sonitus mirus said:

   
I'm guessing from the use of italics that you assume we may somehow develop superior hearing abilities that would change this view?  
 
If the reason is purely psychological, it is probably not worthwhile to anyone except the person making money on a sale. 

Click to expand...

Did you actually read what I said, or just cherry pick the part you wanted to make fun of?

u2bono269 said:

 
Did you actually read what I said, or just cherry pick the part you wanted to make fun of?

Click to expand...

 
I completely disagree with your assessment that perception is all that matters when it comes to music and the equipment used to play it.  My perception is all over the map, depending on a myriad of factors.  The one thing I want to be certain about is the sound quality.  I'm not concerned with how much the equipment costs or how big the files might be.  My perception will change.  Why not only listen to music when you suck on a peppermint candy if it makes the music sound better on Tuesdays?  Perception is unreliable and ultimately one of the last things that matters.
 
I don't believe a microscope and our vision is an appropriate analogy.   A microscope or telescope is not improving your sight.  It is the equivalent of increasing or decreasing an otherwise inaudible frequency to something within the human hearing range.
 
A transparent medium that you can see through compared to a transparent audio signal would be more appropriate.  Transparent is transparent.  Invisible is invisible.  "Inaudible is inaudible." (-bigshot)   

bigshot said:

  Inaudible is inaudible.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but at the same time, ultraviolet light is invisible to our eyes. So invisible is invisible, right? Yet, technology exists that allows artists to make beautiful works of art through ultraviolet photography. My only point is that if that exists, it's possible that something similar could happen with the bits of audio that we can't hear. You're free to disagree, but are you so narrow-minded that you can't consider the possibility?

I think we understand what you're saying... The difference isn't audible, but larger file sizes make you feel more secure. You are willing to give up drive space and spend more money for that feeling of security. That's a perfectly good explanation. We accept it. It's just that chunky file sizes don't do anything at all for us. As long as a format is convenient and is audibly transparent, we don't worry or obsess over missing out on some file size.

sonitus mirus said:

   
I completely disagree with your assessment that perception is all that matters when it comes to music and the equipment used to play it.  My perception is all over the map, depending on a myriad of factors.  The one thing I want to be certain about is the sound quality.  I'm not concerned with how much the equipment costs or how big the files might be.  My perception will change.  Why not only listen to music when you suck on a peppermint candy if it makes the music sound better on Tuesdays?  Perception is unreliable and ultimately one of the last things that matters.
 
I don't believe a microscope and our vision is an appropriate analogy.   A microscope or telescope is not improving your sight.  It is the equivalent of increasing or decreasing an otherwise inaudible frequency to something within the human hearing range.
 
A transparent medium that you can see through compared to a transparent audio signal would be more appropriate.  Transparent is transparent.  Invisible is invisible.  "Inaudible is inaudible." (-bigshot)

  

Click to expand...

If I think my music sounds better for whatever reason, then it does...to me. Bottom line. If I think my music sounds better with peppermint candy, then guess what? It does...to me.
 
Though for the record, I don't think it does in this case, I'm just agreeing with the other person's point.
 
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to believe that technology could one day exist to take advantage of otherwise inaudible frequencies in any of a number of different and currently unthinkable ways.

u2bono269 said:

 

bigshot said:

  Inaudible is inaudible.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but at the same time, ultraviolet light is invisible to our eyes. So invisible is invisible, right? Yet, technology exists that allows artists to make beautiful works of art through ultraviolet photography. My only point is that if that exists, it's possible that something similar could happen with the bits of audio that we can't hear. You're free to disagree, but are you so narrow-minded that you can't consider the possibility?

Click to expand...

you're talking about DSPs. when I take an IR picture, I can't see IR. so I use a trick moving the signal into the visible range. it's kind of like changing the pitch of the song, some ultrasounds will slow down and become trebles. but I fail to see how that is a technology improvement, or how it is supposed to mater in music.
it's not about being open minded, it's about looking at what will and will not change. when we already fail to distinguish 16/44 compared to pretty much anything above, what do you expect to hear with further resolution increase? more of the exact same perceived sound.

Just different opinions, nothing wrong with that, though I'm sure you think that my opinion is wrong. 
 
Since we hear with our brains, it would be neat if we could all somehow listen to music only in our own heads with perfect hearing and no worries about damaging our ears.  There has been some work done to bring sound to the deaf along these ideas, but I couldn't find a link in a quick search.  If this ever becomes a reality, we may all be listening without ears at all, just some implant in our jaw, and perhaps we will need much higher resolutions.

castleofargh said:

 
you're talking about DSPs. when I take an IR picture, I can't see IR. so I use a trick moving the signal into the visible range. it's kind of like changing the pitch of the song, some ultrasounds will slow down and become trebles. but I fail to see how that is a technology improvement, or how it is supposed to mater in music.
it's not about being open minded, it's about looking at what will and will not change. when we already fail to distinguish 16/44 compared to pretty much anything above, what do you expect to hear with further resolution increase? more of the exact same perceived sound.

Click to expand...

You could be absolutely correct. I wouldn't expect to hear anything with a resolution increase. But my argument is theoretical, so in order for it work, sound engineers would need to do something different to take advantage of whatever this technology might be.
 
