You make the mistake of extrapolating selling prices from manufacturing cost. We're far from this model in many business areas, and you could argue that in the record business, it never was so.

Alternatively, you could say that the higher price of hires records is justified by their higher marketing cost. Having famous artists spout nonsense about how important hires is, in a youtube clip, doesn't come for free, for example.

The real bugger is when you get same screwed-up version in either format, except for the price difference. The more widely hires penetrates the market, the more we will see this kind of scam, I fear. By going mass market, I think the hires industry is defeating itself at the end. The quality level will be as low as before, the reputation will be ruined at least as thoroughly as before, and the prices won't be kept up, either.

It depends on the hypothesis; if it was the vague sort of "audiophile claims" that you mentioned the last time, it must have been a claim like "if a disc is labelled as hi-res it will under all circumstances , by all listeners at all times perceived as better as a downsampled to CD quality version" .

Because they did not check for "hi-res ness", they did not really check for the quality of reproduction, they did not provide positive controls, they did not really track which music was used in the trials and so on.
And they used mostly a 10 trials per listener approach, which is surprising because they should have known at least since Leventhals articles about power, that a small number of trials is accompanied by a large risk of error type II. 

Quote from: Jakob1863 on 2016-07-14 14:09:11

based on his meta-analysis give some advice to achieve better quality in experiments.

It's been over 20yrs. When can we expect these "better quality in experiments" from believers/peddlers of Hi-Re$ ?? Who is burdened with such proof?

It's been over 20yrs. When can we expect these "better quality in experiments" from believers/peddlers of Hi-Re$ ?? Who is burdened with such proof?

just the other camp of believers.

All these pages and none of us yet thought of stopping at the title.

I'm concerned that it is the narrative that is being conceded; but yeah, this "meta-analysis" is a complete and utter joke, though I'm pretty sure I already made that abundantly clear.

<snip>
If the many, many, strongly reported claims of vast and obvious inherent audio superiority for hi rez over a span of decades -- the very lifeblood of its marketing -- were accurate reflections of reality, detecting difference for hi-rez  would not be a 'threshold' phenomenon.

.....M&M's experiments (not to mention all the others used in Reiss's MA) would have revealed a difference with extremely robust statistical support, far stronger than what Reiss abstracted from even the best-case MA interpretation. 
But they never have.  Ever.  Do you seriously think this is due to Type II error?

<snip>
OK, sorry, I don't see how it's more of a 'joke' than any other meta-analysis (if you think MAs are a joke inherently, well that's another debate).  It's actually well done, the only real issue would be if one were to hysterically over-interpret its rather meager (and unexplained)  findings of difference, which the hi rez cheerleading squad are sure to do ......

....(and sadly Reiss himself already seems to have done, though mildly, with his press release statement)

You, me, and everyone we know here recognize that nothing in this paper supports the audiophile rhetorical party line, i.e., OMG veils lifted, creamier bass, its like they're in the room with me now, even my wife could hear it, Redbook is 'low rez', etc.   Good luck transmitting that news to the public though.

I agree to some degree (although pelmazo surely would call that point a blatant exaggeration ) , but it would definitively better to keep the various topics seperated. Marketing hype is one topic and a perceivable difference (or even advance) is another one.

Beside "night and day differences" everything else is not easy to detect within a controlled listening experiment, provided we are talking about multidimensional perception. That is the reason why it is mandatory to incorporate positive controls (for other reasons negative controls as well), and any experimenter should think about listener accomodation and even training.

"all the others" is an exaggeration, because there aren´t that many, especially not sound attempts. Wrt Meyer/Moran i don´t think it is due to Type II errors (in the statistical sense), but roughly 25 years after Leventhals articles it is imho telling that we can´t notice any improvement in this point. Furthermore if it was not given by experimental guidelines that every participants really did 10 trials.

