Journal msobkow's Journal: The music industry has made the people half deaf 4
When a snare drum is struck, you should hear the rattle of the wires underneath the bottom drum head, not a tissue paper crackle.
When a triangle is struck, you should hear a bell-like ring soaring above the field of music, not a digitally compressed buzzing sound.
Pat Benatar's high register should soar with authority, not break up into digital noise.
When a cymbal is struck with a stick, it rings with a brassy tone; it does not break up into distortion.
But the past two generations have spent their entire lives listening to 44.1KHz/16bit samples or even more highly compressed MP3s. Their neural pathways have been trained to filter out the digital noise, and now they can't even hear the higher frequencies.
Back when vinyl was king and CDs had just came out, double-blind study after double-blind study proved that analogue was superior, and that the average person could hear the difference.
20-30 years later, the double-blind studies were repeated comparing 192KHz/24bit studio recordings to 44.1KHz/16bit CD quality audio.
Sadly, modern subjects can't hear the difference any more.
They've been robbed of their hearing, and they don't even realize it. Worse, they point to the new study as "proof" that I'm "delusional" and have even come up with some fancy name for the "delusion."
I thought I saw a class-action lawsuit against the *AA and the audio industry in the making for the loss of hearing by the general population, but people are in such denial of the issue that they modded every single one of my posts on the topic down to zero.
How sad. You've all been robbed and you'd rather claim I'm delusional than realize the new study proves you've been robbed.
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are an idiot.
Rather than taking what I say and asking yourself "Why can some people hear a difference?", you're knee-jerk reaction is to claim we're all delusional because you can't hear the difference and some modern study supports your viewpoint.
Read more. There are ways to test my theory, and I'm 100% positive such tests would show I'm right, because I'm not the only person I know who can hear a difference.
For example, a Google+ poster suggested comparing double-blind test results betwe
well (Score:2)
according to this - http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html [xiph.org] there is a reason that people don't hear the difference between 192KHz/24bit studio recordings to 44.1KHz/16bit CD quality audio. I'm not an expert - but what he explains makes sense to me and is rather convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Good article.
But I stand by what I say: 44.1/16 does not sound like real/live music. And 192/24 does. The fact that many people can't hear the difference bears investigating, but it does not bear villifying those of us who can hear the difference.
Rather than calling us "delusional" as the previous poster did, people should be interested in a study to find out why some people can hear the difference. I proposed one theory; there may be others.
One fellow on Google+ had a good discussion on the topic