"Things that cannot be measured"

[Timcognito]

A watch is a watch, a Rolex or a Timex. If it really mattered top artists would flock to the label. Are people really getting a lesser experience happily listening to music on their phones or those with DSD a greater one. A lot of this stuff is in your head. There are few complaints about the audibility SINADE at 80 vs 115 dB and audibility lines on graphs, where are they? 80 dB would you call that poor execution. If the resolution is at the level SL says it is, then it is higher, and maybe if you 16 years old you might hear something, same with SINADE.

 

[danadam]

Good grief - they even sell their 96kHz flac lower than the 96kHz PCM.

Frankly, I would also set price dependent on storage size used If customers demand unreasonable formats, that's fine but for a price.

And on which album do you see it? I checked one or two and the prices for FLAC and PCM of the same sampling freq. are the same.

 

[antcollinet]

And on which album do you see it? I checked one or two and the prices for FLAC and PCM of the same sampling freq. are the same.

Not sure. I can't find it now. Perhaps I was mistaken.

 

[kemmler3D]

But there is the porblem right there. They are doing exactly what @Sal1950 says they are.

They sell the higher resolution formats of the same music at a higher price. They claim this (my bold):



That claim simply does not stack up. They charge more for something which is not (or should not be unless they are deliberately degrading them) audibly better than the lower res formats, while claiming it is.

It's a half pint of ice cream in a gallon container, but the larger container supposedly improves the flavor. In any other context people would feel their intelligence had been insulted.

 

[SIY]

It's a half pint of ice cream in a gallon container, but the larger container supposedly improves the flavor. In any other context people would feel their intelligence had been insulted.

I usually hate analogies, but that's a fine one.

 

[xray]

It's a half pint of ice cream in a gallon container, but the larger container supposedly improves the flavor. In any other context people would feel their intelligence had been insulted.

But think how everyone will envy you when they see you holding a gallon ice cream container and they only have a pint.

 

[KMSA]

People ask for the highest possible resolutions and one would be daft not to supply those (when the actual recordings are done in that highest format)
Where there is a demand there is a market.

No one is forced to buy the highest resolution directly but I would assume buyers might gladly pay that bit extra 'knowing' the 'quality' of the recording is 'higher'.
Not that they would NEED it or actually hear it but rather they want it and believe they can hear it.
A good incentive to more expensive buy hi-res.

Soundliason makes really beautifully done recordings, regardless if one likes the genre/artist/albums.

Since most recordings are done in 24bit it seems nice to have that possibility. And I find 14$ for an album a fair price. Especially considering that Sound Liaison share the profits equally among the musicians and the label.

 

[egellings]

It's a half pint of ice cream in a gallon container, but the larger container supposedly improves the flavor. In any other context people would feel their intelligence had been insulted.

So long as the large container price is not charged for the pint, then I have no problem with it outside of contempt for wasteful packaging.

 

[kemmler3D]

So long as the large container price is not charged for the pint, then I have no problem with it outside of contempt for wasteful packaging.

I think in this analogy, they actually are charging extra for the big, mostly-air container.

 

[rdenney]

Since most recordings are done in 24bit it seems nice to have that possibility. And I find 14$ for an album a fair price. Especially considering that Sound Liaison share the profits equally among the musicians and the label.

Recordings are done in 24-bit for the same reason I bring as close to 16 bits of each color as I can from my camera to the computer. In both cases, significant changes are going to be made. During mixing, some levels will be increased significantly, and others reduced. Those changes can leave gaps in the data if expanded beyond the resolution of the source data.

But when the recording is put out on the medium, or the photograph printed out, it's the display/playback resolution that we need. My printer for photographs only receives 8 bits for each color, not the 16 I needed when I was editing. Think of it this way--those 24 bits of playback material aren't really that much like the 24 bits that were recorded initially, assuming a mixing and editing step between recording and mastering.

So, while is may seem nice, it really doesn't provide anything additional. Seeming nice may be enough for you, however, and that is your choice.

Rick "pricing is a completely separate issue" Denney

 

[Cogito]

Everything about the sound is measurable. How the individual's brain proccesses these sounds is where it gets far more complicated.

 

[ahofer]

It's a half pint of ice cream in a gallon container, but the larger container supposedly improves the flavor. In any other context people would feel their intelligence had been insulted.

This reminds me of the Nikko amplifiers Tech Hifi used to sell. Lots of lights and a huge box with a tiny circuit board inside (this was 1975-80)

There was a rumor they used to sabotage the other brands to make Nikko and Ohm look good. But I heard that rumor from a competitor, so who knows.

 

[antcollinet]

Everything about the sound is measurable. How the individual's brain proccesses these sounds is where it gets far more complicated.

But not forgetting that before the brain can process the sound it has to get there. Our ears don't have the necessary structures in place to detect ultrasonics - and so can't transfer them to the brain.

Similarly they are not infinitely sensitive. There are fairly well understood limits of how low a sound can get before it is no longer detectable.

Covered in the opening paragraphs here:

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

 

[ahofer]

But not forgetting that before the brain can process the sound it has to get there. Our ears don't have the necessary structures in place to detect ultrasonics - and so can't transfer them to the brain.

Similarly they are not infinitely sensitive. There are fairly well understood limits of how low a sound can get before it is no longer detectable.

Covered in the opening paragraphs here:

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

Nice article with some good blind test references.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Our ears don't have the necessary structures in place to detect ultrasonics

By definition.

(I do not disagree with your arguments, btw.)

 

[Sal1950]

No one is forced to buy the highest resolution directly but I would assume buyers might gladly pay that bit extra 'knowing' the 'quality' of the recording is 'higher'.
Not that they would NEED it or actually hear it but rather they want it and believe they can hear it.
A good incentive to more expensive buy hi-res.

But it's sold on a pack of lies!
Someone has to voice the truth, that's what we do here.

Everything about the sound is measurable. How the individual's brain proccesses these sounds is where it gets far more complicated.

Complicated yes, unmeasureable as in using scientifically bias controled DBT, no.
Things can be proven or discarded using proper procedures.
That's were High End Audio ran off the tracks.
To once more quote J. Gordon Holt from almost 20 years ago.
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing."

 

[Axo1989]

By definition.

No waste in that post.

 

[antcollinet]

By definition.

(I do not disagree with your arguments, btw.)

I deliberately didn't specify a frequency to avoid the "ah but some...." discussion.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I deliberately didn't specify a frequency to avoid the "ah but some...." discussion.

Your wording was a functional specification.

 

[antcollinet]

Your wording was a functional specification.

Yep I know. I left the specifics to the linked article.