Neil Young's PonoMusic Hits $2M On Kickstarter

[Godmachine]

yes, and I have heard people even love to waste money on faster computers and video cards just to get more FPS their eyes probably cant even see!

Except there are visible and scientifically confirmed differences. The difference between a standard WAV CD quality 44/16hz and a 96/24hz WAV/FLAC/AIFF are undetectable by human ears. We simply don't have developed enough hearing to notice a massive difference even though we are being told there is a difference. You are being marketed to , its Pavlov's dog all in all.

There is more then enough blind testing to confirm this. This same theology has been applied to high end Wine testing with the exact same results. Shit they even made a movie (Its called "Bottle Shock") based on true events that CENTERS around the tasting of high end French wines versus American California wines and all those panels of judges who are considered some of the most respected experts of the world almost all of them picked California wine as the superior and this was a blind test. It launched American wine into the International scene and opened the doors for many other countries and now because of that you can buy a nice cheap great tasting wine at your local supermaket with ease. Up until that point you bought European wine exclusively or it was considered shit.

The human brain is a reality generator , for some people it can create a reality that basically confirms their own personal beliefs that hold no scientific basis in reality for the rest of us. I have personally listened to supposed ultra high end "audiophile" grade gear that costs around $100,000 versus my Sennheiser HD800's with a Schiit Magni/Modi stack and the difference is minor AT BEST. There is a point at which everything once its expressed in its maximum form only returns enhancements that are incremental until the point at which decay reaches its maximum thus ending returns. What this means is you can only get so much improvement before A) There is no more improvements to be made or B) Your brain simply CAN NOT tell the difference. If there is any law in the Universe that beyond debate its Decay.

Our eyes are far more complex than our ears. Our eyes can see in one glimpse megapixels worth of information (about 7 megapixels for 5 degree's of our vision and 1+ megapixel for the rest). Proposed reality to the average human eye has a pixel density of 578 megapixels in order for us to be unable to detect any gaps or "pixelization" as it were. The organ that detects this has evolved for more complex behavior and social behavior is likely the biggest reason. Our ears have lost quality since early mankind to balance out the difference as evolution requires.

So comparing high end graphics which are visibly different and thus easier for us to detect thanks to the more advanced organ we use to detect it (the human eye) to high end sound (which we are limited with and have only developed it well enough for language and hunting meanwhile other animals use it as there primary means of survival day to day) is like comparing an iPhone to a super computer frankly.

 

[FLECOM]

the difference is minor AT BEST.

so because the difference is minor at best nobody should do it?

120fps from 100fps is a minor difference at BEST but people still want to squeeze every FPS they can out of their hardware...

if the musical information is there I want it reproduced as faithfully as possible

 

[Godmachine]

so because the difference is minor at best nobody should do it?

120fps from 100fps is a minor difference at BEST but people still want to squeeze every FPS they can out of their hardware...

if the musical information is there I want it reproduced as faithfully as possible

As I mentioned .. you can but returns are continually more and more diminishing. But we are not talking music for archival purposes we are talking music for the general public. There is a distinct difference.

 

[Snowdog]

You say you can because you know when you are listening to them. No one can tell in ABX tests any better than random chance, even when they previously claim they can. That's why I originally made the point abound infrared and ultra-violet for video. You ears can only hear up to about 21Khz in perfect conditions, which can be perfectly reproduced by a sampling frequency of 44.1Khz with a slight bit of headroom. Your ears can't hear higher, so sampling higher only wastes space.

The vast majority of 'HD' audio that sounds better does so because it's remastered and not run through a compressor to make everything as loud as possibly like on new CDs, which actually makes the audio better, but isn't the result of the difference between 44.1Khz and 192Khz, it's the remastering process.

Exactly.

Audiophiles (who believe the can tell 96KHz/192KHz sampling rates from 44.1 KHz) = Placebo victims that are smug about it.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Extremely well researched piece that mentions the famous (or infamous in smug audiophile circles) Boston Audio Society series of test that thoroughly debunk this nonsense.

 

[Snowdog]

As I mentioned .. you can but returns are continually more and more diminishing. But we are not talking music for archival purposes we are talking music for the general public. There is a distinct difference.

Except when we are talking about music and sampling rates beyond 44.1KHz, we aren't just talking about diminishing returns. We are talking about imaginary returns.

 

[Serpent]

I think you fail to understand that MANY kick starters have nothing to do with needing funding. They just figure if you can get more money why not? Tons of kick starters fail but the team keeps working which means they must have other money, Others have money to start and even admit it but still ask for more. Tons of companies now see kickstarter as just an extra source of revenue for projects that are already completely funded and committed too.

Aside from revenue, I think a lot of people think of it as free advertisement too.

 

[ekuest]

I hate not being able to buy aftermarket speakers and put them in a car.

heh, i wasnt talking about the speakers. god i hope they AT LEAST werent on stock speakers. im talking about the enclosure that they were in, as the listening room is sometimes just as important to the clarity and accuracy of sound as the equipment/audio source. those windows that barely keep out rain and sheetmetal dashboards are not going to give you sound like a brand new rolls or even just a BMW that is heavily insulated against road noise and uses fancy plastics and sound dampening materials.

 

[aeonrevolution]

This thread had me wishing someone would go through and remaster all sorts of stuff and DE-compress it.

I remember the first time my dad played me the self titled Black Sabbath album. I had to turn the volume up compared to whatever was on the radio when I was little. I asked him what was up with that and he explained how they compress everything now in what is basically a volume wars.

So yeah. That'd be cool if someone just started a music library where they remastered everything without compression on the final mix.

 

[FLECOM]

Exactly.

Audiophiles (who believe the can tell 96KHz/192KHz sampling rates from 44.1 KHz) = Placebo victims that are smug about it.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Extremely well researched piece that mentions the famous (or infamous in smug audiophile circles) Boston Audio Society series of test that thoroughly debunk this nonsense.

I'll bet you hate 4k video too?

 

[Snowdog]

I'll bet you hate 4k video too?

4K video is mostly overkill, but at least you can sit closer to see the differences.

But 96KHz audio sampling is just pointless. You can't sit closer to hear higher frequencies.

When CD was designed, it's audio specifications already exceeded that of human listeners. It might have been over 30 years ago, but human hearing hasn't improved in the intervening time. Going beyond those specs for human listening purposes, is just pointless spec wanking/smug audiophile milking.

 

[Traciatim]

I'll bet you hate 4k video too?

Well, 4K video has it's purposes but generally you won't be able to see it unless you are doing an aliasing test or something along that line. In most use cases (say a 'normal sized 46" TV at 8 feet away) you probably can't tell the difference and if it's that close that you can't really tell then why store 4 times the video information.

However, if you had... say... a 120" projector and sitting 8-10 feet away I'm sure you would be able to see a rather nice improvement.

It's not that I hate high bitrate audio or 4K. It's just that at some point it becomes so good that there is no way to make it better, and for audio that point is a 44.1Khz sampling rate. For video 1080p is pretty darn good for almost all home uses. I see very few living rooms with viewing distances of 4 feet with 40-50" TV's, so 4K is probably overkill for the vast majority of people. Though unlike the high bit rate audio, at least 4k has a valid use.