redrol
Headphoneus Supremus
Im sure you can use your brains and cut it off.
I do cut it off.Im sure you can use your brains and cut it off.
Well, some things are sacred.Funny how they don't go after the peanut butter though...
Wow, that’s a far larger and more complex question than I think you realise, for two reasons:… are there any formal studies on the extent to which individuals are more or less affected by sighted bias in their perception of music?
They don’t affect the limits of human hearing, or rather; they can affect the limits of human hearing depending on the exact condition you’re talking about but they only reduce the limits, they don’t extend them, which is what I’m assuming you’re referring to? If so, it is based on a popular myth, for example that blind people develop increased hearing ability. There is certainly evidence that early blindness often results in enhanced listening ability compared to average sighted subjects but there’s no evidence that their physical hearing limits are improved. In other words, their physical hearing limits are no different to anyone else but they sometimes have a better than average ability to discriminate/identify what they are hearing. So for example, they would not be able to hear quieter sounds than normally sighted subjects but they can be better at determining the spatial location and/or pitch. This has been well known for a long time and more recent research has provided evidence of differences in blind people in the processing structures within the auditory cortex responsible for identifying pitch (EG. “Early Blindness Shapes Cortical Representations of Auditory Frequency within Auditory Cortex”, Huber, et al, 2019) but again, that is just a better ability to discriminate pitch, not any enhancement of physical hearing limits.E.g., how would established research results re. limits of perceptible levels of of distortion, frequency range etc. hold up if the test subjects were exclusively made up of people with e.g. synesthesia? Getting a large enough group of test subjects would be problematic. But it would be interesting to see what such research could tell us about the physical limits of human hearing versus those potentially resulting from neurological processing limits in the (normal) brain.
The one that always gets me is “organic.” The number of times I’ve read someone describing their HP’s sound as, organic, is astounding. What that means is beyond me.
Love it.I know one thing anything labelled 'organic' is more expensive, Hi-Res music and carrots for example.
Musical instruments should have timbre, but audio components shouldn’t. They should have fidelity without coloration.
There is already a phenomenal amount of variety, music from yesterday all the way back 700 years, from numerous different countries, composers, musicians and in numerous different styles.I never understood this mentality that all audio products should just be a straight signal with a gain. Variety is the spice of life.
But would you want to wear those goggles for driving, flying a plane or for looking at a piece of art by Monet, Ruben’s, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc? What about when looking at a piece of art that is not supposed to be “charming”, that is supposed to be something else entirely, like Picasso’s Guernica, Munch’s The Scream or countless other works of art? Wouldn’t looking through something that makes those works of art look “more charming” pretty much destroy the whole point of those works of art?I wear glasses and logically I need something that allows me to perceive the world as it is to the best of their vision corrective abilities. But if such things like beer goggles existed that made the world more charming to look at they’d probably sell more units than Apple!
There is already a phenomenal amount of variety, music from yesterday all the way back 700 years, from numerous different countries, composers, musicians and in numerous different styles.
But would you want to wear those goggles for driving, flying a plane or for looking at a piece of art by Monet, Ruben’s, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc? What about when looking at a piece of art that is not supposed to be “charming”, that is supposed to be something else entirely, like Picasso’s Guernica, Munch’s The Scream or countless other works of art? Wouldn’t looking through something that makes those works of art look “more charming” pretty much destroy the whole point of those works of art?
Most people want to hear music and recordings as the composers, musicians and engineers intended, not as some audio product decides. The majority of musical pieces have at least some parts that are not supposed to sound charming and some entire genres are not supposed to sound charming at all, why would you want to try to change them into something they’re not supposed to be, do you know better than Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Motorhead, The Prodigy and countless others?
G
How do you know that? Seems like an opinion positioned as fact which you know not to do given this is a “science” forum.Most people want to hear music and recordings as the composers, musicians and engineers intended
Why and how is the audio product deciding? Assume you mean how the user decided since they were the one to purchase the device based on their preferences.not as some audio product decides
Yes I do know better; there is no one more authoritative than me with regards to my personal audio preferences, that ensures I enjoy music to the fullest extent.do you know better than Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Motorhead, The Prodigy and countless others?
Personal audio preferences shouldn’t be made into laws. But admittedly, in this hobby the core principle usually is to seek fidelity(it’s done with more or less understanding, usually less). If someone claims to aim for fidelity, he should be consistent enough not to go for the clearly colored amp with maybe 3 or 4% THD, or the nearly filterless NOS DAC with massive aliasing.
Of course someone can love how they sound and that’s that.