Now if someone would start writing some good music than all of this might actually make a difference. I am still trying to figure out why a song is better being twice as long when all that is done is repeat the chorus over and over for 3/4 of the song. I especially like to listen to the songs that talk about killing people or treating women like animals or sex slaves. That is where real high fidelity really comes into play. Don't want to miss a single nuance of the hate and deprivation in the the enlightening lyrics. Such as this inspiring bit from JayZ:
"not does not matter. Me give my heart to a woman?
Not for nothin', never happen
I'll be forever mackin'
Heart cold as assassins, I got no passion
I got no patience
And I hate waitin'
Hoe get yo' ass in
And let's ride, check em out now"
Now don't get me wrong there is a lot of great music out there, just not sure who listens to it. So weather Apple is delaying the Tidal app or not, who knows. But maybe that is not the first thing we should be concerned about.
Isn't Tital just a copy of Spotify? Tital has a long list of issues, but I think a big one is that there's no FREE service. To even use it you have to pay. You had a bunch of people downloading the App to check it out and then found out they couldn't do anything without paying money and so now the App dropped like a rock!!!
The whole 75% of the money going to the Artists and producers and whatnot sounds great and all, BUT the other services fork out a whole lot of money also. Spotify for example pays out around 70%. The problem is just like CD's, the Labels get most of the money, the Artist gets a few pennies on the dollar. Some Artists are Jay Z have their own Label and so get all the money!!! Tital isn't really any better then anyone else when you come right down to it. Anyone missed this when people were attacking Spotify and they released this,....
Ironic example, since I have genetically verified Celiac disease. But, I don't feel the need to justify what I enjoy. I don't demand you enjoy it to.
Then more than most you should be aware of the placebo effect that has millions of people claiming to suffer a poor mans version of what you actually have.
And no, you don't need to justify that you get more imaginary enjoyment from the imaginary sound quality that your brain creates. By all means spend more money to feel better. That is the heart of capitalism.
But you should know that your brain is lying to ears. That extra money, and unmeasurable sound quality is an illusion. They could sell you the same tracks iTunes is selling, just charge more and lie and tell you they are better quality, and you would get the same result.
Some of us like reality. You don't have to. Whatever gets you through the day.
So Apple owns the ecosystem and they just might not allow competitors to some of THEIR core services on their system, or might slow them down when using APPLE'S infrastructure. And they shouldn't do this because....? Seriously, they have every right to slow down or block competitors. It's their system!!!!!!
They can't and they shouldn't. Especially with "Friend of Cote" still around. Even if they could, why bother with a small competitor when there are bigger fish to fry. It's all bunk.
I can buy detection of differences between a CD and perhaps even a high bitrate lossy compression...maybe. But from studio master to CD? With a sampling rate (frequency range) that is twice what a human ear can detect, at 65,000 levels of amplitude? I have trouble believing that.
The highest frequency a CD can play is about 20Khz. There's a theorem that states that the highest frequency possible, when sampling sound, is 1/2 the sampling rate. Thus the 20Khz limit on a CD.
The problem is not whether we can hear frequencies at or near the 20Khz limit. The problem is that the affect of the process use to filter out frequencies above 20Khz and to smooth out the sine waves at those frequencies in a CD can often be detected. When music is recorded in a studio, frequencies above 20Khz exist and is recorded on to the master. Even if we couldn't hear it when it was being played and can't hear it when it's being played back from the master, they are there. When the master is resampled to 44.1 sampling rate of a CD, a filter is applied to those inaudible frequencies (to us, not the equipment) to smooth out the sine waves. Otherwise the sine waves at those frequencies will start to look like square waves if you just cut off everything above the 20Khz limit of a CD. Square waves is what you get when an amp reaches its limits and clips. So just because you can't hear 20Khz, it doesn't mean that the equipment you own can't play it or at least try to play it. Sine waves at 20Khz still needs to look like sine waves because you don't want your equipment trying to play a square wave at 20Khz. The filtering and applying it is a technology in itself. And most filtering starts in the range that most of us can still hear. When done right, it's not noticeable. But when you listen to the master, there is no filtering out of the frequencies above 20Khz. And you will sense the difference, even if you can't hear above 20Khz because the frequencies below the 20Khz limit are not affected by any filtering. All the highs at that range will sound more natural.
