Myles B. Astor
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,884
- Thread Author
- #1
From Bob Stuart today entitled "Who Cares?"
From time to time we come across audio 'experts' who 'know' that AAC/MP3 is 'good enough for the masses', using arguments like: 'people do most of their listening on the train'; 'these days music is just the background'.
These same 'experts' get very 'edgy' if you suggest CD wasn't perfect. The barrage begins: M&M, ABX, 'snake oil', 'marketing', 'Nyquist knows best', 'vested interest',-followed by appeals to outdated psychoacoustics or retreats into 'it doesn't matter in the real world'.
It's sad, but we shouldn't mind if someone doesn't care whether a recording is well made, delivered and played back. But I mind a lot if they try to dismiss such efforts as 'self-serving', 'misleading', 'delusional', or 'exploitative'. That is the true arrogance of the ignorant. Worse, if by doing so the landscape tilts and a generation of innocent miss out on the opportunity for better sound.
We need the recording industry to be sustainable. the companies that developed lossy codecs spent real money doing so; the telecoms poured huge resources into reducing bitrate to the lowest tolerable sound intelligibility. Is it somehow nobler to lower sound quality than to seek higher quality?
I've devoted a lot of time of understanding and making sound better, to enable better recordings that remove veils between the performer and the listener-all in the interest of deeper communication, enjoyment and preservation of the music.
The enduring insight is that our hearing is exquisite; it's robust (we can always recognize the tune in bizarre circumstances) but it also 'knows the real thing' right away.
Very few make the effort to get is as good as it can be. But it still drives my research. The good news is that so many experienced listeners and musicians agree.
Anyone else?
From time to time we come across audio 'experts' who 'know' that AAC/MP3 is 'good enough for the masses', using arguments like: 'people do most of their listening on the train'; 'these days music is just the background'.
These same 'experts' get very 'edgy' if you suggest CD wasn't perfect. The barrage begins: M&M, ABX, 'snake oil', 'marketing', 'Nyquist knows best', 'vested interest',-followed by appeals to outdated psychoacoustics or retreats into 'it doesn't matter in the real world'.
It's sad, but we shouldn't mind if someone doesn't care whether a recording is well made, delivered and played back. But I mind a lot if they try to dismiss such efforts as 'self-serving', 'misleading', 'delusional', or 'exploitative'. That is the true arrogance of the ignorant. Worse, if by doing so the landscape tilts and a generation of innocent miss out on the opportunity for better sound.
We need the recording industry to be sustainable. the companies that developed lossy codecs spent real money doing so; the telecoms poured huge resources into reducing bitrate to the lowest tolerable sound intelligibility. Is it somehow nobler to lower sound quality than to seek higher quality?
I've devoted a lot of time of understanding and making sound better, to enable better recordings that remove veils between the performer and the listener-all in the interest of deeper communication, enjoyment and preservation of the music.
The enduring insight is that our hearing is exquisite; it's robust (we can always recognize the tune in bizarre circumstances) but it also 'knows the real thing' right away.
Very few make the effort to get is as good as it can be. But it still drives my research. The good news is that so many experienced listeners and musicians agree.
Anyone else?
