In article ,
Greg Wormald wrote:
I'm going to assume that like most other training, the improvements in
performance can be incredibly specific.
If this is true, then the differences they may have heard in their own
equipment comparisons would not necessarily transfer to the ability to
hear differences due to compression artifacts.
Possibly, but it was not my system either, so we were all on the same
footing with respect to that.
All the same, I do find it surprising that they did so poorly.
Maybe they were so trained to listen to equipment, that they don't
bother listening to the music. :-)
That's possible, but it adds up to the same conclusions: They cannot, or
will not hear.
I'm sure there are other explanations/options/interpretations.
I don't doubt it, but one thing is clear. There are people who consider
themselves audiophiles (or, in some cases, audio enthusiasts - what's in
a name, after all?) who post here regularly (or what passes for
regularly in this group) and are well known in audio circles, whom I
strongly suspect are in the the same boat as most of our recent
listening panel - they cannot, or do not, or will not hear. Mostly, I
believe, with this particular on-line group, it's the latter. They have
made a stand based upon some industry-wide mis-information, and
therefore refuse to acknowledge that this information is wrong. One
person, i'm thinking of, in particular, bought into the common
misconception that 16-bit, 44.1 KHz sampled CD quality sound represents
"Perfect sound Forever". It does not. SACD is better as is
high-bit-rate LPCM, and, under the right circumstances so is the lowly
LP. But even so, they still aren't perfect, and the jury is still out on
even the "forever" part of that.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---