The problem with this line of thinking -- "If X happens then we'll all be cooked!" -- is that it ignores the fact that X already has been happening and yet life is just fine.

There's an infinite number of pursuits in which expert practitioners could theoretically possess a level of discernment so sublime that nobody else can understand it, let alone appreciate it.

A huge number of these arts will either never be practiced, or were practiced in the past but have already decline. And yet there's no mass ennui or clamoring to steer the Earth into the sun.

The pinnacle of human attention cannot be directed at everything, everywhere, all at once. We have to focus our attention on a limited subset of arts and pursuits, where discernment will always be high, and settle everywhere else.

But not really. Because if I truly cannot tell the difference between two objects or the way they sound, then they're the same to me, and I don't lose anything by listening to one over the other. If I could tell the difference, and it was important to me, then maybe I could do something about it.

"The pinnacle of human attention cannot be directed at everything, everywhere, all at once. We have to focus our attention on a limited subset of arts and pursuits, where discernment will always be high, and settle everywhere else."

This is exactly correct

Trust me, as a former piano/harpsichord tuner, that the audience absolutely can tell the difference between a perfectly tuned instrument and one that is badly tuned. They just can't put their finger on what that difference is.

It's the same as when the viola section of an orchestra is out of tune or the horns drag (both very common problems for amateur symphonies). The overall effect is "muddier" and less "brilliant" than other performances, and you can tell as a listener, but very few people in the audience can say "the violas were flat in the adagio section."

Take food, for example. If the tomato on your sandwich has fewer micronutrients than a different one, you may not be able to taste it, especially after the restaurant (or you) have slathered the sandwich with sauces full of salt and sugar and fat. So you want a chef you can trust who knows how to choose a tomato (and a farmer who knows how to grow one), whether you can taste the difference or not, or the result at scale is you end up deficient in various vitamins and minerals and can't figure out why you're tired all the time.

Whereas if they find that the tomato has 10% as much β-carotene as a tomato should or what have you, somebody will write an article about it that six in a thousand customers read and people will keep buying those tomatoes because they're cheaper and not even required to be labeled differently.

It's the difference between "so bad that people won't stand for it" and "worse, but people tolerate it", and the second one can be more of a problem specifically because people don't get mad enough about it to fix it.

It only takes one. Also, who says they're doing it at home? One hypochondriac willing to stay after work to use the equipment to quell their fears (or substantiate them) is all it takes.

Music is just about subjective enjoyment - you will not get cancer if the piano was not in tune - and if you can't tell the difference then it is irrelevant to your experience.

Surely the experts didn't all learn from each other; who was the first expert? That expert surely learned in some other way, so the only thing lost at the start of the analogy is the time required for someone interested to (re)achieve mastery.

About the tomatoes in the other comment chain? Your guess is as good as mine whether we can recover that knowledge.

Most piano tuners today use a tuner for a middle octave and then tune the outer octaves by ear.

I have to disagree. When i dont do the reddit thing, the average quality of material products has been.. very bad. Amazon reviews don't seem to be enough to choose anything with an electric motor or a hinge that won't fall apart in a month of light use.

Personally, I'll happily pay for something with some features I don't need if it's got good build quality. Finding versions of MANY THINGS that aren't egregiously poorly made seems like it's getting harder?

Maybe this is just the temporal warp of getting older. As subjective time passes by more quickly, entropy is getting more of my attention than when I was younger and a day felt long. It's possible my perception that tools are engineered to the brink of functioning by a thread is survivorship bias. All the old tools that are still trucking are just the ones that survived. No way to know for sure, but if some convincingly thrice burned carpenter on reddit makes me think I oughta buy mikita I probably will.

I do think you're right that average quality has gone down. The MBAs of the world work hard to make their products function till the last day of the warranty and not a second longer, and that's a relatively recent business philosophy.

Right, and that reason is because there is a market for testing tool waters to see if it is a tool that you even need. Often you cannot truly appreciate if a tool is a tool you should have before trying it. You can read testimonials from other people all day, every day, but until it is actually in your hand...

So, hypothetically, do you buy the $100 version with clear compromise, but good enough to offer some validation, or go for the $1,000 ultimate version from the hop? That's the gamble. If your assumption was right, you're in deep for $1,100, but if your assumption proves wrong, you're only out $100. That's the idea here. When in doubt, try the cheap tool, and when you're still wanting to use it beyond its constraints, you've proven you need the more premium product. If you leave it sitting on the shelf, now you know you don't need the tool at all.

As with all short-soundbite suggestions, it's not meant to apply to all situations. But in the average case, it is likely that you are better off gambling the hypothetical $100 – especially when the undertone is within a hobby context. It is very likely you will discover you didn't really like the hobby anyway. Of course, as always, it is assumed you will still bring your thinking cap to the table. Indeed, there are situations where going straight to the hypothetical $1,000 tool is the right choice, but the saying is merely pointing out that it isn't always the best choice like some people are inclined to believe.

I don’t have the eloquence to quite describe, but it’s the difference between a harbor freight miter saw, a Milwaukee, a Makita,(their 12 in. Dual-Bevel Sliding Compound Miter Saw, is amazing, but I still use my harbor freight dual bevel as well with a different blade for more construction ish stuff vs trim work / precision ish), and a festool.

My father drives me insane with this. He buys these $1 can openers that break every 3-9 months. He thinks I’m insane for paying $10-$20 for a can opener that has now lasted me 9+ years.

I probably would have been okay with a $5-7 one.

More succinctly : the cheap One is cheap for a reason. But that doesn’t mean you need the most expensive. Usually the cheap tools end up being more in the long run. (Breakage, poor quality output, time, material usage….)

When I first got a 10 inch table saw, I couldn’t believe how easy things were: setting the fence, cutting hard wood, depth adjustments were so much faster. But I still have my 8 inch craftsman I paid $5 for at a yard sale 20 years ago, and it’s not bad.

