[Lee Scoggins]

Look at this interesting study on sound quality preferences among UK consumers....

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=17568480

Maybe we are selling sound quality short as an attribute the buying public actually wants. Perhaps education is the key...

[Phil A]

I did not like them referring to me as:

"Listening to music in ‘surround sound’ is a much higher preference among those aged 18-24 (66%) than those aged 45-54 (26%) – a recent Hi-Fi Choice column suggested that those who didn’t like multi-channel music were mostly tired old men, afraid to try something new… and that now appears to be statistically accurate, at least according to this poll!"

I am not tired at all. I take my Geritol every day

[Seth--L]

an overwhelming 80% of those saying that sound quality is important to them said they like their music ‘to be crystal clear, free from noise and interference’.

Well duh. Everyone wants a recording to sound as best as possible. The question would have produced more meaningful information had it been phrased like: "Will poor sound quality deter you from buying a CD (LP, SACD or DVD-A) that you're interested in?" And: "When deciding on buying a CD, what's more important: sound quality or performance quality?

Listening to music in ‘surround sound’ is a much higher preference among those aged 18-24 (66%) than those aged 45-54 (26%)

Again this all comes down to how the question was worded. I prefer watching films in 35mm on a big screen, but I mainly watch them on a tube with DVD.

While I only skimmed the article, I would like to really understand what those that were surveyed consider good quality sound.

Given that a bazillion people are said to have actually paid $$$ for 128K AAC files at iTunes, I suspect that the answers to that one would be all over the map.

I would wager if you sat them down and played a few of those 128K tracks over a 1/2 decent rig, they would say sure, thats good SQ. Then play an AIX DVD-A or maybe Beck's Sea Change on SACD, and the jaws would hit the floor. Or maybe not?

Oh, and I am 43. Can't I play too???

BGL

[Michael St. Clair]

Quote:

I would like to really understand what those that were surveyed consider good quality sound.

Probably anything that isn't vinyl (clicks), tape (hiss), or analog radio (static).

[Lee Scoggins]

Quote:

I would wager if you sat them down and played a few of those 128K tracks over a 1/2 decent rig, they would say sure, thats good SQ.

Well I disagree but to blend your post and Seth's I would argue the best survey would be to play a song (in a genre/band the listener is familiar with) first in MP3 and then in Red Book and then in DVDA/SACD on a reasonable but not expensive system and ask them what version they liked most without revealing the format.

I betcha that most would prefer the hirez and some would prefer the Red Book, but very few would choose 128K sampling.

Well my point, perhaps poorly made is that, viewed without a comparison to true hi-rez stuff, many listeners would say that 128K SQ is "good".

Again, the iTunes numbers speak volumes.

Now, listened to in a true head to head, sure, anyone with two ears that work would likely choose the hi-rez. But then, the definition of SQ for 128K AAC would switch from "good" to "good enough".

BGL

[Seth--L]

Lee,

My point is that with any survey/poll you can produce the results you want through the wording, and with this one, commissioned by Philips, Sony and UMG, they've done that.

What's ironic about this stat:

Listening to music in ‘surround sound’ is a much higher preference among those aged 18-24 (66%) than those aged 45-54 (26%)

is that most 18-24 year-olds primarily listen to MP3s on their computer or portable MP3 player, while the 45-54 age group is far more likely to primarily listen to music on CD and LP using a real stereo system.

I would argue the best survey would be to play a song (in a genre/band the listener is familiar with) first in MP3 and then in Red Book and then in DVDA/SACD on a reasonable but not expensive system and ask them what version they liked most without revealing the format.

Just because they think the SACD sounds better than the redbook and MP3 doesn't mean they're going to invest in SACD.

[Marc Colella]

Quote:

an overwhelming 80% of those saying that sound quality is important to them said they like their music ‘to be crystal clear, free from noise and interference’.

Yep, and they're already getting "crystal clear" sound with CD and MP3.

I've heard many people refer to CD and MP3 as having "awesome sound". If it's loud and "pumping" - then it sounds good. Our definition of good sound quality is much different than the average consumer.

Anything above and beyond CD and MP3 is overkill, and people just don't care and many won't even notice.

[Lee Scoggins]

Quote:

Again, the iTunes numbers speak volumes.

It speaks volumes about two things: (1) the convenience of downloading and (2) Apple's ability to generate excitement in their marketing and provide robust consumer products.

Quote:

Anything above and beyond CD and MP3 is overkill, and people just don't care and many won't even notice.

In my opinion, the results here refute this.

[Michael St. Clair]

Quote:

I betcha that most would prefer the hirez and some would prefer the Red Book, but very few would choose 128K sampling.

I've got to agree with Lee, you are going to have to get the bitrate of the MP3 up to 192k variable or 256k fixed before you start fooling more than a minority of listeners.

Quote:

In my opinion, the results here refute this.

Which results?