Craig Anderton’s Open Channel: I’m just asking questions…

No, this is not a thinly veiled attempt to ask leading questions and get away with it, as some people in the media do. These are questions I really don’t know the answers to.

No, this is not a thinly veiled attempt to ask leading questions and get away with it, as some people in the media do. These are questions I really don’t know the answers to. But hey, to blend Readers are smart, so I hope you all have some answers and can give me some ideas.

Has there ever been a double-blind test showing that people can hear a difference between audio played at 96 kHz or 48 kHz if the material was recorded at 96 kHz?

The reason I say “recorded at 96 kHz” is because I know that almost all people can hear audible, distinct differences with some in-the-box audio sources recorded at 96 kHz, as opposed to recorded at 44.1 or 48 kHz. The reason I know this is because I have conducted listening tests at various seminars where people can hear the difference when foldover distortion is present at lower sample rates. Okay, so recording at 96 kHz can make a difference. But what about material recorded at 96 kHz and played at 96 or 44.1/48 kHz? Despite communicating extensively with Google, I have yet to find a definitive study that says the majority (or minority for that matter) of people can or cannot tell the difference. We’ve been told to play at high sample rates for decades without anyone actually knowing if it makes an audible, reproducible difference?

In terms of software, what brings in more revenue for companies that offer both: subscriptions or perpetual licenses?

No software company will answer that question for me, but I’m curious. Some people hate subscriptions with a passion and won’t buy a program unless a perpetual license is available. Other buyers see subscriptions as a way to spread expenses over time. If they really like the program and a company offers both options, they can always purchase the perpetual version later. So, how do consumers vote with their dollars when it comes to the dilemma of subscriptions versus perpetual licenses?

Is there an organization that conducts objective, scientifically based tests of audio equipment?

I remember when Keyboard magazine paid a lot of money to buy an Audio Precision AP-1. How come we’re stuck with all these “influencers” on YouTube saying things like, “Yeah, the XYZ mic preamps suck, but the UVW mic preamps are great,” without anything to back that up? We have standards for measurements, but no standards for their application.

Granted, there are quite a few computer measuring tools that can tell you what’s happening inside the computer, but hardware is a different story. Which Audio Interface Preamps Are Really Noisier? What we need is not a standard for the measurements themselves – we have them – but for the conditions under which measurements are made. Was the microphone preamp noise measurement done with the input shorted, or with a 150 ohm resistor to ground to represent the real world? No profit, or with profit? In most cases I have no idea.

Craig Anderton’s Open Channel: Can You Negotiate With AI?

While an independent testing organization would be great, I doubt that will happen. The next best thing would be to establish uniform testing conditions for hardware products. When companies then announce their specifications, they would have the right to say that their specifications meet a uniform set of standards, so that customers can make direct comparisons and draw valid conclusions. Ultimately, I think that’s in everyone’s best interest.

Why don’t streaming services offer value-added/optional downloads at an additional cost?

Streaming services say they don’t make much money and often lose money. The concept of paying to download songs disappeared along with the iPod, as people preferred cheap or free streaming.

But what if there were downloads available containing interviews, photos, concert posters, album covers, artist commentary and maybe even isolated songs? One of the reasons people still buy Blu-Ray discs is the extras. Of course I can stream Indiana Jones and the Dial of Fate on Disney+, but with the Blu-Ray I can watch the film with just the soundtrack and visuals, which is brilliant: it’s like a crash course in scoring a film. So I bought the Blu-Ray. How many Taylor Swift fans would pay $19.95 for one The department of tortured poets download with the kind of extras I’m talking about? Give the money to the artist, take a 20 percent commission, everyone makes money, fans are happy.

Why Don’t Streaming Services Sign Bands?

This is related. Streaming services say that after paying the rights holders, there isn’t much left for them and the artists. Okay, so why don’t streaming services sign bands and decide what a good figure is for the rights they would pay for themselves, as well as the royalties and artist money to keep the company going? It seems to me that Apple would benefit the most from this because the bands they sign would be able to do the music for their original movies and shows.

Look what happened to the Rembrandts when they played the theme song for Friends. Or think of something Top pistol did for Berlin’s ‘Take My Breath Away’, or something like that The breakfast club did for Simple Minds’ “Don’t You Forget About Me.” There are many more examples.

Hey, I’m just asking questions! There are probably simple answers to this that would make me look weird if I even asked. But I really don’t know the answers – and I wouldn’t be surprised if others have wondered the same things.