• 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

Disapointing but everybody Can make mistakes. I'll still listen to what he has to say about music production because of many stellar Chesky records.
 
... I think that as for each of us, there is enough scientific evidence that can explain in good part every result obtained. ...
No, there are no alternative facts.

The fact in the story is actually stated clearly: "the files were identical". The "alternative fact" is that the two sounded diferently when played.
 
Never mind that when those songs are played more often, they are actually playing from
local storage cache, and there is no need to get it from the network anymore. You never hear people complain that playing the streaming song a second time makes it sound different…
 
Never mind that when those songs are played more often, they are actually playing from
local storage cache, and there is no need to get it from the network anymore. You never hear people complain that playing the streaming song a second time makes it sound different…
They are always being played from the local cache. The streaming downloads them to the cache at least 30s of it before it starts playing. Easy to test. DC does not understand how streaming is done.
 
They are always being played from the local cache.
Well, not necessarily. You can store to file and play in parallel. You could do some caching in memory for this. I have no idea what the actual implementations do, they might be all over the place.
 
I am grateful for streaming. I have spent so much money on recordings, probably more on LPs I no longer own than CDs I no longer own. Have a fair amount of these recordings backed up on ssd, mostly from CD sources. But Streaming allows me to hear recordings I've never owned and in great quantities. My only issue is the occasional drop-out but I can live with that. I suppose that spending more on my internet hook-up and computer would clean things up, but I don't have the money anyway. In any case, I'm music-first oriented. Buying downloads wouldn't address my listening habits, couldn't afford them anyway.
 
He wrote: "To clarify, we’re not conducting formal double-blind testing here; one person plays the files while the other listens, drawing on our experiences as listeners. With over 50 years as a pianist, composer, orchestrator, and producer of nearly a thousand albums, I trust my musical memory, which I believe extends to tonality as well."

He is 68 years old now and trusts his ears and his "musical memory"? One blind test conducted by someone trustworthy (clearly a job for amir :)) could cure his arrogance.....
Usually an appeal to authority is more subtle than this.
 
He wrote: "To clarify, we’re not conducting formal double-blind testing here; one person plays the files while the other listens, drawing on our experiences as listeners. With over 50 years as a pianist, composer, orchestrator, and producer of nearly a thousand albums, I trust my musical memory, which I believe extends to tonality as well."

He is 68 years old now and trusts his ears and his "musical memory"? One blind test conducted by someone trustworthy (clearly a job for amir :)) could cure his arrogance.....
David Chesky is certainly not unique in his believe in trusting his hearing or his memory of what he has heard.

Most audio professionals and those of us who have been (don't say the word- audiophiles) interested in music playback for a period of time, wax on about some speaker or system they heard 20 years ago, and if you have any experience in audio you believe you remember what you heard... even though it is demonstrably impossible to remember what you heard even a few minutes after the fact.

His conclusions are most likely technically incorrect, but it does not make him a charlatan or a fool... simply wrong. I know I have been wrong many times in many different ways over the years. Give the guy a break.
 
Watermarking was (is?) on Tidal as well, I thought they were going to stop doing it, but that seems unlikely.
Many Umg titles had very audible watermarking in Spotify, too. But it was apparently removed several years ago.
 
Wrong and making money of his delusion. Nope, I do not believe in coincidence. Maybe he is just misled by Yeti... or Santa!?
 
Well, not necessarily. You can store to file and play in parallel. You could do some caching in memory for this. I have no idea what the actual implementations do, they might be all over the place.
Most services download to the cache and then “play” from the cache. Twiddling is looking for complications and interruptions. :eek: Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be... ;)
 
It is not unethical or necessarily delusional to be wrong.
Perhaps not, but I find it unethical to base un-evidenced claims about the performance of something a vendor is selling based on that wrongness, while they are studiously looking in the opposite direction from that of all the evidence that would show those claims to be false.

In other words, selling falsehoods on the basis of willful ignorance. That is unethical. I think that will probably include a majority of those engaged in this sort of commerce.
 
Perhaps not, but I find it unethical to base un-evidenced claims about the performance of something a vendor is selling based on that wrongness, while they are studiously looking in the opposite direction from that of all the evidence that would show those claims to be false.

In other words, selling falsehoods on the basis of willful ignorance. That is unethical. I think that will probably include a majority of those engaged in this sort of commerce.
As to un-evidenced... in David Chesky's case, I believe he feels he has evidence. He is trusting his perception. We may agree that our perception is far from infallible, but it is quite common to trust our perceptions even though they may be incorrect.

For years eye witness accounts were considered infallible in courts, but with scientific tests like DNA testing and other techniques we have learned that our eyes and our memories are not infallible. That said, telling someone what they "know to be true" is un-true can be a difficult conversation. We almost always trust our perceptions.
 
After downloading and confirming that the files were identical, the streamed version still sounded different in real-time playback. Perhaps there's an "X factor" not yet captured in current scientific testing.

Easy peasy. All bits are equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
"tonal memories" ... Is this a poem?
 
My son, Lucca, is starting a speaker company, and I’ve listened to countless versions of his speakers, testing various brands and sizes of internal speaker cables from the crossover to the drivers. Despite identical setups, we consistently hear significant differences between wire configurations, even when measurements suggest they should sound the same. To clarify, we’re not conducting formal double-blind testing here; one person plays the files while the other listens, drawing on our experiences as listeners.

I just read it as well. Very surprised and disappointed to see David write such things.

That's his business, the belief in Audio Magic and the refusal of any controls over his listening claims is the rule.
He's a pro you know, he doesn't need to close his eyes
I'm surprised you were surprised here partner. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom