• 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

You are naive, just expressing an opinion is not as innocent as you portray it, especially from a person with a track record. It then should be seen as a deliberate attempt to influence opinions. Nothing wrong with scrutinizing possible motives.
I confess my ignorance. I wasn’t aware of his “track record”.
 
That’s all common decency asks for. I am not sure how this lent support to his son’s business. I thought his son was selling speakers. His conclusion doesn’t seem to involve speakers to me.
Whoops, you are correct. I mixed up the talk of his son's speaker business with the fact that the man himself is co-founder of HDtracks. So it's his own business interests motivating his reasoning. Mea culpa.
 
It is very disappointing that a lot of people on this site, some with no more than a little knowledge find it convenient to assail and assassinate the character of someone they don’t even know because he has a different opinion about something. It seems that the more illustrious the character they aim their daggers towards, the more their appetite for blood grows. Shame on you. Clearly, the man was just expressing his opinion and not reporting a scientific experiment. I personally disagree with him but certainly, that doesn’t make him a charlatan who is trying to sell speakers on behalf of his son. Shame on you again.
The guy runs HDtracks.com, which in my opinion is a scam site, and when he does these kinds of claims that doesn't align with reality at all it's quite clear that he does it to get more people to buy from his site, and this really has to be called out because it's plain and simply wrong.
 
When Chesky donned the cloak of science by referencing a null test, he opened himself to charges of pseudoscience in his claims.


Oh, boo hoo hoo he got called on it on a forum called Audio Science Review. Who would have dreamed?
Oh, boo hoo hoo a real scientist made a mistake. Stop striking your ego. You are no scientist. There is no science being done here, just an indecent character assassination. Really no different than what happens everywhere else on the internet.
 
Oh, boo hoo hoo a real scientist made a mistake. Stop striking your ego. You are no scientist. There is no science being done here, just an indecent character assassination. Really no different than what happens everywhere else on the internet.

Chesky has written several questionably motivated "opinion pieces" over the years. The problem with *him* saying something like "Perhaps there's an "X factor" not yet captured in current scientific testing" in the opinion (it is most certainly not a scientific paper) is that, given his name and the way it is for some reason widely respected, it may lead uninformed readers to think there is still something we can't measure in audio, which is the type of utter intellectual diarrhea that feeds "audiophilia nervosa". He's encouraging pople to trust their ears, not measurements. He endorses a step back to the dark, ignorant ages.

To me, that makes him just one more charlatan in the audio industry to ignore. Shame because he clearly did some good in audio. But sometimes success is just luck - when you throw enough truckloads of spaghetti at the wall, something's sure to stick. No one is "assassinating" his character... he doesn't need any help commiting self-character-suicide (at least as a credible, scientifically motivated audio figure) based on what he wrote in the original post. :-/
 
Last edited:
Oh, boo hoo hoo a real scientist made a mistake. Stop striking your ego. You are no scientist.

(/me Checks paper newly uploaded to bioRxiv) zounds, it appears I still am.

No one is virtually weeping here about the injustice of it all. That's you.

There is no science being done here

Audio Science Review

, just an indecent character assassination. Really no different than what happens everywhere else on the internet.

I see criticism of a guy who famously sells 'audio', for making bad claims about audio -- claims that foolishly invoked a scientific tool, and then ignored its results. He's also a guy who nominally 'followed the science' over the years.

So yeah, it's legit to call him on that, here.

Pearl clutching about tone is also allowed here, obviously.
 
The guy runs HDtracks.com, which in my opinion is a scam site, and when he does these kinds of claims that doesn't align with reality at all it's quite clear that he does it to get more people to buy from his site, and this really has to be called out because it's plain and simply wrong.
Here we go again. Maybe he created HDtracks because he believed it is better than streaming. We can disagree with someone without making him a villain. Just the facts suffice, motives are much more complicated to deal with. A little bit of civility never hurts.
 
Here we go again. Maybe he created HDtracks because he believed it is better than streaming.

Here I have to passionately disagree. HDtracks promotes a desirable ideal, but they make a mockery of it in their business practices. It's been proven over and over again they have often upsampled lossy formats to make them appear "HD" (in order to charge 3 times as much or more). Which is despicable, simply put.

I love the idea of HDtracks, I detest the regular lack of fundamental business ethics there. If you are such a defender of audio purity, perhaps invest in better quality control. Zero excuses there.

