Though I was also thinking of phsyical equipment for hearing, I mostly meant that listening is a mental activity that people learn to do. For instance, Don mentions the inaccuracy of high-frequency sound in mp3s. It takes training and practice to be able to isolate and perceive that loss of accuracy consistently. But I would guess that most listeners are actually working on doing the opposite, learning to mentally accept these inaccuracies as realistic.
So my critique of the author of the original article is that he falls into the very unscientific trap of assuming an objective reality of perceived sound.
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Cox
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Why Vinyl Is NOT Going To Save The Music Industry (And What Will) - Trust Me, I'm A Scientist
On 15/08/2013, Michael Biel wrote:
> Don't forget it is not only us old farts with lousy hearing -- the
> kids have been ruining their hearing at a faster rate than we had.
> There is a thought some have that MP3 is BETTER for their ears than
> wideband now.
MP3 files don't have less high frequency sound than uncompressed files.
They are simply less accurate.
> Plus, most of them have never known what live unaugmented music sounds
> like. Pity.
I think everyone must have heard an acoustic guitar on its own. It is still a big challenge for an audio system to reproduce the sound of a solo acoustic guitar at a realistic level.
And many will have heard a real piano.
[log in to unmask]