OT- Speaking of not hearing frequencies above 20Khz. I bought a remote (as is), for my Accutrac turntable (for collectable purpose.), from eBay. But I have not yet procured the receiver that hooks up to the turntable. Now to test an infra red remote, I just use my Sony camcorder with night vision to see if it flashes when I press the buttons. But this was one of those RF ultra sound remote and not being able to hear those frequencies when I pushed the buttons, I could not test it. Then it dawn on me, my dog might be able to hear it. So I pointed the remote, from a distance, at my dog and sure enough her ears perked, she cocked her head and gave me a …... what the hell was that ….. look. So just because most of us can't hear above 20Khz, it doesn't mean any sound above that frequency don't have its uses. You can always use it get a funny look from your dog.
Extensive listening tests show that the difference you hear is exactly like the problems of the gluten intolerant. May I introduce you to the placebo effect. May you have a wonderful life together.
But is it not a placebo effect. A placebo effect is when one thinks there's a difference when no measurable difference exist. A 256Kbps file has 75% less info than the CD version it was sampled from. Any computer can measure the difference. So there is clearly a measurable difference between the two. So if one can hear a difference, it can not be attributed to the placebo effect. It may be because, one of the files has 75% less information.
Let me re- introduce you to the placebo effect. The placebo effect would occur if one was first played a 256Kbps file and told it was a 256Kbps file, and then played the same 256Kbps file but was told it was a CD file. If he hears a difference then, where no measurable difference existed except what he was told, then that's the placebo effect.
But is it not a placebo effect. A placebo effect is when one thinks there's a difference when no measurable difference exist. A 256Kbps file has 75% less info than the CD version it was sampled from. Any computer can measure the difference. So there is clearly a measurable difference between the two. So if one can hear a difference, it can not be attributed to the placebo effect. It may be because, one of the files has 75% less information.
Let me re- introduce you to the placebo effect. The placebo effect would occur if one was first played a 256Kbps file and told it was a 256Kbps file, and then played the same 256Kbps file but was told it was a CD file. If he hears a difference then, where no measurable difference existed except what he was told, then that's the placebo effect.
Sure there is a measurable difference. But you can't hear it. If i create two smooth surfaces, one of which is measurably smoother, but not by enough to be detected by human touch, and have you feel them, by definition you can't tell the difference.
But if I tell you they are different, and now suddenly you feel it, what is that?
Strictly speaking the placebo effect is only used for medicine. I am pointing out that the same psychological effect can happen in other cases.
Your argument assumes that while there is a measurable difference it is something you can detect. Yet we know you can't. A sugar pill is measurably different from an aspirin, but the human taste buds don't pick it up when it is inside a caplet. Thus the placebo effect.
The HiFi debate has been going on for ages and it's not going to be resolved on this forum.
That said, can't the deniers (for lack of a better term) just accept that maybe they can't hear the difference but other people can. Personally, I can't... 192kbps is fine for me, but I find it entirely possible that others can tell the difference. Just like some people can't tell the difference between a $10 steak and a $100 steak. Between Panda Express and authentic Chinese. Or 30 thread-count sheets and 100. Hell, my wife doesn't notice when TV switches between SD and HD (though my guess is she just doesn't care).
Of course, I acknowledge that for every person that can truly tell the difference, there's probably 10 others that say they can but can't really. Same as that Celiac's vs placebo effect discussed above.
Sure there is a measurable difference. But you can't hear it. If i create two smooth surfaces, one of which is measurably smoother, but not by enough to be detected by human touch, and have you feel them, by definition you can't tell the difference.
