Hmm, yeah, I suppose that makes sense.
I should have qualified that modern low-bitrate mp3 was passable at least, even if there are better alternatives. I do still listen to radio and internet radio after all :/
We might crow but content > presentation still.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Marcos Sueiro Bal <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 08:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mp3 is officially dead
> Good points. However, I would submit that an ABX test situation is pretty un-natural to begin with, and will (1) likely require critical listening (2) look for consistently detected *differences* between A and B. As for non-critical listening, the proof is in the market pudding --if low-bitrate MP3s were so bad, they would not be so ubiquitous. (Same as with compact cassettes, VHS, or telephone receivers) However, I agree with you that using the umbrella term "MP3" (or "LP" or "tape" for that matter) is not very useful --the bit-rate is extremely important. Which is why I prefer "extreme" tests, which test the limits of both the format and our perception.
> Glad you enjoyed the sources!
> Marcos Sueiro Bal
> Senior Archivist, New York Public Radio
> 646 829 4063
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eli Bildirici
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mp3 is officially dead
> These are good critiques - the sample size also struck me right away - though it is not the only study to come to such conclusions (I don't have them handy unfortunately). Phrasing the question as you did though sounds problematic - if people are asked to pick out artifacts it might put them in a 'critical' frame of mind that could skew results somehow, right? I don't doubt people would begin 'hearing things' in pristine, uncompressed sources.
> These resources seem pretty cool though - looking forward to perusing them, thanks for sharing!