From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 08/09/2025 22:10, BGB wrote:   
   > On 9/8/2025 3:59 AM, David Brown wrote:   
   >> On 07/09/2025 23:12, MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Terje Mathisen  posted:   
   >>>   
   >>>> MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> BGB  posted:   
   >>>>>   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > This is a concern for me, partly if I lose high frequencies, seemingly I   
   > wont have anything, as my hearing of low frequencies (sub 1kHz) is   
   > seemingly already impaired.   
   >   
   > Seemingly, most of my world of audio perception is located between 1kHz   
   > and 8kHz.   
   >   
   > Most lower frequencies are more felt than heard.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> There is /some/ overlap, because both groups spend a lot of time   
   >> listening to music, which exercises and improves both functions.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I listen to music a lot, but usually House and EDM and similar.   
      
   Isn't that an oxymoron?  "Music" and "House / EDM" don't belong together   
   in the same sentence :-)   
      
   >   
   > When I was younger, a lot of Goth (mostly of the Synthpop/Synthwave   
   > variaty), and Industrial.   
   >   
   > There was Dubstep for a while, but seemingly the whole genre kind of   
   > imploded (though, never got much mainstream popularity aside from   
   > "Skrillex").   
   >   
   >   
      
   It sounds like you have likely damaged your hearing - but those kinds of   
   "music" (not that I am opinionated...) are often played at very high   
   volumes.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I am not really a "golden ear" AFAICT.   
   >   
   > At high bitrates, or high sample rates, I can't hear much difference.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > But, mostly just noting that it is at low bitrates where things like MP3   
   > and similar start to sound like crap.   
   >   
      
   There are, as I said, /many/ factors involved - you are mixing up   
   bitrates and sample rates.   
      
   If everything else is "perfect", 44.1 kHz sample rate can reproduce   
   frequencies (including phase information) up to 22.05 kHz - more than   
   enough for anyone but some young children.   
      
   But everything else is usually very far from perfect.  A particular   
   issue is the dynamic range - 16-bit linear coding does not have enough   
   range for a lot of music.  Either quite sounds are "pixelated", losing a   
   lot of important information, or the dynamic range is compressed before   
   the CD quality image is generated - giving the music a "flat" sound.   
   When compressed audio formats are used, they may start off at higher bit   
   depths and sample rates, but in effect the bit depth also gets   
   compressed and you lose resolution as well as sample rate and high   
   frequency information for high compression ratios.  And just as high   
   jpeg compression produces artefacts for some images, such as ghosting,   
   so does high audio compression.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)