Skip to main content
Topic: news article about disappointing sales of online music (Read 18379 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #50
I glanced through the study.  Several things bother me:

1. This seems to have been foundation sponsored...but there's at least one industry tie-in:  Pioneer built the drivers custom for the study.  Not necessarily a problem, but perhaps adding a bit of a red flag.
2. It doesn't appear the tests were double-blind.
3. It doesn't appear they randomized the order of presentation of the samples (perhaps I misread)?

Also, it seems that this topic was beaten to death over at the slimdevices forums...

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077

-brendan

 

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #51
In research published in 2000 in the Journal of Neurophysiology, researchers described double-blind experiments in which subjects were played music, sometimes containing high-frequency components (HFCs) above 25 kHz and sometimes not. The subjects could not consciously tell the difference, but when played music with the HFCs they showed differences measured in two ways:

    * EEG monitoring of their brain activity showed statistically significant enhancement in alpha-wave activity
    * The subjects preferred the music with the HFCs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect
Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect



This again?

Not very persuasive, and discussed here a couple of times already (search 'Oohashi'), not to mention of  a half dozen other audio forums since publication.  The negative results from an attempt at replication by another group (at NHK, Nishiguchi et al ) have also been discussed.

Nishiguchi work:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12375
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13185



    * The subjects preferred the music with the HFCs

This means they could consciously tell the difference.  If not, please explain how I'm wrong.



It could also be a testing artifact specific to 'quality rating' blind protocols, rather than 'difference detection' blind protocols.  This report discusses them 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14393

According to JJ, lack of quality 'anchors' is the usual flaw of a MUSHRA-type rating test.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #52
This again?

Not very persuasive, and discussed here a couple of times already (search 'Oohashi'), not to mention of  a half dozen other audio forums since publication.  The negative results from an attempt at replication by another group (at NHK, Nishiguchi et al ) have also been discussed.
Yes, this again, does re-discussion always bother you? It sure seems like you'd prefer to quickly dismiss any and all contrary evidence to your beliefs. Personally, I find it sad that somehow it doesn't seem to matter to you that they couldn't scientifically deny that some subjects seem to be able to discriminate the difference, and I find it's funny how that doesn't seem relevant to those who closedmindedly proclaim that no one can. From your own reference:
Quote
The results showed that we can still neither confirm nor deny the possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components.

It could also be a testing artifact specific to 'quality rating' blind protocols, rather than 'difference detection' blind protocols.  This report discusses them 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14393

According to JJ, lack of quality 'anchors' is the usual flaw of a MUSHRA-type rating test.

Aren't you also in an unseemly hurry to dismiss any evidence that doesn't agree with your perspective? Is there a reference to JJ that you could provide? As well, could you please quote the section of the study that shows that the "lack of quality anchors" is the problem?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #53
Aren't you also in an unseemly hurry to dismiss any evidence that doesn't agree with your perspective?

Criticism != dismissal.

Quote
As well, aren't there still those people who believe that the lossless format does sound 'better' to them, despite all of the people who claim to know that it can't be as that person has personally experienced?

This blatant mischaracterization of the HA community "party line" is a little insulting.  I have found that most of the regulars here go to great lengths to not make such blanket claims, but rather to emphasize that "for the vast majority of people with the vast majority of samples."

...and I find it's funny how that doesn't seem relevant to those who closedmindedly proclaim that no one can.

Your consistent attacks on those who disagree with you as "closeminded" are bordering on ad hominems.
From your own reference:
Quote
The results showed that we can still neither confirm nor deny the possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components.


That line is wholly consistent with krabapple's argument that others were unable to replicate the results of the first study you mentioned.  I do not think that line mean what you think it means.
Creature of habit.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #54
"<I found it interesting that the preference for the content with above-audible frequency content only occurred in tests with loudspeakers, NOT in tests with headphones.">

To me, that is a red flag indicating the experiment may not have been well controlled. There was paper presented at an AES Conference a few years ago on the audibility of ultra high frequency components above 22 kHz. They found that listeners were actually responding to loudspeaker intermodulation distortion components that were produced by these ultra high frequencies which produced sub-harmonics  at frequencies well within the accepted audible range.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #55
Quote
This blatant mischaracterization of the HA community "party line" is a little insulting.  I have found that most of the regulars here go to great lengths to not make such blanket claims, but rather to emphasize that "for the vast majority of people with the vast majority of samples."