But if I tell you they are different, and now suddenly you feel it, what is that?
Strictly speaking the placebo effect is only used for medicine. I am pointing out that the same psychological effect can happen in other cases.
Your argument assumes that while there is a measurable difference it is something you can detect. Yet we know you can't. A sugar pill is measurably different from an aspirin, but the human taste buds don't pick it up when it is inside a caplet. Thus the placebo effect.
All I'm saying is that you are wrong in calling it the placebo effect. It's no where near the placebo effect. It's like saying that because you were told that a 256Kbps file and a CD file sounds the same, your brain fools your ears into thinking that there isn't any difference, even if a difference may exist.
When testing medicine, one can give two group of test subjects two different tasting pills because neither group will ever taste the pill the other group is taking. They both think they're are taking the same pill.
But with music, an A B blind test must be used because in order to measure whether one can hear the difference between measuredly different music files, the same subject must listen to both files without knowing which file he is listening to and try to determine which file is which. We know that a difference exist. The test is to determine if the difference can be heard.
You can't have two group of test subjects, with one group listening to the CD version and the other group listening the 256Kbps music file but both groups were told they were listening to the CD version. And then try to measure if anyone in the group listening to the 256Kbps, thought they were listening to the CD version.
The difference between trying to feel how smooth two measuredly different surfaces are and listening to two different music files is that we can only rely on our sense of touch for feel. But when listening to two music files, we are also relying on the play back equipment to hear any difference. Sure a CD file and a 256Kbps music file will most likely sound the same on an iPod with headphones. But can you really say that a good stereo system playing back those same files will not produce any audible difference? All it takes is one person, with a good stereo system and the right music, to hear a difference, to prove you wrong. Not all the info that is tossed, when converting a CD to 256Kbps is in the inaudible range of the average person. Some of that tossed info falls in the audible range but is determine to be unimportant to the music by the software that converts the file. It's not that you are under estimating the hearing ability of the average person, but that you are under estimating the ability of a really good stereo system play back the info that was tossed from the audible range of a CD file. And over estimating the ability of the compression software to determine what is unimportant to the music when tossing out info.
You want a simple test to see if you can hear a difference between a CD file and a 256Kbps file. Take a favorite song from a CD and convert it to 256Kbps in iTunes. Then take the 256Kbps you just made and convert it back to AIFF format. You now have a 256Kbps file that will play on a stereo CD player. The two files should be the same size but the one with the 256Kbps file is missing 75% of the info that was on the original. (The lost info was not put back in when converted back to AIFF.) (You can put both version on one CD so you don't have to switch out CD's and have a friend give you an AB test using a remote.) Listen to the song from the original CD and compare it to the 256Kbps version. On a descent stereo system, not a computer or in your car. The difference doesn't have to be night and day. Just hearing the slightest difference in just one 10 second passage of the song will get you pass an AB listening test. All it takes is one person, listening to one song, from one CD and hearing the slightest difference, to disprove the notion that no one can hear the difference between a 256Kbps file and the CD file. Maybe it'll take you a handful of tries with different songs, but so long as you don't let your brain fool your ears into thinking that there is no difference, I'll bet you'll find that one song in which you can hear a difference.
All I'm saying is that you are wrong in calling it the placebo effect. It's no where near the placebo effect. It's like saying that because you were told that a 256Kbps file and a CD file sounds the same, your brain fools your ears into thinking that there isn't any difference, even if a difference may exist.
When testing medicine, one can give two group of test subjects two different tasting pills because neither group will ever taste the pill the other group is taking. They both think they're are taking the same pill.
But with music, an A B blind test must be used because in order to measure ....
You can call it the "I am trying to justify my purchases effect" for all I care. The fact remains that the test you want me to do has been done to death, and the vast majority of people can't tell, or even care.
In fact it has been A B C where C just sounded like switching to a different song, but played the same. And most people just can't tell.