Harbor Freight is interesting to me, many of their items I won’t buy due to the quality, but certain other things tend to be excellent. However, I have noticed a trend where HF has started to have a few genuine quality offerings - but the price differential from a name brand shrinks drastically.

Example: their Hercules dual bevel miter saw- $349.99

A mostly comparable dewalt is $399.99.

(The dewalt is better in my opinion even because of how the detent overide and adjustment works, not to mention more positive stops )

An example of a gem however is their $50 electric planer. I own an older version of it. I don’t think it’s particularly great as your only / primary electric hand planer(except in a pinch), but the ability to use it roughly / places / ways that would damage a better planer. (Example, planing an old door while still mounted, or leveling a floor with luan ply, and planing areas that have adhesive, small nails, debris…)

I frequently buy cheap tools while I am learning about whether I need a "real" one and which one I should then select. I would suggest other people do so, too.

So then I bought another one of the same variety, with the expectation that once this (or the other one) dies, it can be cannibalized for spare parts if need be AND I won’t have to stop in the middle of doing something, cause of the backup.

It’s much the same for me when buying mechanical keyboards, computer mice, HDDs/SSDs or other technology too. My current CPU is on AM4 because I have the old one as a backup and a spare motherboard too.

What can I say, I like having backups and being reasonably frugal: e.g. getting a mid range phone since I don’t need fancy features and if anything happens to it it won’t be a big financial hit to replace (or use any old one for a bit, until the new one arrives, since none receive software updates for that many years).

Another side of that idea is that you often don't need the more expensive features. My immersion blender is the cheapest thing I could get my grubby little mitts on. It reaches to the bottom of the deepest pot I care to use it with, it's plenty powerful to chop up veggies smoothly, and it doesn't overheat on sustained use. It would not work in a professional kitchen, but I don't run a professional kitchen. Any additional expenditure would have been wasted, and if the item were bigger, were heavier, or had more attachments, those would just represent a waste of space in my house.

As a DIY person with a garage filled with every type of tool imaginable, that is some of the best advice that can be given: buy cheap tools, but expensiver tools if it breaks.

IME, most people don't use the cheap tool enough to break it.

Cheap knives can’t hold an edge. Cheap laptops are slow, have bad battery life and crash. Cheap microphones make your speech more tiring to listen to. And so on.

The specific problem here seems to be that soundbars have gone actively backward over time.

I had an old JBL soundbar whose only issue was that it had no Bluetooth security. This meant that someone in the apartment complex would randomly connect to it and blast us with 900 decibels of whatever they were watching--generally at 7:30AM.

So, we went searching for a replacement. We must have listened to every soundbar available at retail.

They were all expensive and all sucked--none of them were better than that 10 year old JBL.

Eventually we opted for a sound system that was not particularly cheap. And my wife still complains that it doesn't sound any better than the old soundbar we replaced. And she is correct.

Probably the only thing I could have done was cover it in aluminum foil. I thought about just opening it up and tearing out the antenna, but the casing was an injection molded piece with integrated clips. It would break on opening and not be possible to put back together.

Then again, pianos are a bad compromise. There is no way to have octaves and fifths on the same piano, much less thirds (both major and minor). We learn to live with it, but it isn't right, for simple pieces you can tune a piano for that exact song and make it sound much better - but if you get much more complex than "mary had a little lamb" you run into a conflict and some key will need to be two different notes.

"Better" is always relative, so it's often more correct to say it is/sounds "different".

For example, a true temperament guitar can sound weird/"wrong" to some people. A lot of folks are used to those compromises just being part of the sound. Similar to a "honky tonk" piano: if you tuned it differently, it would come across as a timbre change more than simply "better" tuning.

In the grand scheme of things, there are professions and arts that were once considered essential to everyday life and in ways that we today don't even consider. The profession is lost to time, but so is the need. It's the in-between transitional state, where the profession is in the process of dying, that is the most painful period.

Some day, the last note played on a piano will be played and lament for the piano tuner will die with it.

On the one hand, panicking is unproductive: nothing is worse than it was last week.

On the other hand, finding out that a whole lot of infrastructure that was supposed to make your business better, actually isn't doing its job, is still significant. If your e-mail campaigns weren't clickable, and you lost a bunch of business but never noticed, you still lost a bunch of business. It still required uncommon discernment to even notice, but the impact was unquestionable.

Yes, in many contexts discernment matters. More broadly, being able to tell the difference in quality or performance is relevant when you've spent more time/money/effort to have a better result. Even if "no one could tell and it was fine anyway", then you could have saved that time/money/effort and put those resources to better use.

The classic answer to this is you need to improve your capacity to measure. Ie, taste ingredients and things constantly and learn with your mouth how the taste of your tomato will translate into the taste of your curry.

Just like the soloist and piano tuner in this story, subtle discernment is a huge part of expertise.

Only if the conditions required for re-discovery occur in the future. Those conditions may include things like a thriving world market in high-performance acoustic pianos, the need to have only the best pianos played at court, the need for one king to be or appear wealthier than another king etc. Acoustic pianos may never be that important to humanity again, so it's not clear we'll recover all information we gained when they were.

Archeologists often try to reconstruct ancient practices. Although modern humans have the advantage of a much larger basis of knowledge, it's not always trivial nor even always possible to reconstruct old ideas.

Learning is a feedback loop process. Whether you can recover knowledge depends on how successfully you can replicate the feedback loop. And that depends on ambient factors.

I violated HN guidelines by being too flippant in my answer.

There's still an open question about whether the new fiddles are better, or that the old ones are deteriorating, or both.

Disclosure: Working double bassist. And don't get me started about bows. ;-)

But to get back on topic I’m not sure I get how wine is the same.

Wine is a product with large taste variations between the different regions and vine varieties. Plus depending of the year you will again have variations in the grapes which can be more or less balanced during the fabrication.

