[LisaShayBrown]

Sometimes the adult me has to pinch myself and remind myself how good we've got it today.

no doubt. it's insane we can just grab instantly any music anywhere at extremely high fidelity.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

FTFY

also.

 

[gregorio]

is that what I said? doesn't seem to be remotely like what i said.

It seems to be what you said, why don’t you clarify?

that's an extraordinary claim.

No it’s not.

i assume you have lots of evidence for it?

Give me one of the other factors you believe and I’ll provide the evidence.

i may enjoy it more at higher fidelity, but i may not (ask anyone who prefers tubes or who puts tissues over the tweeters of ns-10s).

I only know one person these days who prefers tubes and it’s at least a decade since I saw anyone put tissues over the tweeters of ns-10s but that wasn’t to lower their fidelity, it was to improve the balance and I don’t know any tube amps that can’t reproduce audible bass.

Sure, there are some people who appear to prefer marginally lower fidelity, do you prefer hugely lower fidelity?

G

 

[LisaShayBrown]

I personally don't have nostalgia for noise, I love music. I'm able to listen past noise... hearing an acoustic 78 of Caruso on a vintage phonograph gives me goosebumps... but would I go back in a time machine with a digital recorder to record him properly if I could? You better believe it!

I grew up with tape hiss, inner groove distortion, generation loss and surface noise. Back then, I wished I had all music on reel to reel at 7.5 ips so I wouldn't have to deal with it. Now I have CDs and I actually don't have to deal with it any more. I'm not going back. I don't feel all warm and fuzzy having to preen a record with a velvet before playing it. I don't enjoy figuring out how to use dolby encoding to get the results I like, and I don't like having to research which pressing of a record is the one that messes it up the least.

My dream when I was back in middle school was to be able to carry around my whole music collection in my pocket with perfect sound. AAC 256 VBR achieves that. The teenage me would have been over the moon with happiness. Sometimes the adult me has to pinch myself and remind myself how good we've got it today.

i've heard some of that caruso stuff. wow. also grigory sokolov live recordings with all kinds of noise and distortions that are incredible. art tatum. heck, early elvis.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

It seems to be what you said, why don’t you clarify?

because what i said is what i said, and it's perfectly clear.

No it’s not.

Give me one of the other factors you believe and I’ll provide the evidence.

switching noise coming through the ac mains.

I only know one person these days who prefers tubes and it’s at least a decade since I saw anyone put tissues over the tweeters of ns-10s but that wasn’t to lower their fidelity, it was to improve the balance and I don’t know any tube amps that can’t reproduce audible bass.

your experience is a sample of n=1, hardly useful science.

Sure, there are some people who appear to prefer marginally lower fidelity, do you prefer hugely lower fidelity?

G

no. what an odd question.

 

[bigshot]

Elvis was actually recorded well. The old 45s packed a lot of punch and RCA had some of the best recording technology of the time.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Fidelity just provides accuracy, and if not sufficient, it can reduce enjoyment. But all of the enjoyment in listening to music comes from the music, not the machine you're playing it on.

those statements contradict each other. how can all the enjoyment come from the music if a less good machine reduces enjoyment?

 

[bigshot]

those statements contradict each other. how can all the enjoyment come from the music if a less good machine reduces enjoyment?

Because obscuring music with noise reduces its intelligibility. All the enjoyment is coming from the music, and the noise is preventing you from hearing the music. If there is no noise, you can fully hear the music to enjoy it. But that doesn't mean that the fidelity is adding enjoyment. It's just not limiting it.

It's the same line of reasoning as why cables don't improve sound... The signal is the signal. It is either put across with perfect reproduction, or it's degraded. A wire can only degrade the signal. It can't improve it.

Musical enjoyment comes from music. Fidelity either presents it accurately, or it degrades it to some degree.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Because obscuring music with noise reduces its intelligibility. All the enjoyment is coming from the music, and the noise is preventing you from hearing the music. If there is no noise, you can fully hear the music to enjoy it. But that doesn't mean that the fidelity is adding enjoyment. It's just not limiting it.

ok, i get how you're coming at it.

but only theoretical because it assumes perfect fidelity, which doesn't exist.

 

[bigshot]

Audible transparency exists, and to human ears, that sounds exactly the same as perfect fidelity.

Like you said... you couldn't discern a 96k MP3 over a telephone. You can't discern fidelity above the threshold of audible transparency with human ears. Our human hearing ability is finite and it's the best we can perceive. Sound can be better, but only bats will appreciate the difference.

Audible transparency is all that is necessary for the reproduction of music.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Audible transparency is all that is necessary for the reproduction of music.

true, and that's all we music lovers seek.

 

[bigshot]

...and it's what compressed audio provides you. AAC and MP3 are capable of achieving audible transparency. That is perfect to human ears.

The way you discern where the threshold of transparency lies is to do an ABX test between the original recording uncompressed and the lossy file. When you can no longer discern a difference, you've achieved your goal. That is exactly what I did before I started ripping my CD collection. I spent a couple of weeks doing controlled listening tests to determine what the best codec and data rate was to achieve audible transparency 100% of the time. I arrived at AAC 256 VBR.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

...and it's what compressed audio provides you. AAC and MP3 are capable of achieving audible transparency. That is perfect to human ears.

The way you discern where the threshold of transparency lies is to do an ABX test between the original recording uncompressed and the lossy file. When you can no longer discern a difference, you've achieved your goal. That is exactly what I did before I started ripping my CD collection. I spent a couple of weeks doing controlled listening tests to determine what the best codec and data rate was to achieve audible transparency 100% of the time. I arrived at AAC 256 VBR.

great for your situation. but generalizing to all of humanity from a sample size of n=1 is a mistake no one should ever make.

 

[bigshot]

The thresholds of human hearing have been studied and established for over a century through extensive study and testing. We're all human. We all have human ears. We know what human ears can and can't hear.

Again, human hearing can only be degraded, not improved. The thresholds of human hearing are the absolute best we can possibly hear. Any variation from person to person is the degree of individual degradation. No one can hear beyond those thresholds. So, if you reach the threshold of transparency, you have achieved the goal for everyone who listens to music with human ears. You can't train yourself to hear super audible frequencies or super low noise floors. You also can't train yourself to hear sound that is masked.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

We know what human ears can and can't hear.

but ears are only a small part of the system. your ears simply detect changes in air pressure.

the sound you experience is a simulation entirely created by your brain, and what the brain does with what comes in the ears is far, far from completely known.