Again, if it gets you more mileage for the dollar, good for you. Go for it. But this story is a no fly runor, because Apple doesn't have to cheat against this overpriced over rated also ran service. It will die on its own.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. (Or Bureaucracy, more likely. Like the Pebble watch apps I don't think this is intentional by Apple. )
Comments
Now if someone would start writing some good music than all of this might actually make a difference. I am still trying to figure out why a song is better being twice as long when all that is done is repeat the chorus over and over for 3/4 of the song. I especially like to listen to the songs that talk about killing people or treating women like animals or sex slaves. That is where real high fidelity really comes into play. Don't want to miss a single nuance of the hate and deprivation in the the enlightening lyrics. Such as this inspiring bit from JayZ:
"not does not matter. Me give my heart to a woman?
Not for nothin', never happen
I'll be forever mackin'
Heart cold as assassins, I got no passion
I got no patience
And I hate waitin'
Hoe get yo' ass in
And let's ride, check em out now"
Now don't get me wrong there is a lot of great music out there, just not sure who listens to it. So weather Apple is delaying the Tidal app or not, who knows. But maybe that is not the first thing we should be concerned about.
Isn't Tital just a copy of Spotify? Tital has a long list of issues, but I think a big one is that there's no FREE service. To even use it you have to pay. You had a bunch of people downloading the App to check it out and then found out they couldn't do anything without paying money and so now the App dropped like a rock!!!
The whole 75% of the money going to the Artists and producers and whatnot sounds great and all, BUT the other services fork out a whole lot of money also. Spotify for example pays out around 70%. The problem is just like CD's, the Labels get most of the money, the Artist gets a few pennies on the dollar. Some Artists are Jay Z have their own Label and so get all the money!!! Tital isn't really any better then anyone else when you come right down to it. Anyone missed this when people were attacking Spotify and they released this,....
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
I
Ironic example, since I have genetically verified Celiac disease. But, I don't feel the need to justify what I enjoy. I don't demand you enjoy it to.
Then more than most you should be aware of the placebo effect that has millions of people claiming to suffer a poor mans version of what you actually have.
And no, you don't need to justify that you get more imaginary enjoyment from the imaginary sound quality that your brain creates. By all means spend more money to feel better. That is the heart of capitalism.
But you should know that your brain is lying to ears. That extra money, and unmeasurable sound quality is an illusion. They could sell you the same tracks iTunes is selling, just charge more and lie and tell you they are better quality, and you would get the same result.
Some of us like reality. You don't have to. Whatever gets you through the day.
They can't and they shouldn't. Especially with "Friend of Cote" still around. Even if they could, why bother with a small competitor when there are bigger fish to fry. It's all bunk.
Quote:
I can buy detection of differences between a CD and perhaps even a high bitrate lossy compression...maybe. But from studio master to CD? With a sampling rate (frequency range) that is twice what a human ear can detect, at 65,000 levels of amplitude? I have trouble believing that.
The highest frequency a CD can play is about 20Khz. There's a theorem that states that the highest frequency possible, when sampling sound, is 1/2 the sampling rate. Thus the 20Khz limit on a CD.
The problem is not whether we can hear frequencies at or near the 20Khz limit. The problem is that the affect of the process use to filter out frequencies above 20Khz and to smooth out the sine waves at those frequencies in a CD can often be detected. When music is recorded in a studio, frequencies above 20Khz exist and is recorded on to the master. Even if we couldn't hear it when it was being played and can't hear it when it's being played back from the master, they are there. When the master is resampled to 44.1 sampling rate of a CD, a filter is applied to those inaudible frequencies (to us, not the equipment) to smooth out the sine waves. Otherwise the sine waves at those frequencies will start to look like square waves if you just cut off everything above the 20Khz limit of a CD. Square waves is what you get when an amp reaches its limits and clips. So just because you can't hear 20Khz, it doesn't mean that the equipment you own can't play it or at least try to play it. Sine waves at 20Khz still needs to look like sine waves because you don't want your equipment trying to play a square wave at 20Khz. The filtering and applying it is a technology in itself. And most filtering starts in the range that most of us can still hear. When done right, it's not noticeable. But when you listen to the master, there is no filtering out of the frequencies above 20Khz. And you will sense the difference, even if you can't hear above 20Khz because the frequencies below the 20Khz limit are not affected by any filtering. All the highs at that range will sound more natural.