Some producers are known to have produced particularly great wine some specific years which lead to say bottles being very expensive but most of it is very much fact based.

The only dubious thing I see in wine is that the way aging changes the taste of a bottle is not an improvement indefinitely. At some point the wine just gets worst and the search for very old bottle is mostly posturing.

It's not publicized but there was a documentary about how they almost lost far too much of their raw abilities gained since the 19th century when it comes to institutional knowledge which had always been essential to the way they had made pianos in a less-then-fully documented way, that had been passed on through generations.

Most likely some of the most talented builders at earlier times were not very literate with paperwork anyway.

The modern company dropped the ball for quite a while through attrition, until an urgent effort was undertaken to preserve what they had and uncover any little tidbits that were inadvertently lost. A lot of careful measurements were taken like never before, and documentation produced.

I doubt if the pianos are the same, but don't think I would be able to tell the difference either.

This page has some excellent little videos itself:

https://www.steinway.com/news/features/inside-the-new-york-c...

So he was left unsure how he felt.

If the Boeing Effect is anything to go by, I don't think that assumption can hold in the short/medium term. Yes, maybe a century from now we'd have some set of pressures and alignment of various incentives such that we rebuild/rediscover this lost knowledge. But it'll be bleak until then, and we can't rely on it to happen in our generation.

But I'd go further and argue it's deeper. Sometimes it's not just about any one single "node" being lost. The network of nodes and the unique connections and weights between them will forever be gone.

To borrow yet another saying/aphorism. "It's much easier to destroy something than to build it."

The OP doesn't say life isn't fine. He says that if we don't aim for perfection, if art ceases to matter because we cease to truly care, then there's no point. We'll eat shit and reproduce just the same -- but there is no point.

He's got a point.

I sill enjoy resistance, reserves, survival, pragmatics, fat buffers and improvisation better without any mediocrity I would say.

The creative mediums of the day are tiktok videos and video games.

It is the same line of thought from back in the day that the electric guitar is just noise, people should play a "real" instrument like the clarinet!

Rap is just noise, they aren't even singing! People should play a "real" instrument like the electric guitar.

Tiktok is not art! I am talking "real" art like Marcel Duchamp or Andy Warhol's movie Sleep. No one is making REAL art like that anymore I tell ya.

His point is excessively perfectionistic at best, to the point of detriment, and at worst... well, it's pedantic.

Any "important" concert hall will tune the piano before each concert. If there is no concert for months the piano will sit untuned (but still be practiced on), but a piano tuner is cheap insurance that nothing happened. If there are two concerts on the same day they might or might not tune between them.

Of course there are a lot of "small-town" concert halls where the piano is not tuned as often. Your local high school probably isn't tuning the piano before the concert - even though the piano is moved from the choir room to the stage before the concert which is the most likely way to mess up tuning.

There's 8 billion of us. There's more than enough human attention to go around.

More so, there being enough attention to go around is tangential to whether the sum of our attention colors in all the space.

1. Members of the audience that do not notice anything at all 2. Members of the audience that only notice it subconsciously, affecting some overall feeling of quality (an analogy would be typography which operates mostly in this realm) 3. Members of the audience that consciously notice that something is off, somewhere 4. The conductor that exactly knows that the piano is off 5. The tuner that exactly knows what and where is wrong with the piano

We as a society don't want to lose artistry that was painstakingly developed - there's no guarantee it will ever be developed to that level of sophistication again. I don't want future generations to look at my generation as we do the dark ages.

I think it's easy right now to think that progress is guaranteed or the opposite - that it's impossible to achieve. As population levels out civilization will need to become more about archiving what we know than pushing the envelope but no one wants to lose information.

Based on what? You'd have to have somebody who could compare the past to the current state to establish a delta (or lack of one) and make that assertion.

Also: it is not possible to know if everything is solely physics based. Faith comes in many forms, and scientism is one of them.

So I think chucking the Earth into the sun is intentionally being over-dramatic.

Actually I think ending it on a joke was not the best move, because it does muddle things a bit. The stakes are not so high but it does matter. The piano was not bad enough for the audience to notice, but it was bad enough for the player to notice. If it is bad enough to bother the person using it, it is bad enough to matter.

I mean, if the player is self-criticizing like most elite people do, they probably play better if they know everything, even the little stuff that the audience barely notices, is going right.

While a good craftsman can use some bad tools to good results, they almost always use good tools (not using good tools is often done to prove a point).

I don't feel that statement is stating that if X happens we're screwed; its stating that if X happens why is life worth living?

Its only one metric among many, but rates of depression and anxiety diagnosis are at an all time high.

More recently and more zeitgeist, Breakdancing in the olympics. Most people have no idea about breakdancing yet alone how its culture has evolved. Viewed from their lens Australia was a terrible joke easily made fun of, yet to the breaking community Rachael Gunn is a hero and being defended. [2]

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=7UsYHo5iarM&pp=ygUVR3JlZWsgc3Rhd...

[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=xPysiKi8mSM

It's a totally different thing than breaking as creative expression. There's nothing wrong with being confidently goofy at a party, sure, but if breaking wants to remain a method of expression and nothing else, it shouldn't be in the olympics. Otherwise it's fair to be puzzled (and amused) that a subpar athlete reached that level of competition.

The roofers did a shit job, but it looked so professionally done and I paid them well. Six months later the roof started to leak, by that time they were gone... The contractors widened the doorway but didn't bother checking the house plan and the load was incorrect, the structural engineer had a heart attack looking at that.

We sure as hell are cooked, son, we just ain't stopped movin' yet.

It's a problem if you're building systems as a dilettante. There are enough individuals on the planet that people can specialize so we need not be at the mercy of systems built by people of average discernment.