We can disagree with someone without making him a villain. Just the facts suffice, motives are much more complicated to deal with. A little bit of civility never hurts.

One thing about being a leader in a company is that such ethical business violations will reflect on you, inevitably.
 
Last edited:
HDtrack wasn't inspired by streaming. It started in 2008, three years before there was even a Spotify, to give small 'audiophile' labels a better online market. At first it was CD-rate files which promised to have better recording/mastering quality than the typical big label CD.

The 'hi-rez' shilling followed soon after. Majors began to let HDtracks sell their hi-rez transfers of catalog*. But rather quickly it became apparent that simply offering files at 96 or higher kHz and 24 bits was not at all a guarantee of improved, higher quality mastering.

Which is the thing that really matters.


* it's important to make clear that HDTracks simply sells what it is given by record companies. It doesn't do any transfers or mastering itself. It is just a 'record store' for files. I've seen no evidence that they do any upsampling...again, it's just selling what it's been given. Which still includes tons of CD-rate stuff.
 
Chesky has written several questionably motivated "opinion pieces" over the years. The problem with *him* saying something like "Perhaps there's an "X factor" not yet captured in current scientific testing" in the opinion (it is most certainly not a scientific paper) is that, given his name and the way it is for some reason widely respected, it may lead uninformed readers to think there is still something we can't measure in audio, which is the type of utter intellectual diarrhea that feeds "audiophilia nervosa". He's encouraging pople to trust their ears, not measurements. He endorses a step back to the dark, ignorant ages.

To me, that makes him just one more charlatan in the audio industry to ignore. Shame because he clearly did some good in audio. But sometimes success is just luck - when you throw enough truckloads of spaghetti at the wall, something's sure to stick. No one is "assassinating" his character... he doesn't need any help commiting self-character-suicide (at least as a credible helf-scentifically motivated audio figure) based on what he wrote in the original post. :-/
That might be my last response on this subject because the argument is trending in the wrong direction. You found it proper to call Dr, Chesky a charlatan!! I wasn’t raised that way. While I disagree with his conclusion on this thread, I strongly agree with him that there are myriad of things not yet captured in current scientific audio testing. I believe we are far from the end in our music reproduction journey. Of course, snake oil salesmen are going to exploit this fact, but to me great class D amps are just the beginning. A 50 dollar pair of speakers 200 years from now is going to be better than a $50,000 pair of speakers today. One thing I like about Dr. Toole, he always concludes rightfully that more studies need to be done in every subject that he talks about. Our scientific journey just begins. Too bad I won’t be around.
 
Last edited:
Exactly how wrong does an opinion have to be before we are allowed to call it out? If someone wrote that two plus two equals five, but in an audio related article, would that suddenly become a valid opinion as well?

Just once, please, can we take evidence over untested speculation?
 
That might be my last response on this subject because the argument is trending in the wrong direction. You found it proper to call Dr, Chesky a charlatan!! I wasn’t raised that way. While I disagree with his conclusion on this thread, I strongly agree with him that there are myriad of things not yet captured in current scientific audio testing.

Given the myriad of things, surely you can name just a few?

I believe we are far from the end in our music reproduction journey. Of course, snake oil salesmen are going to exploit this fact, but to me great class D amps are just the beginning.
uh-huh...all an amp has to do is 'loud' and 'clean'. You really think there's a bunch left to go there?

A 50 dollar pair of speakers 200 years from now is going to be better than a $50,000 pair of speakers today.

Well, now you're talking about speakers, i.e. electromechanical transducers...which even scientists will agree, are the weakest link in the audio production/reproduction hardware chain.



One thing I like about Dr. Toole, he always concludes rightfully that more studies need to be done in every subject that he talks about. Our scientific journey just begins. Too bad I won’t be around.

Dr. Toole is almost entirely concerned with speakers and rooms. Not 'high rez' flooby. He is of the opinion that a lack of recorded music production standards has made recordings a crapshoot from an audio quality perspective. And lack of standards in loudspeaker making leads to further a craphshoot in home repro. He's demonstrably right about all that. And then of course there's room acoustics to deal with. But none of that means he thinks the answer is 'hi rez' files for consumers. It's about the mastering, good loudspeaker performance in studio and home, and taming bad acoustics.
 