OT- Speaking of not hearing frequencies above 20Khz. I bought a remote (as is), for my Accutrac turntable (for collectable purpose.), from eBay. But I have not yet procured the receiver that hooks up to the turntable. Now to test an infra red remote, I just use my Sony camcorder with night vision to see if it flashes when I press the buttons. But this was one of those RF ultra sound remote and not being able to hear those frequencies when I pushed the buttons, I could not test it. Then it dawn on me, my dog might be able to hear it. So I pointed the remote, from a distance, at my dog and sure enough her ears perked, she cocked her head and gave me a …... what the hell was that ….. look. So just because most of us can't hear above 20Khz, it doesn't mean any sound above that frequency don't have its uses. You can always use it get a funny look from your dog.
Extensive listening tests show that the difference you hear is exactly like the problems of the gluten intolerant. May I introduce you to the placebo effect. May you have a wonderful life together.
But is it not a placebo effect. A placebo effect is when one thinks there's a difference when no measurable difference exist. A 256Kbps file has 75% less info than the CD version it was sampled from. Any computer can measure the difference. So there is clearly a measurable difference between the two. So if one can hear a difference, it can not be attributed to the placebo effect. It may be because, one of the files has 75% less information.
Let me re- introduce you to the placebo effect. The placebo effect would occur if one was first played a 256Kbps file and told it was a 256Kbps file, and then played the same 256Kbps file but was told it was a CD file. If he hears a difference then, where no measurable difference existed except what he was told, then that's the placebo effect.
But is it not a placebo effect. A placebo effect is when one thinks there's a difference when no measurable difference exist. A 256Kbps file has 75% less info than the CD version it was sampled from. Any computer can measure the difference. So there is clearly a measurable difference between the two. So if one can hear a difference, it can not be attributed to the placebo effect. It may be because, one of the files has 75% less information.
Let me re- introduce you to the placebo effect. The placebo effect would occur if one was first played a 256Kbps file and told it was a 256Kbps file, and then played the same 256Kbps file but was told it was a CD file. If he hears a difference then, where no measurable difference existed except what he was told, then that's the placebo effect.
Sure there is a measurable difference. But you can't hear it. If i create two smooth surfaces, one of which is measurably smoother, but not by enough to be detected by human touch, and have you feel them, by definition you can't tell the difference.
But if I tell you they are different, and now suddenly you feel it, what is that?
Strictly speaking the placebo effect is only used for medicine. I am pointing out that the same psychological effect can happen in other cases.
Your argument assumes that while there is a measurable difference it is something you can detect. Yet we know you can't. A sugar pill is measurably different from an aspirin, but the human taste buds don't pick it up when it is inside a caplet. Thus the placebo effect.
Overall rating = 3.2 out of 5 Stars
5-Stars- 2,676
4-Stars- 614
3-Stars- 442
2-Stars- 361
1-Stars- 2065
The HiFi debate has been going on for ages and it's not going to be resolved on this forum.
That said, can't the deniers (for lack of a better term) just accept that maybe they can't hear the difference but other people can. Personally, I can't... 192kbps is fine for me, but I find it entirely possible that others can tell the difference. Just like some people can't tell the difference between a $10 steak and a $100 steak. Between Panda Express and authentic Chinese. Or 30 thread-count sheets and 100. Hell, my wife doesn't notice when TV switches between SD and HD (though my guess is she just doesn't care).
Of course, I acknowledge that for every person that can truly tell the difference, there's probably 10 others that say they can but can't really. Same as that Celiac's vs placebo effect discussed above.
TL;DR... Can't we all just get along?
country.price.1 sounds awfully expensive.
Sure there is a measurable difference. But you can't hear it. If i create two smooth surfaces, one of which is measurably smoother, but not by enough to be detected by human touch, and have you feel them, by definition you can't tell the difference.
But if I tell you they are different, and now suddenly you feel it, what is that?
Strictly speaking the placebo effect is only used for medicine. I am pointing out that the same psychological effect can happen in other cases.
Your argument assumes that while there is a measurable difference it is something you can detect. Yet we know you can't. A sugar pill is measurably different from an aspirin, but the human taste buds don't pick it up when it is inside a caplet. Thus the placebo effect.
All I'm saying is that you are wrong in calling it the placebo effect. It's no where near the placebo effect. It's like saying that because you were told that a 256Kbps file and a CD file sounds the same, your brain fools your ears into thinking that there isn't any difference, even if a difference may exist.
When testing medicine, one can give two group of test subjects two different tasting pills because neither group will ever taste the pill the other group is taking. They both think they're are taking the same pill.
But with music, an A B blind test must be used because in order to measure whether one can hear the difference between measuredly different music files, the same subject must listen to both files without knowing which file he is listening to and try to determine which file is which. We know that a difference exist. The test is to determine if the difference can be heard.
You can't have two group of test subjects, with one group listening to the CD version and the other group listening the 256Kbps music file but both groups were told they were listening to the CD version. And then try to measure if anyone in the group listening to the 256Kbps, thought they were listening to the CD version.
The difference between trying to feel how smooth two measuredly different surfaces are and listening to two different music files is that we can only rely on our sense of touch for feel. But when listening to two music files, we are also relying on the play back equipment to hear any difference. Sure a CD file and a 256Kbps music file will most likely sound the same on an iPod with headphones. But can you really say that a good stereo system playing back those same files will not produce any audible difference? All it takes is one person, with a good stereo system and the right music, to hear a difference, to prove you wrong. Not all the info that is tossed, when converting a CD to 256Kbps is in the inaudible range of the average person. Some of that tossed info falls in the audible range but is determine to be unimportant to the music by the software that converts the file. It's not that you are under estimating the hearing ability of the average person, but that you are under estimating the ability of a really good stereo system play back the info that was tossed from the audible range of a CD file. And over estimating the ability of the compression software to determine what is unimportant to the music when tossing out info.
You want a simple test to see if you can hear a difference between a CD file and a 256Kbps file. Take a favorite song from a CD and convert it to 256Kbps in iTunes. Then take the 256Kbps you just made and convert it back to AIFF format. You now have a 256Kbps file that will play on a stereo CD player. The two files should be the same size but the one with the 256Kbps file is missing 75% of the info that was on the original. (The lost info was not put back in when converted back to AIFF.) (You can put both version on one CD so you don't have to switch out CD's and have a friend give you an AB test using a remote.) Listen to the song from the original CD and compare it to the 256Kbps version. On a descent stereo system, not a computer or in your car. The difference doesn't have to be night and day. Just hearing the slightest difference in just one 10 second passage of the song will get you pass an AB listening test. All it takes is one person, listening to one song, from one CD and hearing the slightest difference, to disprove the notion that no one can hear the difference between a 256Kbps file and the CD file. Maybe it'll take you a handful of tries with different songs, but so long as you don't let your brain fool your ears into thinking that there is no difference, I'll bet you'll find that one song in which you can hear a difference.
You can call it the "I am trying to justify my purchases effect" for all I care. The fact remains that the test you want me to do has been done to death, and the vast majority of people can't tell, or even care.
In fact it has been A B C where C just sounded like switching to a different song, but played the same. And most people just can't tell.
Again, if it gets you more mileage for the dollar, good for you. Go for it. But this story is a no fly runor, because Apple doesn't have to cheat against this overpriced over rated also ran service. It will die on its own.
And the Tidal update appears today.
Haaaahahahahaha!