> If their art dies out, maybe nobody will know how bad all the pianos are. And then we'll all have slightly worse pianos than we would otherwise have. And I mean if that's the way things are going to go, then let's just steer the Earth into the Sun, because what's the point of any of this.

One counterexample to this viewpoint is Damascus steel. The exact art of making it has been lost (although now effectively reproduced), but modern steels surpass the qualities that made Damascus steel prized. It turns out those ancient masters didn't know bad their steel was. Maybe modern piano tuners don't know how bad their technique is, once the process of "finessing how the overtones interact with each other" has been thoroughly characterized by present or future technology.

If the old way actually had advantages someone would do it. In the case of Damascus we have enough science to know it wasn't as good. There are other areas where people to go through the effort to create something the old way - either it isn't much more work (it may be more work, just not too much more), or the old way is somehow better.

We don't know how bad things are is one way to put it. Another way is that there are people of extraordinary ability, walking among us mere mortals.

There are streamers that do seasonal Bronze to GM runs, and sometimes viewers will accuse someone of being a smurf because of how well they're playing. But then after the match their profile gets checked and it turns out they're actually playing in their correct rank, and they just got a very lucky draft and overall game.

Finally, even if you're playing vs a GM they might not be playing their main role / heroes, or going the most optimally tryhard builds. Even if someone has the core fundamentals correct, mastering a hero and learning all of their interactions perfectly could take dozens to hundreds of games.

An example from another game: in Brood War there was a time where the most legendary player, Flash, held two of the top 10 spots in the ranked ladder; once for Terran (his main race) and once for Protoss (his second best race). But while his Zerg is also very good, he's not a top 10 in the world player of that race.

That's an interesting claim, is there any verification for it? (I'm honestly curious).

In other words, when a human says "this is a good position for white" or "that was a good move" (roughly equivalent to saying "that move leads to a good position"), we do so not by checking every possible sequence of moves (which would require analyzing billions of possible continuations) and ensuring that all of them are good. We instead do so by intuition - we assess what the position looks like in comparison to positions we've analyzed before that we know lead to a win for one player or the other. As a concrete example: if we see connected passed pawns for white, we're probably going to say white is winning, unless mentally we can find a continuation where black is able to capture them or blockade them.

So all it takes for a chess position to be good without a human being able to tell, is for there to exist some sequence of moves that leads to a different result from what we expected, and we are unable to find that sequence. In the example above, a human would wrongly conclude that white is winning if there actually does exist some deep and complicated series of moves black can play to permanently blockade the connected passers.

You see this most commonly with chess engines (i.e. chess AI). The engine will make a move, or suggest a move, and the human (who may even be one the top players in the world) raises their eyebrow. Why, because the move visually seems to make no sense and/or serve no purpose. The engine is making that move based on some billion-position analysis it performed, that the human just isn't capable of. Only after the engine ultimately wins the game, does the human go back and start to get a sense of what the purpose of that strange-looking move was.

If you're -curious- about why weaker players can't accurately analyze the chess of strong players, I've laid out for you why that's the case.

On the other hand, if you're -skeptical- that weaker players cannot do this, I'd encourage you to do your own research on the topic and highlight where you believe I've stated something false.

Maybe for the judging events. Race vents have times. You can google how fast someone has run or swam before.

For an example of this, see how the Paris Olympic pool was considered a slow pool due to its depth. Or how wind impacts running times, and can’t always be fairly accounted for (e.g. gusts).

There’s also the phenomenon where athletes perform better when competing against someone vs competing by themselves.

Back then, doing something that society deemes risky/provocative/condemns, as an artist, a musician, a politician would be seen or heard only by the people present, everyone else would have second or third hand accounts of it, and that would be maybe tomorrow, maybe the week after, maybe the month after.

You could get drunk in a tavern, get in a brawl and paint the owner's wife posing as a nude boar. The people who would know about it first hand would be only the people who directly saw it. Your boss wouldn't hear about it unless he is in direct contact with the people there, which would be rare.

Nowadays, getting in a brawl would end up with someone calling the cops immediately, someone posting it on instagram, someone calling your job to get you fired with probably a dozen articles next day "drunken fool fights local bar owner after insulting his wife".

These social constraints, the speed of information and the interconnectedness of it all is constraining us into uniformity, as behaviour against the graph is more and more ostracised - unless you have enough social capital to afford it, at which point it is rewarded.

So of course we are less interesting - we are being forced into uniformity.

1. cities where living expenses are generally high, so discretionary spending is low, but a subculture has successfully secured low-cost housing or workspace somewhere the cops can't easily go.

2. rural areas where wages are generally low, so discretionary spending is low, but a subculture has successfully exploited region-exclusive exports or experiences somewhere the cops don't bother to go.

3. wealthy people

4. indigenous people that have resisted the incursion of wage labor and state power

You don't hear about John-Pierre Duvage from the coffee shop because he wasn't interesting. In the future, they will talk about the places where these people met.

Groupies always wonder where the musicians are. The musicians find each other easily.

A thing that strikes me is that people in the Bay Area frequently claim that it has nothing interesting, but my friends hosted a 30-person event locally that had musical compositions, art, and talks about all sorts of things. A local festival. No one outside us knew. I suspect that, like us, there are numerous groups of people out there and that this sort of stuff is common. Only those with breakout ideas make it out, but the groups themselves comprise individuals who, if you teased out their tales, would make good stories.

If my friend groups span libertarian billionaire techies and union working-class ironworkers, I must assume that the rest of these groups are similarly diverse.

For my part, I have found the Bay Area a fascinating place full of fascinating people. I am thankful to have found my way here. Sometimes I think not even Moll Flanders has lived more exciting a life than many of those I have met here.

I was impressed with how AIs would draw individual stitches on clothes but a seamstress friend of mine shook her head and pointed out how they also got it wrong.

