "send me 1k samples now" because the samples are not available on the server yet - live streaming. As a result the client must merge somehow the incoming stream pace with its soundcard consumption pace, after the pre-cached stream is used up (in case the soundcard clock runs faster than the "pacer" on the server).
 
Older ones maybe, but newer ones also use ICY, HLS and DASH which are variations on http progressive streaming. When the BBC moved to these a few years back it broke streaming to most of the then-available internet radios. Their test stream had changed codec but not protocol, so manufacturers were caught off guard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/help/questions/about-bbc-sounds-and-our-policies/codecs-bitrates
" Radio 3 HD Sound uses the AAC-LC codec at 320kbs and has no audio signal processing applied... Whilst all of our services are now available at the high-quality 320kbs AAC-LC encoding only Radio 3 currently has the signal processing bypassed and so is the only service to broadcast in HD Sound."

What signal processing might Radio 2 be up to?
 
Funny thing is that cannonball still fly through the air and whatever you drop from a high window will still fall to the ground according to Newton's laws, just like they did the day before Einstein came up with relativity, and in fact everything you learnt about gravity at high school still works for the practical purposes we generally need to work out.

Let's say a quantum theory of electricity is worked out and things there get a bit weirder in theory rather than hypothesis. What difference will that make to all of our practical purposes? None. Computers won't suddenly calculate different results. Electric lights will still glow at the same levels in the same colours. Even audio circuits and -gasp- streaming audio over Ethernet will still function in exactly the same way, produce the same results, the same measurements, and used in our audio systems will produce the same outputs as before. The same laws and rules and physics and maths will apply. People properly designing audio systems will use the old model and it will still serve its purpose as before.

Yes, there will be change in audio in the future, probably combined with whatever happens to video, but I personally am certain that if we woke up one of our current luminaries in a thousand years' time, and showed them the great advances made, the audio related principles behind it all will still be completely understandable to them.
Thank you for making my point for me. Obviously you have better control of words than I. The fact that we cannot explain something or measure it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Reality is real and has nothing to do with our perception or explanation of it. We know dark matter exists but we can’t explain or measure it satisfactorily. Whether we accept it or not, we will never be able to explain or understand everything. We have our limitations, we are not gods. Obviously, all of that has nothing to do with Dr. Chesky’s statement. A new theory rarely throws away everything about the old one. It usually builds on it and fixes the missing parts. We get taller by standing on the other guys shoulders. Dr. Chesky has done some great work on recording and I respect him for that. He is not infallible nor does he have the theory of everything but he is a giant in my book. At a minimum, I will give the benefit of the doubt and will not assume bad intentions necessarily. That’s all I am trying to say.
 
The fact that we cannot explain something or measure it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The fact that it doesn't exist means it doesn't exist. Claiming non-existent phenomena for profit is dishonest, period.
We know dark matter exists
Ask for that refund.
Obviously, all of that has nothing to do with Dr. Chesky’s statement.
Finally, something sensible. The only thing that has to do with "Dr" Chesky's statement is huckstering.
 
The fact that it doesn't exist means it doesn't exist. Claiming non-existent phenomena for profit is dishonest, period.

Ask for that refund.

Finally, something sensible. The only thing that has to do with "Dr" Chesky's statement is huckstering.
We all have our predetermined level of intelligence and understanding. I think some of the discussion here has been over what you can understand, no offense. I wish I could help.
 
I don't know much of anything about David Chesky. Wiki says he's a musician. A poster here has repeatedly referred to him as Dr. Chesky. What's his PhD in? I'm just curious, that's all.

He is referred to as Dr. David Chesky without reference on half a dozen web sites. None of his official biographies mention anything about a doctorate nor does he ever refer to himself as a doctor. He has, however, released several albums under the moniker Dr. Chesky. Perhaps he's a doctor like Dr. Demento is a doctor. One would have to ask him...

Martin
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom