Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at
audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'), however, connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate " |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Just to be fair to the author and publisher, the piece appears in Social Studies of Science, Oct. 2004. Perlman is from Brown University. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'), however, connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces your world-view of things. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The article is, in other words, a screed. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'), however, connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces your world-view of things. That is itself a very interesting comment. If I turn it around, I find it to be an argument that anything that does not reinforce the Audiophile world view is disinteresting to audiophiles. This paints a picture of audiophiles as people who are in despirate need of reinforcement, and who refuse to investigate anything that does not reinforce their world view. In short, you are suggesting that audiophiles are narrow-minded and phobic. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The article is, in other words, a screed. Interesting that without reading the article itself, anyone would so passionately condemn it. I have the entire article, and am in the process of studying it. I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please take "interesting" to be a neutral word in my vocabulary. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'), however, connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces your world-view of things. That is itself a very interesting comment. If I turn it around, I find it to be an argument that anything that does not reinforce the Audiophile world view is disinteresting to audiophiles. This paints a picture of audiophiles as people who are in despirate need of reinforcement, and who refuse to investigate anything that does not reinforce their world view. In short, you are suggesting that audiophiles are narrow-minded and phobic. How does "it reinforces your world view of things" make me phobic? I simply said you would find it interesting because it reinforced your views. Furthermore there is nothing in the precise to suggest anything resembling research. Nowhere does the author mention doing research. Strange for a "research article". If it included research, I would perhaps consider it worth investigating. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The article is, in other words, a screed. Interesting that without reading the article itself, anyone would so passionately condemn it. I told you why above. It doesn't even pretend to be a research article.....and if it is, then that is the worst precis in the world. But since the precis reinforces your view of audiophilia, it is of course "interesting" despite the fact that you yourself hadn't even read it. I have the entire article, and am in the process of studying it. Good for you. Might I suggest you would have been better served by doing that before you promoted it. I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please take "interesting" to be a neutral word in my vocabulary. It is also a word I would only apply after the fact (of reading it), not before the fact. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
How does "it reinforces your world view of things" make me phobic? You obviously fear that this thesis project would reinforce my world view. I simply said you would find it interesting because it reinforced your views. Since you presumably haven't read the thesis, how do you know that? Furthermore there is nothing in the precise to suggest anything resembling research. Isn't the simple fact that it is a thesis project an indication that it is probably a research report? Nowhere does the author mention doing research. Does he have to mention it? Strange for a "research article". If you believe that it contains no research, why are you calling it a research article? If it included research, I would perhaps consider it worth investigating. I've read enough of it to know that it contains research. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The article is, in other words, a screed. Interesting that without reading the article itself, anyone would so passionately condemn it. I told you why above. What you said seems to me to make no sense. It doesn't even pretend to be a research article.....and if it is, then that is the worst precis in the world. But since the precis reinforces your view of audiophilia, it is of course "interesting" despite the fact that you yourself hadn't even read it. Isn't it possible abnd even reasonable to find a paper interesting based on its abstract? Isn't the purpose of an abstract to give enough information about the paper that readers can determine whether they are interested in it or not? I have the entire article, and am in the process of studying it. Good for you. Might I suggest you would have been better served by doing that before you promoted it. Again Harry you are presuming that you know the entire contents of the paper, and passing judgement on it. As much of what I've read of it leads me to believe that it is worthy of other people's interest. I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please take "interesting" to be a neutral word in my vocabulary. It is also a word I would only apply after the fact (of reading it), not before the fact. So Harry, you don't think that it is reasonble to find a paper worthy of further intereste after only reading its abstract? |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:51:34 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'), however, connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces your world-view of things. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The article is, in other words, a screed. Agreed. Of course there ARE people like that, but to characterize the entire avocation as a bunch of ostriches with their heads buried in the sands of mythology and charlatanism is extremely self serving and unfair. Sure we use out ears in making audio decisions, we also use other tools, specs (where applicable) DBTs (when possible, and appropriate). But this author is correct in one sense (even though he seems to narrowly miss the point). The enjoyment of reproduced music in one's home is a passion. A passion that most people don't care about. And, like most passions, it is a very personal and a very subjective thing. Each music lover's path to his personal audio nirvana is a journey made up of priorities and compromises and those that each individual is comfortable living with vary as much as do individual musical tastes. In other words, the very nature of the hobby cannot, by definition, BE objective, detached, and dispassionate. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message How does "it reinforces your world view of things" make me phobic? You obviously fear that this thesis project would reinforce my world view. I simply said you would find it interesting because it reinforced your views. Since you presumably haven't read the thesis, how do you know that? Furthermore there is nothing in the precise to suggest anything resembling research. Isn't the simple fact that it is a thesis project an indication that it is probably a research report? Nowhere does the author mention doing research. Does he have to mention it? Strange for a "research article". If you believe that it contains no research, why are you calling it a research article? If it included research, I would perhaps consider it worth investigating. I've read enough of it to know that it contains research. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The article is, in other words, a screed. Interesting that without reading the article itself, anyone would so passionately condemn it. I told you why above. What you said seems to me to make no sense. It doesn't even pretend to be a research article.....and if it is, then that is the worst precis in the world. But since the precis reinforces your view of audiophilia, it is of course "interesting" despite the fact that you yourself hadn't even read it. Isn't it possible abnd even reasonable to find a paper interesting based on its abstract? Isn't the purpose of an abstract to give enough information about the paper that readers can determine whether they are interested in it or not? I have the entire article, and am in the process of studying it. Good for you. Might I suggest you would have been better served by doing that before you promoted it. Again Harry you are presuming that you know the entire contents of the paper, and passing judgement on it. As much of what I've read of it leads me to believe that it is worthy of other people's interest. I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please take "interesting" to be a neutral word in my vocabulary. It is also a word I would only apply after the fact (of reading it), not before the fact. So Harry, you don't think that it is reasonble to find a paper worthy of further intereste after only reading its abstract? My answer to all this stands as before. The precis does not mention any research and it uses loaded, pergorative words. On the surface it fails to interest me as an article because it doesn't even pretend to be unbiased or for that matter, research. And if it does contain unbiased research, then as I said before, it is a terrible precis. [ Let's get back to high-end audio, please. -- dsr ] |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Just to be fair to the author and publisher, the piece appears in Social Studies of Science, Oct. 2004. Perlman is from Brown University. This is a good point. That means that this is a formal scientific research paper that was published in a refereed scientific journal. The article says: "In this paper I describe one such contest for authoritative knowledge, played out within an elite group of consumers of 'high-end' audio equip- ment. Like other groups of users, these 'audiophiles' construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. But these mostly white, mostly male, mostly affluent and educated consumers also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize that universe. They resist the scientifically authorized claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation are surprisingly similar to those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine)." In short, the author agrees with those who find that some audiophiles think about their hobby in their own little anti-scientific universe. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at audiophilism: " Golden Ears and Meter Readers The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia Marc Perlman Just to be fair to the author and publisher, the piece appears in Social Studies of Science, Oct. 2004. Perlman is from Brown University. This is a good point. It's always good to give authors and publishers credit. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
My answer to all this stands as before. The precis does not mention any research Itr doesn't need to, given that it has been published in a professional journal with a professional review board. and it uses loaded, pergorative words. That would be a matter of perception. On the surface it fails to interest me as an article because it doesn't even pretend to be unbiased or for that matter, research. Intersting that such harsh criticism would be given to the review board of a highly regarded professional organization. I submit that should one actually read the paper, or even just give an unbiased review to its abstract, one would find that it is pretty neutral. For example: "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that they be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of what it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment. Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a controlled environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. " |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message My answer to all this stands as before. The precis does not mention any research Itr doesn't need to, given that it has been published in a professional journal with a professional review board. and it uses loaded, pergorative words. That would be a matter of perception. On the surface it fails to interest me as an article because it doesn't even pretend to be unbiased or for that matter, research. Intersting that such harsh criticism would be given to the review board of a highly regarded professional organization. I submit that should one actually read the paper, or even just give an unbiased review to its abstract, one would find that it is pretty neutral. For example: "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that they be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of what it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment. Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a controlled environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. " All of which is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo meaning that it is easy after-the-fact to find things that don't fit with normal home listening conditions, and therefore are not accepted by the audiophile community. However, if one is doing real science, and those "after-the-fact conditions" are thought by many to be important and have been brought up often enough by the community , then a test, to be valid, must also include them and hold them constant. The only one I know of that makes this attempt is the first (listening phase) of Oohashi's experiment with ultrasonic frequency response. The fact that many "scientists" choose to ignore these considerations (because they make the experimentation much more difficult and time consuming) and then accuse people of raising these conditions "after-the-fact" just to excuse the conclusions is self-serving. Essentially the mumbo-jumbo cited above is a scientist's rationale for not doing the difficult work to truly set up the correct conditions....instead excoriating the audiophile community for asking that such conditions be met. And by the way, it still has nothing to do directly with a scientific experiment. It still falls under my accusation of "screed". |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that they be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of what it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment. Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a controlled environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. " Sounds like economics and other "social" sciences. There are too many variables, some of which may not be well understood and some of which may not even be known. It is impossible to factor everything in, and precise prediction becomes impossible. In terms of audio, some people hear things that are different from what other people hear but nobody really knows exactly why. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:56:00 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that they be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of what it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment. Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a controlled environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. " Sounds like economics and other "social" sciences. There are too many variables, some of which may not be well understood and some of which may not even be known. It is impossible to factor everything in, and precise prediction becomes impossible. In terms of audio, some people hear things that are different from what other people hear but nobody really knows exactly why. While you're obviously right about that, I think the answer is that the "ear" isn't a stand-alone mechanism like a microphone. A microphone can be measured and what you measure is what you get. OTOH, human hearing is the combination of a transducer and a processing unit (one's brain). While only the physics of the human ear define what sounds our brains receive, it's the brain itself which changes the electrical signals from the ear into actual perceived sound. Perception is neither linear (like an amplifier) nor is it neutral. All kinds of things affect how we hear what we hear; mood, personal biases, level of knowledge about what we're hearing (IOW, are we familiar enough with a sound to be able to immediately recognize its source, or is the source unknown to us), all kinds of other brain processes "color" what we hear. I have no doubt that that just as no two people react to any given piece of music in the same way, no two people hear exactly the same things in music either. I believe that there are people who can hear things in reproduced music that perhaps, someone else does NOT hear. Perhaps lots of listeners don't hear the artifacts in MP3, for instance, because they truly don't know that those artifacts aren't supposed to be there. Or perhaps, they don't hear them at all, or have trained themselves to listen around those artifacts, mush as many of us have trained ourselves to listen around the ticks and pops and surface noise of LPs. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
In terms of audio, some people hear things that are different from what other people hear but nobody really knows exactly why. How exactly do we need to know this sort of thing? I don't think that anybody knows exactly which brain cells are involved, but how the various parts of the brain and ear work together is well known. A strong component of the process is memory. People learn certain things, and right or wrong, it has a strong influence over how they perceive what they hear. Memory is a big part of the explanation for why a tiny minority of people still think LPs in general sound better, and memory appears to be strong influence related to reports that a growing population of people prefer MP3s made at too-low bitrates and have audible artifacts. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Another blow to audiophilism?
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:26:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Robert Peirce" wrote in message In terms of audio, some people hear things that are different from what other people hear but nobody really knows exactly why. How exactly do we need to know this sort of thing? I don't think that anybody knows exactly which brain cells are involved, but how the various parts of the brain and ear work together is well known. A strong component of the process is memory. People learn certain things, and right or wrong, it has a strong influence over how they perceive what they hear. That is correct. While "hearing" may be fairly mechanical experience that is well understood and can even be quantified to a certain extent, "listening" is a subjective thing. All of one's musical experiences (or lack of them, for that matter) influence how we perceive music - whether live of reproduced. Memory is a big part of the explanation for why a tiny minority of people still think LPs in general sound better, and memory appears to be strong influence related to reports that a growing population of people prefer MP3s made at too-low bitrates and have audible artifacts. Like I said, it is entirely possible that some people don't hear the artifacts, and that others don't realize that these artifacts aren't really supposed to be a part of the performance, and then, I'm sure that there are even some MP3 listeners who actually LIKE the sound of the artifacts! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Blow up my M-Box PT? | Pro Audio | |||
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? | Audio Opinions | |||
Dynaco ST-400 Amo - about to blow or what?? | Tech | |||
Mach 460 blow-out | Car Audio | |||
Will this amp blow this sub? | Car Audio |