I don't think you necessarily need to be an expert to see the multiple wrongnesses of AI images. It's just that AI images don't signal people to look more closely. (and a lot of popular illustration has bad anatomy and people excuse that).

And broadly, I think the division between experts and non-experts in the "telling things are wrong" department is over-emphasized by focus-example chosen in the article. The production of pop-songs, for example, is an area where an expert can make a song more appealing to the average person (objectively verifiable: they create top-ten hits). So the average person can tell a song is well/badly produced when they aren't an expert who can produce songs.

It certainly looks wrong although I don't imagine it creates distress for the horse.

Having been a classical musician, what I noticed about getting tuning right is there is a body sensation of lightness/breath that is palpable if you are a classical enthusiast - even if you can’t distinguish the sound you are hearing from an “ideal memory” of what it should sound like.

But the largest reduction in auditory tech has already happened - mp3 compression.

Uncompressed audio is radically different and richer than low fi digital compression, but almost everything we hear everywhere is coming through streaming services.

The rare delights of extreme tech built around the first principles of a discipline like sound/music are achieved by overcoming very difficult and confounding problems. They are technical wonders as much as they are refined experiences.

I once worked with a scientist who had permanently solved the issue of mic feedback. Imagine what revolution that would be for AV use cases everywhere! But it required a radical shift in the protocols used to build both mic and speakers, so even though Sony optioned it there’s not a single product you can buy with the tech.

Like the Internet, everything is really just a semi-poor adaptation to a semi-poorly design system. Fundamental protocol changes (like ipv4 to ipv6) are brutally hard.

We like to believe that modern society is hard-wired for improvement, but it seems mostly hard-wired for minimal change that delivers marginal improvements detectable by the lowest common denominator consumer/user.

To me, that makes it all the more extraordinary when genuine protocol level changes - like EV cars - are made reality.

Out of curiosity, have you blind A/B tested yourself with the various streaming service "high" quality MP3 encodings vs. lossless? (like https://abx.digitalfeed.net/) I agree that there is some difference that you can hear in certain parts of songs listening on high-end equipment/headphones (stuff that is greater quality than >99.9% of the listening population has), but really to me it would be hard to call it radically different. Obviously if you are below 320 MP3s there are more noticeable compromises that do ruin things one you notice.

Recently I went to a local orchestra performance, and I was absolutely blown away by the sound. It was overwhelming in a way spotify never is. It was like a full body experience. I’ve been to the orchestra before, but it’s been a few years and I just forgot how powerful music can be.

Kinda like how most people listen to low quality audio streams, on low quality earbuds/soundbars. Hell, I torrented a video recently because it wasn’t available to buy, and again, was blown away because the quality was so high compared to the streaming I pay for. I think in general, we’re all just becoming used to the mediocre.

Here it is the listening medium and environment where an orchestra hall is a physical building built at a cost many orders of magnitude more expensive than speakers specifically for the experience of listening to live music compared to listening to something on a home speaker or phone.

To me It's interesting that you assume Spotify is the problem, whereas its actually the listening medium you are using Spotify through. In the case of audio, you could listen to Spotify recordings on sound systems that will basically blow you away in the same way a live orchestra will, but they cost probably 10's of thousands of dollars. For example at the higher-end of setups people describe it being hard to differentiate between concert recordings and actual concerts, and this should be expected with what we know about audio.

I do agree though that quality degradation as a means of meeting cost and false-repackaging of that as higher quality is annoying. Especially in streaming video, things are advertised as 4K, but that ignores bitrate and we have the potential infrastructure to deliver experiences that are way better like streaming the equivalent bitrate of a Bluray, but we've kind of fallen into a place of "good enough" where most people don't know or appreciate what is possible. Audio is kind of similar, but there is maybe more of an argument that cost of listening systems means we're at a happy-medium of cost vs. quality and you can pretty much buy the level of experience you want there.

Jeff has eaten at ten thousand restaurants around the world in his lifetime. Nick drinks Soylent for 80% of his calories; the other 20% often comes from McDonalds or Chipotle. They've both eaten at this Bistro you are considering getting dinner at; after asking for their opinion, would you assign more weight to Jeff's or Nick's?

Its true that 99% of the population cannot discern the difference between lossless and ~320kbps lossy audio encoding. Is that truly a "natural" phenomena? Or is it learned through existence in an inevitable world where high quality music and high-quality listening devices aren't available to most people? What impacts does this have as that drop in quality feeds upstream: when producers and musicians make music with Airpods because that's what they grew up with, and its what most of their audience uses?

Music is a less interesting domain of this discussion because, really, most platforms do lossless now. Spotify is adding it soon. Its basically the default on Apple Music and Tidal. AM has genuine multi-channel Dolby Atmos. Extremely high quality music consumption has never been easier or more accessible (well, a 3.5mm jack would be nice, but that's a sailed ship).

IMO: Video is a far, far more tragic loss. Netflix charges more for access to 4K content; but you'd be a fool to pay it, because as many who have streamed both would attest, "4K isn't worth it you can barely tell the difference between 1080p". If you played these same people a Bluray of that release, their minds would be blown. Near-100% of people can discern the difference, and would prefer the Bluray; but Netflix will not stream that quality, because its an order of magnitude more bandwidth usage. What's more: Many recent productions are simply never available in this highest-quality format. Because 99% of content is consumed via Compressed Stream: TV panel quality at the same price point has stagnated or even dropped over the past five years. I hope you'll believe that some major productions may soon have a conversation like "Why do we need these five figure dollar 16k cameras, this is just going to stream on netflix, just grab a basic Sony DSLR from B&H and let's save some money."

Welcome to Enshitification.

Yes, yes, I know there are still people who can/do write JavaScript... they just are not statistically represented in the workforce.

Not how I see them at all. They're just as incremental and actually overall a worse experience. The only "benefit" they have is their acceleration.

