5 ms·
> you don’t know it until you actually make the switch A perhaps philosophical question: if you have to train yourself to be able to perceive the higher-qualit
by dtgriscom 6y ago
> you don’t know it until you actually make the switch
A perhaps philosophical question: if you have to train yourself to be able to perceive the higher-quality audio, do you end up enjoying the audio more, or are you just training yourself to dislike the lower-quality audio?
- raverbashing 6y agoThe first one It's similar to listening to a song over good headphones instead of crappy notebook speakers for example You start hearing all the details that were added to the sound. It's like seeing a movie on the cinema rather than in a small TV for example
- Retric 6y agoAdditional details is not always a net plus, IMO some recordings are significantly worse with ‘better’ audio equipment. For example the sounds of people repositioning their hands across musical instruments really bothers me.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago> For example the sounds of people repositioning their hands across musical instruments really bothers me. Would you prefer to be blind because if you can see you can also see a dead body?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Retric 6y agoBlindness is a straw man argument. I am saying for specific content there are limits to optimum resolution. If we are talking high vs low resolution, then no I don’t want to see extremely high resolution in focus pictures of corpses. Do you?
- heavenlyblue 6y agoLet’s be honest, your argument is no less straw man than mine. Why not watch high-resolution images of corpses? People working in medicine do this all the time. You’re clearly making a Luddite argument: under the circumstances of two things being the same but one of them providing a worse resolution anyone reasonable would pick the higher resolution, because you can always go back to a lower resolution but not vice-versa.
- Retric 6y agoI think most people seeing such images are watching documentaries of the Holocaust, news reports of violent crimes etc. Looking away from the screen is a very common reaction, but these shots also tend to avoid closeups because most people don’t want to see it. For a more direct example people turn down gore settings in games because more detail is not always better. A Luddite argument would suggest all media was better at lower resolution, but that’s not what I am saying. Rather specific media for specific people is. Clearly some people want all the gory details even if I don’t. PS: > you can always go back to a lower resolution Having a preference is not the same as having a willingness to edit every YouTube video etc I see.
- zepolen 6y agoRight but it's only when going back to the lower quality version where you realize just how much is missing. So it's the second. Regular display pixels only became annoying after using a Retina display for a while and then going back. They were fine before.
- nicoburns 6y agoI disagree with this. I bought decent speakers (they were £300, so good quality but nothing crazy), and I suddenly started enjoying songs that I couldn't understand why anyone liked before, because I could hear details in parts of the music where there were none before.
- zepolen 6y agoGot an example of such a song?
- b1c837696ba28b 6y agoSure, a whole record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Judges_Ruth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Judges_Ruth C.f. any other record with good dynamic range and interesting stuff below 80Hz.
- beenBoutIT 6y agoThis phenomena you've described could be part of why Lovett's so misunderstood.
- toyg 6y ago> Regular display pixels only became annoying after using a Retina display for a while and then going back. They were fine before. Not really. I noticed fewer headaches and eyes getting dry less often after about a month.
- BurningFrog 6y agoBit of both!