Re: [ARSCLIST] MP3

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hello, Steve,
> I will tell you a little story about a bad test design and a good test design.
> The bad test started at a lecture I was giving. Part of my standard
> lecture shows "what is possible" at a given era by highlighting
> high-quality sound from a given era (going back to a 1935 steel tape
> copy). Someone asked about MP3 and I had one of the 1980s selections
> both in my demo as a WAV file and on my Palm T3 as an MP3. The Palm
> sounded way worse than the Sony CD walkman I was using for the rest
> of the demo.
> When I got home, I took the original file, made a high-quality MP3
> within Samplitude, converted it back to WAV and then cut between the
> two recordings. I now demo the cut recording and the MP3 is almost
> identical to the WAV file.
> So, just as with A-D and D-A converters and even CDs themselves which
> over time have, for some people, received the reputation of "not
> sounding good" for perhaps the wrong reasons. Clearly, here we were
> hearing the deficiencies in the Palm T3 audio system as opposed to
> the deficiencies in the MP3 format.
> I believe that my test is one of the few ways that one can do a test
> and remove most of the external variables. I'm passing this story on
> as an object lesson and as a caveat to anyone doing a listening test:
> make sure that you're really listening to what you think you're
> listening to and do NOT make assumptions. I believe that it is almost
> impossible to do the test that you describe using A/B hardware
> without the hardware differences influencing the rating of the format.
> Oh, and I emailed the organizer of the lecture this explanation and
> requested she mail it to all attendees. I think she did.
>
The harsh reality is this: most folks who visit such comparisons
"arrive at the front door" with their own firm (and prejudiced)
convictions...and are thus looking for anything that suppoprts their
already-decided assumptions!

The other harsh reality (which I know all too well) is that most of
the parties debating these details are at least into middle age, if
not past...and as such have lost a significant part of the hearing
they once had!

We might make it a requirement that anyone intending to pass judgment
on audio formats be required to submit a current audiogram of their
hearing capabilities/limitations...

Steven C. Barr