4 ms·
> Not "you". Not most. None. Maybe not "none", but certainly it's only the very, very rare individual. And likely those aren't in the set of people that care
by michaelcampbell 4y ago
> Not "you". Not most. None.
Maybe not "none", but certainly it's only the very, very rare individual. And likely those aren't in the set of people that care about these things. And the intersection set are people who don't even care so much about the music as they do the sound.
I'm older now so I just mentally roll my eyes at these folks, but I used to rage at the people who insisted on 320bps MP3's or would faux outrage at any non-lossy media, then play it in their car.
- knorker 4y ago> Maybe not "none", but certainly it's only the very, very rare individual. Maybe not none, but to my knowledge we have not found one single individual is the world who actually have these "golden ears". At some point absense of evidence is actually evidence of absense. > I used to rage at the people who insisted on 320bps MP3's bps and compression is a separate issue. Lossy formats don't represent the audible spectrum (up to 22050Hz or 24kHz) literally 100% accurately, but non-lossy do. Edit: Oh, and keep in mind that now that you (as you say) are older, not only are you maybe less passionate about the issue, but also your ears aren't what they used to be.
- gsich 4y ago>insisted on 320bps MP3's Why though? Was storage a concern?
- ilyt 4y agoThink it was at that mp3 bitrate that basically "at this level even audiophiles couldn't tell difference in double blind test"
- lloeki 4y agoI mean, there appear to be people able to discern isolated tones above 22kHz in extremely controlled lab conditions, but that's wildly different from being able to hear anything above 22kHz in the midst of vastly more powerful 100Hz-15kHz sounds in realistic music listening conditions.