Last edited:
...ou found it proper to call Dr, Chesky a charlatan!!
Because that's what you call someone that *knows* better, yet spreads inaccuracies because of business interests. The thing with making yourself a public figure as an industry expert is that you'll end up with a big ostrich egg in your face when you are wrong.

Sorry your idol is not doing well on the popularity scale in this topic, but there's a very valid reason for it.

...I strongly agree with him that there are myriad of things not yet captured in current scientific audio testing.

Give us just one or two? Genuinely curious.

I could share my opinion, because I have been critical of a categorical measurements only approach, but for none of the non-reasons discussed on the opening topic.

.... One thing I like about Dr. Toole, he always concludes rightfully that most studies need to be done in every subject that he talks about. Our scientific journey just begins.

Saying it "begins" shows you have an agenda here and are not showing your true cards. Science never stops. But there'll be little change to what we use on an everday basis. It's like saying there's still research going on when it comes to usability in car dashboard controls. The fundamentals are very well understood. It's about the tiniest differentials once you get there.
 
Last edited:
Clearly he was expressing his opinion like all of us. He didn’t bring any facts finding to this site for analysis. I still don’t see how that gives you the right to assassinate his character. I fail to see the science nor engineering in that, just the same pettiness common on most internet sites. Carry on.
But his opinion - even based on his own results - was objectively wrong. Yet he is stating his "opinion" as though it is objective fact. "Downloads are better than streaming"

That is not what we do here, and we point it out when others do it also. We are not in a world where his opinion is as valid as engineering fact.
 
But his opinion - even based on his own results - was objectively wrong. Yet he is stating his "opinion" as though it is objective fact. "Downloads are better than streaming"

That is not what we do here, and we point it out when others do it also. We are not in a world where his opinion is as valid as engineering fact.
Spot On.
 
Wow! You guys are asking me to give you a few of the things that will be captured in the future in audio testing. I take it that I made a good impression on you. I am not that smart. My MSEE didn’t go that far. It’s like asking a guy conducting a chariot in the 1700s to tell you how a fuel injection system works. I have no idea but I know for sure that science will keep moving forward. Today’s speakers will be like the boxy TVs of yesteryears. I have no agenda my friend. I am just excited about what will be. Today we are using Windows 3.1, things will keep getting better. If only we don’t destroy ourselves with that animosity that you exhibit so keenly.
 
Wow! You guys are asking me to give you a few of the things that will be captured in the future in audio testing. I take it that I made a good impression on you. I am not that smart. My MSEE didn’t go that far. It’s like asking a guy conducting a chariot in the 1700s to tell you how a fuel injection system works. I have no idea but I know for sure that science will keep moving forward. Today’s speakers will be like the boxy TVs of yesteryears. I have no agenda my friend. I am just excited about what will be. Today we are using Windows 3.1, things will keep getting better. If only we don’t destroy ourselves with that animosity that you exhibit so keenly.
The fact that things will progress does not mean those who contradict what science and engineering tell us are almost certainly true now will be proven correct in the long run. By your logic, we aren't allowed to be hostile to any concept, no matter how outlandish, since there's always the prospect of learning something new tomorrow.

Requiring us to acquiesce to all inanities for the sake of not "assassinating" someone's character will destroy us faster than a little bit of earned animosity, I think.
 
Wow! You guys are asking me to give you a few of the things that will be captured in the future in audio testing. I take it that I made a good impression on you. I am not that smart. My MSEE didn’t go that far. It’s like asking a guy conducting a chariot in the 1700s to tell you how a fuel injection system works. I have no idea but I know for sure that science will keep moving forward. Today’s speakers will be like the boxy TVs of yesteryears. I have no agenda my friend. I am just excited about what will be. Today we are using Windows 3.1, things will keep getting better. If only we don’t destroy ourselves with that animosity that you exhibit so keenly.

Nope, just asking you want we are missing re: basic science. That myriad of things not yet captured in current scientific audio testing.

No one is saying speaker technology can't advance. Not because there are deep unknown mysteries of sound and acoustics to be unearthed, but because speakers are kind of crude devices inherently. And room acoustics are a hard problem to address *easily*, so the advances there will be in ease of use and effectiveness, and, I hope, cheapness.

Tell us where audio testing is failing. How is a null test failing to show audible difference?
 
Back
Top Bottom