Everything is touchscreen in the cabin which is demonstrably worse. There's a persistent Internet connection sending all my data to a black hole where it will get used in ways I don't approve of.

If I want to fuck off for a weekend somewhere, I need to plan the getaway around places that have recharge ports. And when I do get there, I need to figure out what a "charging network" is, download the correct app for the charging network, fight with the fucking app/charging port to get my payment information where it needs to be and that the charging port recognizes my payment, and finally wait for several hours vs. a 5 minute (max) refueling stop with an ICE.

And these are just some of the problems I have with them. The core tech of EVs may be a big game-changer but everything else about the EV experience can fuck off in its current iteration.

The point (that the article alludes to but definitely does not spell out) is that, with the advent of general AI, this style of artistry will die in EVERY field if we allow it to; not just art and media, but engineering, technology, policy too.

This to me is a HUGE problem with the introduction of these consumer-ready AIs. You may be able to say "agh I'm an engineer and I wouldn't let this happen in my project!" but some places just want their dang power plants, whether or not they have a host of lifelong nuclear engineering in their region. I worry about a power plant that has a fault when the only true experts are few and far between.

The title is actually what Dunning & Kruger found in their paper. Poor performers have no idea the difference between a poor performance and a good performance. If they knew how bad they were then they could tell the difference between good and bad. And of course, because of how quantiles work, there's going to be 50% of people in the bottom half.

(The classic usage of Dunning-Kruger effect to mean poor performers rate themselves higher than good performers isn't what the paper is about and you're welcome to read it [1])

[1]: https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~eo/stuff/unskilled%20and%20unawar...

It's hard to know exactly when. We're bad at estimating.

"progress is always slower than you think in the short term, and faster than you think in the long term."

GenAI not only fills in the blanks for “what you want” based on a vague text prompt, with the lowest common denominator of its training data, it provides no means or motive to develop intentionality. In its current form, it’s a cognitive dead end, endlessly providing a statistically smudged shadow of the detailed knowledge and conceptual space that gave birth to the data it was trained on. A picture is worth a thousand words, and today’s cutting edge models still forgot most of them.

It could get better. But it could also stagnate in a very dystopian way if it discourages learning traditional art without becoming a real alternative that continues to produce artists and not just consumers.

At the very least, to me it seems like things are finally happening fast enough for humans to notice a trend. I think I read the phrase "faster than generational rate", meaning that things happen at a frequency that we can observe in our lifetimes (advent of computers is faster than generational, but the development of agricultural advances really isn't)

That's one hell of a statement for a place like LessWrong.

Not that I hang out a lot at LessWrong, but it seems like a place for philosophy (and more), from an outsider perspective at least. And nihilism certainly is a perspective some hold within philosophy, so it seems like exactly the right place for a statement like that?

It's likely that at least one person's going to have value up to the very end as your civilization loses resources but still remains rational, something that can't be said if it went into the sun hundreds of years ago.

The experience mainly left me with a sober respect for Groucho Marx's about not joining clubs that would have me as a member.

They need to get grounded. Workout, sit under a tree, hug a friend, whatever floats their boat.

Did it not occur to you that the statement was humorous hyperbole, did you actively choose to reject the idea, or are you commenting in bad faith?

I still think it’s kinda off. It doesn’t quite land. Like I’m not sure what takeaway they are trying to give. That ambiguity makes it much less funny.

It would have worked better if they connected it to the point about not automating away these skills / expertise with shittier versions, which is a great point and would be nice to end on.

Take climate change: most informed people think this is a job for science, this is where we should exert our effort and invest our funds. But this overlooks that individual human opinion and volition plays an absolutely massive role in the problem, at many levels. From where I'm sitting, this problem is not even on science's radar, beyond general complaints about those stupid people who ruin everything (overlooking that it was science that invented the technologies that went on to enable climate change in the first place...but you see, that doesn't count, it is(!) not a part of "the" chain of causality). Metaphysical causality is something else that is basically not on science's radar, or in their Theory of "Everything".

But of course, all of this this is pedantic, and can be safely ignored, or better yet, suppressed.

I'm already seeing this happening in a number of industries (including software development).

It starts with the consumers accepting crap, and works its way back.

That's why I think AI-produced output will be just fine, for most folks.

Hm, that's a good point.

I see other commenters getting hung up on the idea that "in a world where nobody can tell that a piano is 0.01% out of tune, does it even count as out of tune?"

But that's just a toy example, and though the author already did directly address it, many don't seem to understand the impact. Maybe it helps to put it into other terms.

I can tell when there's problems in software that I couldn't write. Similarly with most systems I interact with. For society to lose the knowledge of making $system perfectly doesn't mean that nobody will ever know, it means everybody who interacts with $system will just be a little bit less happy than they would be otherwise.

Our societal fitness will be reduced because we'll all be a little less happy, a little less healthy, etc. Saying "it doesn't matter if this thing is a little worse and nobody knows how it could be better" is like saying a parasite is fine because you've been living with it for years.

(Yes, I do include this comment among the low-value junk)

It comes up in all sorts of unexpected places in technology, once things are overly optimized for price often the original better version goes away. Like right now you can't buy a good cassette tape player, because the only ones made now all use the same mechanism that sucks. They stopped making good mechanisms like 20 years ago when people mostly stopped buying cassettes.

I don't like that kind of conclusion. For some reason (the context of the article?) it made me think of gold plated digital cables.

It's like the old fairy tale of the princess and the pea [1]. Sometimes when people are complaining about some tiny subtlety that we can't recognize ourselves we think they are a princess. Other times, someone tries to convince us they are a princess by pointing out a subtlety that isn't even there.

There is likely an objective truth about tuning pianos. I am suspicious when someone claims they have a super-power that cannot be replaced.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Pea

What exactly is this about? Other than (3/2)^12 being 129.7 which is somewhat close to 2^7 I don't see much other being close.