Look, I know it sounds a little crazy and not really rooted in our current understanding of sound science. I'm a firm believer that there is no limit to the human imagination and there are endless possibilities. Maybe I read too much science fiction.

sonitus mirus said:

  Just different opinions, nothing wrong with that, though I'm sure you think that my opinion is wrong. 

 
Since we hear with our brains, it would be neat if we could all somehow listen to music only in our own heads with perfect hearing and no worries about damaging our ears.  There has been some work done to bring sound to the deaf along these ideas, but I couldn't find a link in a quick search.  If this ever becomes a reality, we may all be listening without ears at all, just some implant in our jaw, and perhaps we will need much higher resolutions.

Click to expand...

Exactly! That, I agree with. Just because we can't do anything with it now doesn't mean we won't one day.
 
One of my friends is deaf, and told me about something similar. He has a cochlear implant and sometimes complains of high frequencies getting picked up and drowning out other sounds that he wants to hear. He also said once that he wished he could hook his iphone directly into it and not have to hold the phone to his ear.
 
There are just so many possibilities...why limit our thinking?

u2bono269 said:

 
I understand your point, but at the same time, ultraviolet light is invisible to our eyes. So invisible is invisible, right? Yet, technology exists that allows artists to make beautiful works of art through ultraviolet photography. My only point is that if that exists, it's possible that something similar could happen with the bits of audio that we can't hear. You're free to disagree, but are you so narrow-minded that you can't consider the possibility?

Click to expand...

The way ultraviolet photography works is by converting ultraviolet frequencies down into the range that is already visible by humans.  There are a lot of examples of this in astronomy photos and other scientific photography as well as art.  100% perfectly analogous technologies do of course already exist for audio.  Some recordings of dolphin and whale songs are an example--the significant ultrasonic frequencies are converted down into our human audible range.  But none of these change the range of what humans can see or hear, what they do is alter the information to fit within that unchanged, unchanging natural biological range.
 

u2bono269 said:

 
If I think my music sounds better for whatever reason, then it does...to me. Bottom line. If I think my music sounds better with peppermint candy, then guess what? It does...to me.
 
Though for the record, I don't think it does in this case, I'm just agreeing with the other person's point.
 
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to believe that technology could one day exist to take advantage of otherwise inaudible frequencies in any of a number of different and currently unthinkable ways.

Click to expand...

I agree with you completely on the first point, although I and others here clearly make a different choice.   If it pleases you, it's your right to store and play back music in whatever format you want, end of story, whether it is rational or not.  It's unusual to be able to maintain the placebo effect once the curtain has been lifted, but if you can, more power to you.

To the second point, the only technology that would achieve what you are talking about would be some kind of cyborg/replicant artificial sensory organs which expanded the actual range of our senses.  Short of that, we can't see what we can't see, and we can't hear what we can't hear.  Down-converting frequencies, which is already very commonly done, is a work-around which doesn't change that range.

threephi said:

  To the second point, the only technology that would achieve what you are talking about would be some kind of cyborg/replicant artificial sensory organs which expanded the actual range of our senses.  Short of that, we can't see what we can't see, and we can't hear what we can't hear.  Down-converting frequencies, which is already very commonly done, is a work-around which doesn't change that range.

Click to expand...

 
I tend to think that if we're ever able to take advantage of these frequencies, it will be in an entirely different manner than we would traditionally expect.
 
I have a whopping 4 albums in high-resolution. I don't plan on picking any more up unless I know it's a really great master that I can't get elsewhere or a brand new master of one of a handful of albums I really, really love.

u2bono269 said:

  But my argument is theoretical

Click to expand...

 
Entirely!

u2bono269 said:

   
I tend to think that if we're ever able to take advantage of these frequencies, it will be in an entirely different manner than we would traditionally expect.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there, but at that point, we're no longer talking about hearing those frequencies, which is the question under consideration.  There are some really fascinating cross-sensory technologies that have emerged in the last few years, which some others touched on above.  One example is the BrainPort, which is a device for the blind that translates visual data into electrical stimulation on the surface of the tongue.  With only a little bit of acclimation, people intuitively translate that into spatial perception.  That tells me that the brain's sensory pathways are quite flexible, and can be reprogrammed under certain circumstances.  So yeah, it's conceivable that we might at some point develop a device which translated ultrasonic frequencies onto some other sensory input, which our brains could then be trained to interpret as some kind of extension of the experience of listening.  We still wouldn't be able to hear them though.

The AES did a test where they asked all kinds of people to ID the "best sound quality in music". There was nothing to indicate that high frequencies made a lick of difference. In fact, they rolled off everything above 10kHz, and most people said that it sounded the same. Not surprising because 10-20kHz is just one little octave at the edges of human perception.

bigshot said:

  Steven Wilson's Jethro Tull remixes (War Child) and XTC (Drums and Wires) leave out important elements of the mix and alter the style of the music. I am a big fan of 5.1, but I have yet to hear a good Steven Wilson mix.

Click to expand...

Try some of his solo stuff or porcupine tree in 5.1. I like pretty much all of them, I've got in 5.1:

1. Stupid Dream (PT)
2. Deadwing (PT)
3. Anesthetize (PT tour DVD)
4. Grace for Drowning (SW)
5. Storm Corrosion (SW)
6. The Raven That Refused to Sing (SW)

 
All the mixes make good use of 5.1 and sound better than the stereo versions IMO.