From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 07/09/2025 23:12, MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >   
   > Terje Mathisen  posted:   
   >   
   >> MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> BGB  posted:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Just randomly thinking again about some things I noticed with audio at   
   >>>> low sample rates.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For baseline, can note, basic sample rates:   
   >>>>      44100: Standard, sounds good, but bulky   
   >>>   
   >>> No it does not sound "good" on a system that accurately reproduces   
   >>> 22KHz; like systems with electrostatic speakers covering the high   
   >>> end of the audio spectrum.   
   >>>   
   >>> Might sound "good" to someone who does not know what it is supposed   
   >>> to actually sound like, though.   
   >>   
   >> My ears are not good enough to notice the difference between CD quality,   
   >> AAC/high sample rate MP3/ogg vorbis/etc, but according to my savant (?)   
   >> cousin who could listen to a 16 min piece of music once and then write   
   >> down the score for all the instruments, none of them sound like live,   
   >> but they are close enough that he can listen and internally translate to   
   >> what it would have sounded like in a concert.   
   >   
   > Just after graduating CMU I worked in a high end stereo store. The listening   
   > room was 4 walls none of them parallel and a slanted ceiling; so it had   
   > essentially no reverberation. The Pittsburgh string quartet rented out   
   > the room for various practices, and we recorded on 9 track tape at 60"/s   
   > and played it back on Dalquist speakers and other high end amplification;   
   > diddling with the equalization until the recording sounded like the live   
   > string quartet (only seconds apart live<->recorded).   
   >   
   > I have/had 2 brothers who could listen to a movie and then go write down   
   > the score of one or two of the tunes. I, personally, can't carry a tune   
   > in a basket--but I admire those who can. I can hear things that others don't   
   > seem to. Things like whether the phono section of a pre-amp has a tube or   
   > not--its all in the harmonics!!   
      
   Having a good memory for tunes, or being able to replicate tunes, and   
   being able to distinguish the quality of sound reproduction is not   
   actually highly correlated.  The former is primarily a higher-level   
   brain function, while the later is partly physical, partly low-level   
   brain (or software vs. hardware, to suit the group better!).   
      
   For those that work directly with music, age brings experience and   
   improves abilities like recognising or duplicating tunes.  Age also   
   brings deterioration in the physical aspects of hearing - especially at   
   higher frequencies.   
      
   There is /some/ overlap, because both groups spend a lot of time   
   listening to music, which exercises and improves both functions.   
      
   One key difference, however, is that it is easy to appreciate when   
   people can listen to a tune once and play it again afterwards - you can   
   watch them do it.  For people who say they can distinguish CD audio from   
   AAC or other high bps compressed audio, and other "golden ears"   
   distinctions, it's a different matter - in double-blind tests, most fail   
   badly.  There are a great many factors involved in high-quality audio   
   reproduction - the basic sample rate is only one of them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)