Also, musician's mathematics are so weird, talking about '11' while there are 12 notes, '5th' while no 5 is involved, ...

Meanwhile, per music theory going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, this interval ought to be exactly 3/2, which is slightly larger. Contra what was written in the article, these intervals are thus tuned flat from that Pythagorean ideal. The difference is about 2 cents (where a cent is defined as a frequency ratio of 2^(1/1200), effectively). Most people wouldn't be able to hear the difference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-noticeable_difference#Mus...).

Which is to say: yes, 129.746... might not seem that close to 128, but 1.498... is close enough to 1.5 that it lets us have music that sounds right (if sterile, according to some) in every key.

Other intervals possible in this tuning arrangement (i.e, powers of 2^(1/12)) can approximate other reasonably-consonant intervals with varying accuracy.

Look up "just intonation" and "equal temperament" if you are interested. Also "The Well-Tempered Clavier" is highly recommended for listening!

Bach was certainly aware of the equal tuning, where all intervals were the same. It had been used on lutes for some centuries. But with harpsichords, and to some extent pipe organs, an equal temperament was not what Bach or his contemporaries wanted - it didn't have a single pure interval!

The 11/12 contradiction, or seven notes in an octave too, is just because it's essentially 1-indexed. Interestingly indian classical music is distantly related through the shared proto-indo-european cultural history but counts it differently. They call the octave the saptak, etymologically related to the "sept" root for seven in romance languages.

I don't have a lot of time to watch films these days, so when I do I always opt for a physical disc to make sure I actually enjoy the experience. In addition I've noticed that it often costs $20 to "rent" a new release via streaming and $30 to buy an actual disc, so it doesn't make any financial sense to me at all to "rent" a crap streaming experience for 2/3 of the cost of buying a high-quality copy of the film.

But now there's another problem. I've noticed that many films being released today are streaming-only. One I looked at last week could be "rented" from a streaming service for $20, "bought" from said streaming service for $30, or bought on physical media in JULY 2025. That's right, an entire year from now.

In years past I've frequently made it a habit to head down to the local Target in the late afternoon to see what new releases they have in the electronics department. However the last time I went there the Blu-ray section had been completely removed. No doubt because studios are no longer releasing new films on Blu-ray until a motherfscking YEAR after they make it available on streaming. When I asked an associate where the films were he apologetically stammered, "Uh, yeah, sorry, we're, uh, turning down our film section. There are a few stragglers left at the end of the aisle over there."

Now there is no way for me to legally get a new release film that I can tolerate watching within a reasonable amount of time. I would garner that it's primarily an artifact (no pun intended) of the current generation having grown up with crap streaming videos, and so they are adapted to it and don't have expectations for quality like those of us from the DVD and Blu-ray generation have.

I suppose this is another way it goes to show that knowing how bad most things are and precisely how they're bad is more a curse than a blessing. As I walked out of Target empty-handed I admit I did have a feeling somewhat like wanting the Earth to be steered into the sun.

And then I jumped on VPN and pirated the film I wanted to watch.

Everyone seems to think and say that they want some for of AI to arrive and free us from all that grind that is beneath us.

I am just reminded of this TNG episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA9fcTJGXf0

Another fitting tag would have been "weaponized pedantry: unusually low"

This is the "first level" of expertise. Yes, you will notice this as you delve into more and more areas, but you also find there are a lot of common modes and human patterns that inextricably become part of the subject matter. Having a grasp on this allows you to very quickly get to the intermediate level in most subjects.

Consequently, this is why I dislike modern math's continued fascination with Greek symbols, when Greek or Latin is not taught anymore. It creates an artificial barrier to entry that's very frustrating.

Until some of us invest in discernment, invest in the art of it, and the rest of us give it a listen or a look.

Some cultures end up adopting the new level of discernment wholesale.

And in some cultures, the refinement slowly slips away and things revert back to the sloppy, lazy, easier-to-sustain base level.

As others have noted, our time and attention are finite. Both as producers and consumers of culture. I care about some things and ignore others, both as a producer and a consumer. We individually and collectively choose which aspects of life get the attention and the love.

These are the aesthetics of life.

I want to agree with the thesis of the essay, but this anecdote didn't get me there.

Tennis players are really particular about how their rackets are strung. While nobody in the crowd will notice an unbalanced racket, the crowd will notice if they hit the ball out. Consistency is important.

Sure, make the device that tunes the piano to the imperfect level it was at the beginning. Better piano tuning is a net good. But recognize the difference between a thousand pianos tuned very well and one perfectly tuned piano, and don't pretend the first is a replacement for the second.

(And, to the obvious point that, like, everyone in this thread is missing: Substitute "piano tuning" for anything you actually value. The point is excellence, not pianos.)

I think they tune them slightly differently depending on what's going to be played. But I suppose a master pianist could have a whole database of their preferences saved up or something.

The feel is great. The simulated sound is pretty damn good, with a lot of attention to harmonics produced by undamped strings.

The built-in speakers do however quickly reach their limit when played at high volume and distortion artifacts can be annoying.

I'm not a professional pianist. I tried a few pianos both digital and some vertical pianos and I have to say that this one is the best instrument I have played so far.

A similar field that has always been digital is audio and video compression codecs.

You see similar issues with say Apple advertising their compression as perfect, and devoted hobbyists slaving away to meet goals that the average person cannot even discern.

The capitalist, rather than technical, reality is that advances will be used to deliver the same (or lower) quality at a cheaper rate. And if you measure progress by the number of people who can watch Fast and the Furious on their Android phone on a capped data plan in a third world country that is perhaps the best thing.

And even if you care only for perfection, despite all the genius and effort applied, you could argue that most of the progress over decades has been the ability to throw more CPU at the problem.

1) Using Android Auto

2) Using Apple CarPlay

3) Which USB cables are used. Some seem to be better than others.

