Comments on: No Hope For The Ape Eared http://www.swanfungus.com/2009/03/no-hope-for-the-ape-eared.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:08:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Melvillain http://www.swanfungus.com/2009/03/no-hope-for-the-ape-eared.html/comment-page-1#comment-1427 Melvillain Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:00:51 +0000 http://www.swanfungus.com/?p=3184#comment-1427 "It's that so many people are doing it, and you are in the middle of all this, and all of that colors your perception. All that sizzle is a cultural artifact and a tie that binds us. It's mostly invisible to us but it is something future generations looking back might find curious because these preferences won't be obvious to them." I'm with you. I think this is a terrible theory. It doesn't explain the return of vinyl as a popular medium for music. I think MP3s sound like crap. You can get away with 256 to 320k, but even that feels like you're disrespecting the music. A MP3 at 320k is about 25% of the original information contained in a lossless wave file. Even if your ears can't tell the difference there must be a difference in perception. I do agree with one aspect of the "everybody is doing it" theory. I think for most kids music has become background noise. When you "test" them to find out which medium/bitrate they prefer they just shrug and point out the 128k. That's what they're used to. But I don't think the kids tested are "real" music fans and/or musicians. These are kids that continually have sounds coming at them. Video games, movies, iPods. There is constant noise vying for their attention. They don't actually listen to music, they just hear it. I think there is a distinct difference between someone who really listens to music, and someone who downloads MP3s off of iTunes. I would like to know the details of Jonathan Berger's study. It seems like a dubious claim to me. I would say there is more a problem with an over saturation of sounds, than in kids preferring low bitrates. I think most modern music lacks distinction. And the "loudness wars" doesn't help any. All that being said, I'm sure this is an argument that has been going on since the dawn of recorded music. “It’s that so many people are doing it, and you are in the middle of all this, and all of that colors your perception. All that sizzle is a cultural artifact and a tie that binds us. It’s mostly invisible to us but it is something future generations looking back might find curious because these preferences won’t be obvious to them.”

I’m with you. I think this is a terrible theory. It doesn’t explain the return of vinyl as a popular medium for music. I think MP3s sound like crap. You can get away with 256 to 320k, but even that feels like you’re disrespecting the music. A MP3 at 320k is about 25% of the original information contained in a lossless wave file. Even if your ears can’t tell the difference there must be a difference in perception. I do agree with one aspect of the “everybody is doing it” theory. I think for most kids music has become background noise. When you “test” them to find out which medium/bitrate they prefer they just shrug and point out the 128k. That’s what they’re used to. But I don’t think the kids tested are “real” music fans and/or musicians. These are kids that continually have sounds coming at them. Video games, movies, iPods. There is constant noise vying for their attention. They don’t actually listen to music, they just hear it. I think there is a distinct difference between someone who really listens to music, and someone who downloads MP3s off of iTunes. I would like to know the details of Jonathan Berger’s study. It seems like a dubious claim to me. I would say there is more a problem with an over saturation of sounds, than in kids preferring low bitrates. I think most modern music lacks distinction. And the “loudness wars” doesn’t help any. All that being said, I’m sure this is an argument that has been going on since the dawn of recorded music.

]]>