Sometimes it quiets them down on the "golden ear" front if you phrase it "The vast majority of people without some hearing defect which would invalidate the model"

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #56
This thread is WAY off topic now.  Regarding the OP, some comments:

1) Downloads don't make up for the revenue or volume of CD sales.  The implication seems to be that this is a failure of downloads or consumers; IMO it means that the CD-only days were artificially high in sales.  CDs were more expensive that LPs, many people re-bought their collections on CD (super low cost to the industry), tracks were sold bundled with whole "albums" of music that were throw away quality.

Now that people have choices and the industry has reacted poorly to those new choices the result is a reduction in revenue to a more stable, "normal" level.  The message should be that sales are falling to their economically "normal" levels from their customer-abusive, artificially high CD-era levels.

2) 10 of the 13 million tracks didn't sell one unit.  The implication is that they should be bought?  This just shows how inefficient the industry is at figuring out what people like.  No news here - that is why they bundled those 10 million crummy tracks with the 3 million good ones in CD-era "albums" and the whole reason people hate the filler tracks when they were forced to buy them.  This also explains why the major labels tend to copy-cat each other when one band takes off - they don't know what people will like either.

Nothing but a blinding glimpse of the obvious....
Was that a 1 or a 0?

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #57
Criticism != dismissal.

Not necessarily, and you know it.
This blatant mischaracterization of the mischaracterization" is a little insulting.  I have found that most of the regulars here go to great lengths to not make such blanket claims, but rather to emphasize that "for the vast majority of people with the vast majority of samples."

Your assumtion that I've mis-characterized the "HA community and it's party line" is inaccurate and unfounded. I clearly did no such thing. Clearly, I am not referring to the HA community at large, but rather the two individuals I'm responding to, and, of course, those who are similarly afflicted.
Your consistent attacks on those who disagree with you as "closeminded" are bordering on ad hominems.
Calling the my perspective an attack is an mischaracterization. All I've done is present my viewpoint. I wonder, why does this so upset you?
That line is wholly consistent with krabapple's argument that others were unable to replicate the results of the first study you mentioned.  I do not think that line mean what you think it means.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what it means to you so that your point will be clear. As well, perhaps krabapple would care to provide a proper reference?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #58

That line is wholly consistent with krabapple's argument that others were unable to replicate the results of the first study you mentioned.  I do not think that line mean what you think it means.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what it means to you so that your point will be clear. As well, perhaps krabapple would care to provide a proper reference?

krabapple had pointed out the original study you had quoted had failed to be replicated:
The negative results from an attempt at replication by another group (at NHK, Nishiguchi et al ) have also been discussed.

which you replied to with this passage:
Quote
The results showed that we can still neither confirm nor deny the possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components.

clearly showing you missed the point krabapple made.  The study in question clearly was unable to replicate ("confirm") the claims of a "Hypersonic Effect".  A single study with multiple criticisms of its methodology leveled against it which has not been replicated is hardly a foundation for a defensible argument. 

EDIT:  sent the majority of the reply to PM
Creature of habit.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #59
Quote
1) Downloads don't make up for the revenue or volume of CD sales. The implication seems to be that this is a failure of downloads or consumers; IMO it means that the CD-only days were artificially high in sales. CDs were more expensive that LPs, many people re-bought their collections on CD (super low cost to the industry), tracks were sold bundled with whole "albums" of music that were throw away quality.


I find this study to be useles for one reason. The article never cites what source they are using to measure the decrease in online sales. The author just claims it's "a" music service. Not exactly which one. That could mean anything.

Quote
consistent attacks on those who disagree with you as "closeminded" are bordering on ad hominems.


