Whoosh isn't really appropriate. I just said "I don't get it." You could explain instead instead of announcing to me that there was a joke I didn't get!
That's not eidetic. I'm a musician myself, and I've memorized over a thousand songs, and I can in fact "play them back" in my head, for the most part. My memory is good, but it works the same way as everyone else's.
Want proof? Listen to a completely random sequence of notes for five minutes, then try to play the entire thing back in your head in order. You can't do it, because you failed to chunk it as you listened, and the input was many times larger than your phonological loop could accommodate.
Further, your brain has no way of storing an actual recording. What you hear when you listen depends entirely on what you paid attention to. See e.g. the MgCurk effect. You might also be interested in JJ's explanation of how perception influences what we hear and remember.
In Japan. It's wasei-eigo, which means "a Japanese-made English word or phrase".
Japanese learners of English commonly make the mistake of using wasei-eigo in regular English, so they use "NG" and "go sign" and "cunning paper" expecting to be understood. Occasionally this confusion extends to English-speaking learners of Japanese, though much less often.
That's not a very good point. Sure, it's true, but it has nothing to do with what they originally said.
There's a difference between making a statement about the odds of something being true and claiming something is always true. I do believe it's more likely that the father is religious than not. This can be true, and yet not imply anything about the set of all religious people (as indeed it does not).
I'd never get used to trying to figure out how to dress if it was 20C out.....
Yes, you would. I decided one day I'd use Celsius all the time, even though I live in California. My goal was to try to get an intuitive feel for what different temperatures mean, without mentally converting. It took me a little while, but it didn't really take any effort.
I'm not saying you need to switch, but it's kind of fun, and I'm sure you're capable of it.
You can't actually reproduce a sine at 16kHz with a 32kHz sampling rate. A wave that looks like [ -1 1 -1 1... ] is either incorrectly sampled or infinite in length.
Anyway, you need a transition band, so in practice you shouldn't count on properly representing frequencies above 20kHz with a 44.1kHz sampling rate. With 32kHz, you're looking at something probably close to 14kHz.
You're conflating dynamic range compression with perceptual coding.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how MP3 works. You can certainly degrade something further that already sounds terrible. MP3 doesn't "squish" audio. In fact, MP3 degrades audio like this *more* than it would degrade non-squished audio, because music that's "compressed-to-shit" almost certainly has plenty of clipping, greater spectral density, and so requires more bits to preserve.
I assure you, even if something already sounds terrible, it still can sound worse, and MP3 at 128kbit is a great tool to make it that way.
Good post. To be fair, your post discusses an idealization of perceptual coding. In practice, old formats with known problems are in common use, and both old and new formats are often used at bitrates where a significant portion of noise added is above masking thresholds.
People also listen in sub-optimal environments and on (very) colored speakers or with lots of EQ, which makes artifacting more noticeable by defeating the assumptions of the psychoacoustic models in question.
This doesn't change your point that we don't need Pono, of course.
It's empirically true that some people prefer MP3 artifacts in blind listening tests, some of the time. (Most people don't.) "Why" is an interesting question, though I don't know the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for explaining! My apologies for the dumb question.
Ah, thanks. I can be clueless about humor sometimes. My apologies for cluttering up the comments with my question.
Whoosh isn't really appropriate. I just said "I don't get it." You could explain instead instead of announcing to me that there was a joke I didn't get!
I don't get it. Is this some kind of humor, or some kind of random gibberish added to the submission to see if anyone notices?
Maybe the submitter was trying to see if the editors were paying attention . . . ?
McGurk effect. My kingdom for an edit button.
(Yes, I used the preview button. No, I didn't notice :-)
That's not eidetic. I'm a musician myself, and I've memorized over a thousand songs, and I can in fact "play them back" in my head, for the most part. My memory is good, but it works the same way as everyone else's.
Want proof? Listen to a completely random sequence of notes for five minutes, then try to play the entire thing back in your head in order. You can't do it, because you failed to chunk it as you listened, and the input was many times larger than your phonological loop could accommodate.
Further, your brain has no way of storing an actual recording. What you hear when you listen depends entirely on what you paid attention to. See e.g. the MgCurk effect. You might also be interested in JJ's explanation of how perception influences what we hear and remember.
There's no evidence of anyone having an eidetic or "near-eidetic" memory.
In Japan. It's wasei-eigo, which means "a Japanese-made English word or phrase".
Japanese learners of English commonly make the mistake of using wasei-eigo in regular English, so they use "NG" and "go sign" and "cunning paper" expecting to be understood. Occasionally this confusion extends to English-speaking learners of Japanese, though much less often.
You do. RequestPolicy happily blocks cross-site requests made by the Flash plugin.
Some things in Linux have gotten better in the interim.
. . . and then there's GNOME.
I am shocked! Simply shocked.
Yeah. Who would trust someone who called themselves Mister Doctor?
That's not a very good point. Sure, it's true, but it has nothing to do with what they originally said.
There's a difference between making a statement about the odds of something being true and claiming something is always true. I do believe it's more likely that the father is religious than not. This can be true, and yet not imply anything about the set of all religious people (as indeed it does not).
It's a good operating assumption. If you assume that is true, you won't get burned as often. However, it's not actually true.
You can't see how believing in re-re-re-re-interpretations of ancient mythology is unlike being black?
You mean like some kind of Miner 2049er?
Yes, you would. I decided one day I'd use Celsius all the time, even though I live in California. My goal was to try to get an intuitive feel for what different temperatures mean, without mentally converting. It took me a little while, but it didn't really take any effort.
I'm not saying you need to switch, but it's kind of fun, and I'm sure you're capable of it.
Honestly, I'll wait until I hear something about research from Stanford. Standford isn't nearly as reputable, IMO.
How do you manage to burn out "energy saving" bulbs every 30 days, as you say? They seem to last years for me.
Actually, the opposite is more likely to be true. Pop/rock is often more "difficult" to encode, as MP3 performs worse when you have greater spectral density. See e.g. Subjective Evaluation of MP3 Compression for Different Musical Genres (AES Oct 2009).
You can't actually reproduce a sine at 16kHz with a 32kHz sampling rate. A wave that looks like [ -1 1 -1 1 ... ] is either incorrectly sampled or infinite in length.
Anyway, you need a transition band, so in practice you shouldn't count on properly representing frequencies above 20kHz with a 44.1kHz sampling rate. With 32kHz, you're looking at something probably close to 14kHz.
Do you play bass? You can feel the notes as you play them in a way no recording can reproduce. I always miss that when I listen afterwards :-(
You're conflating dynamic range compression with perceptual coding.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how MP3 works. You can certainly degrade something further that already sounds terrible. MP3 doesn't "squish" audio. In fact, MP3 degrades audio like this *more* than it would degrade non-squished audio, because music that's "compressed-to-shit" almost certainly has plenty of clipping, greater spectral density, and so requires more bits to preserve.
I assure you, even if something already sounds terrible, it still can sound worse, and MP3 at 128kbit is a great tool to make it that way.
Good post. To be fair, your post discusses an idealization of perceptual coding. In practice, old formats with known problems are in common use, and both old and new formats are often used at bitrates where a significant portion of noise added is above masking thresholds.
People also listen in sub-optimal environments and on (very) colored speakers or with lots of EQ, which makes artifacting more noticeable by defeating the assumptions of the psychoacoustic models in question.
This doesn't change your point that we don't need Pono, of course.
It's empirically true that some people prefer MP3 artifacts in blind listening tests, some of the time. (Most people don't.) "Why" is an interesting question, though I don't know the answer.