In their experiments not only the format was an independent variable but the locations, listeners and music tracks were variables too. Although the sample size seems to be big at first, if you consider the additional variables it isn´t. M&M listed 19 different discs that were used during the tests (how many possible tracks in total? how many tracks were used?) In fact the article and additional information could not answer that. Afair in a forum one of the authors said one disc was used during roughly the half of the trials. As apparently nobody noted this (imho quite important information) that might be correct or just a memory error.

That is an reasonable assessment and i don´t really understand the nearly "hysteric" critique. If we think that "the press" (and forums as well) routinely over-interpret, which was clearly also given when M&M presented their results, why this wittering about it?

Please help me wrt this forum. This section is labelled as "scientific discussion" and the topic was Dr. Reiss´s meta-analysis. The topic wasn´t any "audiophiles rhetorical party line" nor wild speculations about financial interests or mass market influences. What is going on ??

P.S. Ok given the recent restatement of the thread title, i understand that at least one of the moderators must have super powers and therefore KNOWS the TRUTH. Please forgive the sarcasm, but "scam" in the new title?

No they (M&M) didn´t issue a press release; instead they used sort of guerilla marketing in forums promoting their publication.

i don´t really understand the nearly "hysteric" critique.

Please help me wrt this forum. This section is labelled as "scientific discussion" and the topic was Dr. Reiss´s meta-analysis. The topic wasn´t any "audiophiles rhetorical party line" nor wild speculations about financial interests or mass market influences. What is going on ??

greynol [...] certainly has superpowers

Quote from: krabapple on 2016-07-14 20:02:23

Beside "night and day differences" everything else is not easy to detect within a controlled listening experiment, provided we are talking about multidimensional perception.

That is the reason why it is mandatory to incorporate positive controls (for other reasons negative controls as well), and any experimenter should think about listener accomodation and even training.

Quote

.....M&M's experiments (not to mention all the others used in Reiss's MA) would have revealed a difference with extremely robust statistical support, far stronger than what Reiss abstracted from even the best-case MA interpretation. 
But they never have.  Ever.  Do you seriously think this is due to Type II error?

"all the others" is an exaggeration, because there aren´t that many, especially not sound attempts.

Wrt Meyer/Moran i don´t think it is due to Type II errors (in the statistical sense), but roughly 25 years after Leventhals articles it is imho telling that we can´t notice any improvement in this point.

In their experiments not only the format was an independent variable but the locations, listeners and music tracks were variables too. Although the sample size seems to be big at first, if you consider the additional variables it isn´t. M&M listed 19 different discs that were used during the tests (how many possible tracks in total? how many tracks were used?) In fact the article and additional information could not answer that. Afair in a forum one of the authors said one disc was used during roughly the half of the trials. As apparently nobody noted this (imho quite important information) that might be correct or just a memory error.

Furthermore, though the causes are still unknown - Reiss

That is the reason why it is mandatory to incorporate positive controls

Quote from: Porcus on 2016-07-12 16:27:57

<snip>
First, you should not use "important" when you mean "significant" (in the statistical sense).

To quote Dr. Reiss from the AES press release:
"“Audio purists and industry should welcome these findings,” said Reiss. “Our study finds high-resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content. Trained listeners could distinguish between the two formats around sixty percent of the time.”

52.3% would qualify as statistically significant but of very limited practical relevance; 60% is usually considered to be of practical relevance.

You, me, and everyone we know here recognize that nothing in this paper supports the audiophile rhetorical party line, i.e., OMG veils lifted, creamier bass, its like they're in the room with me now, even my wife could hear it, Redbook is 'low rez', etc.  Good luck transmitting that news to the public though.

Please help me wrt this forum. This section is labelled as "scientific discussion" and the topic was Dr. Reiss´s meta-analysis. The topic wasn´t any "audiophiles rhetorical party line" nor wild speculations about financial interests or mass market influences. What is going on ??

Beside "night and day differences" everything else is not easy to detect within a controlled listening experiment, provided we are talking about multidimensional perception. That is the reason why it is mandatory to incorporate positive controls (for other reasons negative controls as well), and any experimenter should think about listener accomodation and even training.