This thread is going way off topic. I don't think he is labelling anyone who disagrees with him as "closeminded". He is simply presenting the other side of the coin, which I don't agree with. He makes a valid point that there are "people" around here who are extremely dissmisive when it comes to certain things, which I tend to agree with. 
budding I.T professional

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #60
This thread is WAY off topic now.  Regarding the OP, some comments:

1) Downloads don't make up for the revenue or volume of CD sales.  The implication seems to be that this is a failure of downloads or consumers; IMO it means that the CD-only days were artificially high in sales.  CDs were more expensive that LPs, many people re-bought their collections on CD (super low cost to the industry), tracks were sold bundled with whole "albums" of music that were throw away quality.

Now that people have choices and the industry has reacted poorly to those new choices the result is a reduction in revenue to a more stable, "normal" level.  The message should be that sales are falling to their economically "normal" levels from their customer-abusive, artificially high CD-era levels.


ANother factor is the population that used to buy the most music (teens/young adults) are now spending more of their "entertainment media" budget on DVD's and video games. Add the cable TV and cell phone bill if that isn't on the parent's nickel.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #61
By the way, if anyone's interested in the off-topic stuff (as per Hypersonic Effect and Journal of Neurophysiology study etc ...) I started a new post here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=68348

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #62
Yes, this again, does re-discussion always bother you?


The FAQ suggests searching the forum for items related to your topic, before posting....perhaps you should takes your gripes to the forum administrators?


Quote
It sure seems like you'd prefer to quickly dismiss any and all contrary evidence to your beliefs.



It may 'sure seem' that way to someone coming to these topics for the first time. 


Quote
Personally, I find it sad that somehow it doesn't seem to matter to you that they couldn't scientifically deny that some subjects seem to be able to discriminate the difference, and I find it's funny how that doesn't seem relevant to those who closedmindedly proclaim that no one can.
From your own reference:
The results showed that we can still neither confirm nor deny the possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components.



I find it sad that you don't recognize a properly-qualified scientific claim when you see one...;indeed you seem to be mistaking fair-mindedness here for 'victory'.



Quote
Aren't you also in an unseemly hurry to dismiss any evidence that doesn't agree with your perspective? Is there a reference to JJ that you could provide?


 

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=59542

(Btw, I should have said 'a' usual flaw...jj also cited others.)


Quote
As well, could you please quote the section of the study that shows that the "lack of quality anchors" is the problem?



Could you please first pay your $20 and download the Zielinski et al. paper, like I did, so I don't have to
do still more of your research for you?  For god's sake at least search HA  for 'Oohashi' before asking me any more questions.

news article about disappointing sales of online music

Reply #63
The FAQ suggests searching the forum for items related to your topic, before posting....perhaps you should takes your gripes to the forum administrators?
It wasn't my intention to start a new discussion, all I did was make a valid referenced counterpoint in the light of an already somewhat, imho, off-topic reply


It may 'sure seem' that way to someone coming to these topics for the first time.


With all due respect, I simply don't possess your vast body of personal knowledge in which to draw upon. Personally, I find that discussing, and even re-discussing these issues to be both educational and informative. Which, is why I'm here, asking questions of people like you.

I find it sad that you don't recognize a properly-qualified scientific claim when you see one...;indeed you seem to be mistaking fair-mindedness here for 'victory'.


Could you explain how my referencing this study in any way doesn't "recognize a properly-qualified scientific claim"? Didn't the study demonstrate that they couldn't prove that high frequency sound wasn't having a measurable effect on conscious perception.

Furthermore, I wouldn't myself be so quick to dismiss the brainwave evidence, as it seems to me that this must mean that the brain\body is receiving information somehow, whether or not the manner of transmission is understood yet.

Could you please first pay your $20 and download the Zielinski et al. paper, like I did, so I don't have to
do still more of your research for you?  For god's sake at least search HA  for 'Oohashi' before asking me any more questions.


If you can't provide a reference, just say so.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020