4) If it's over bluetooth - the worst experience with Android for me.

5) Car radio vs the above

6) Am I using YouTube Music or Spotify on Android Auto/Apple CarPlay

It's almost like with some of these configuration it's frustrating, while it's really pleasurable with others, but I can't tell if I'm imagining it.

From my tests so far, it feels like I'm only happy with the wired Apple CarPlay, and everything else doesn't seem satisfying. I'm not an audiophile or anything. And it has a real effect on my mood. But I have Android myself.

If anyone has any suggestions to try out here... I'll try to maybe see if all the music is downloaded with offline support beforehand and maybe check the settings in Spotify/YouTube Music apps. It seems to be related mostly to how smooth or immersive bass is to me. Because bass can be annoying or it can be pleasurable.

It very much gets into matters of preference and taste - people love to abuse the word "objective" when there's not really any objective measure. Sure, you can say the dominant frequency of a note on a piano is correct or not, but the rest? More due to taste. The preferences can often be "shared" by culture associating specific quirks with "better" or "worse", but that's still just preference.

How many musicians intentionally use older techniques or "worse" equipment specifically because of the sound they create? Look at the culture around Synthesizers, for example. Is it really crazy to believe that the "perfect" concert piano tuner example in the article is just a preference in a shared culture of "Concert Pianists"? And are we then really losing something that's "better"? Or just another cultural artifact that may fade with time?

We're not "losing" things any more than any cultural shift is a "loss".

https://forum.audacityteam.org/t/comparing-two-supposedly-id... https://forum.audacityteam.org/t/comparing-sound-comparing-p...

I like one forum user's suggestion: build an audio file where the left channel is from one recording and the right channel is from another, but in perfect time sync. For example, the left may be a recording of an Apple CarPlay rendition, while the right is a recording of an Android Auto rendition. Then it should be easy for your ears to discern the difference.

The Bluetooth issue could be real. I have a Bluetooth-enabled car radio that switches between full duplex (two-way audio) and half duplex (one-way audio) mode. It sounds normal in half duplex mode, but in full duplex mode, it sounds a lot like an old telephone.

The store owner said that he's not sure which ones will work, so he gave many different ones which we tried in the parking lot and then brought back. He gave us only one that spreads into 3 different connectors, USB-C, Lightning and the old Micro-USB. He said that this won't likely work. Rest of the cables were all either USB-C or lightning. However when trying, contrary to what he said, the 3 different connectors one worked, and it seemed to also have best quality, e.g. compared to one lightning which definitely had much worse performance.

What I think is happening is that like someone said somewhere below as well, there's some difference in how fast or stable the data goes through the wire and something will change how they encode/decode it for those reasons. I don't know if it's the apps or the car software. I have to assume there's some sort of quality check and something will change depending on that.

It doesn't help that packaging seems to list out random details and it's hard to compare cables with each other. Some USB cables have listed the data transfer rate, some have not, but they do allow data transfer. Then others don't.

/i

Other tricks are speed adaptive eq and volume.

But in the end most quality yield boiled down to tuning. Cars full of, rather low quality speakers (BOM cost a few dollars per channel) could create a quite immersive sound.

How is this song going to make me feel in that car with those settings.

It's a song that happened randomly on one of the cars we were renting.

But it really got us both.

Because of that impact, and because of my lack of knowledge, it was very difficult and concerning to find a car, because we are kind of trying out Android Auto, Apple CarPlay, bluetooth without anyone really giving advice on the topic. And car sellers don't seem to be mindful about the topic, neither any relatives that we tried to consult on which car to buy. The best advice car sellers have had on the topic is to "just always use the original cable" which I don't even know what it means. Well I know what it means, manufacturer likely put the proper USB with optimal transfer rates and all, but it doesn't really answer to what the factors are or anything like that.

Are we using wrong settings somewhere? Are we using optimal settings in all the apps, the car audio tuner, equalizer? I don't know.

So we have learned a lot and we decided on a car, which we bought, but presently I still feel there's something different about Android Auto, vs Apple CarPlay, that doesn't make it quite as pleasurable. Like I'm not getting this immersive hype feeling, but more of a rigid "boom". Apple CarPlay showing that the car should be capable of it, but I can't really reproduce it with my Android phone.

But surely I can't be the only one in the World, so it seems like a thing that can be this pleasurable would have been obviously solved.

And it's not about the loudness, it's about how it smooths out or spreads, or feels like it's all around you at any volume. Like you are inside the music and the bass.

When I tried to Google for solving this problem, I didn't really find any answers, so I'm sharing this here on hackernews, since frequently interesting perspectives appear here.

If there's a traffic jam or rush hour, but the music is so great and immersive, it wouldn't matter and you never want the music to end, it seems odd that there's not that much focus on it from sellers point of view or people I know in real life.

Or do I just have a weird physiology/psychology that responds to some odd things that no one else really cares about, or is some small setting somewhere?

I'm not an audiophile by any means, but streaming almost always sounds worse than CD or even sometimes radio.

But it does also seem to depend on a car. Because I'm pretty sure I've had some very good experiences with bluetooth as well. And a case where bluetooth Youtube Music sounded good, and bluetooth Spotify sounded bad.

In addition both of these apps have different volume levels despite car having the same volume level, and Android has different volume levels compared to iOS, so all of it combined, testing around made for an annoying experience.

What it specifically said is:

> High-quality USB cables often have better shielding, which helps to reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI). EMI can introduce noise or degrade audio quality, particularly in cars where multiple electronic devices are in close proximity.

But I don't know if this is the exact culprit.

There is a lot of stuff from the late 70's and early 80's where I think a combination of new technologies and cocaine made for producers creating masters that sound awful to my ears.

(disclaimer: not a professional audio engineer, just an instrument player that has some production experience).

For that matter I can’t believe people’s eyes don’t glaze over when they see TV ads that say, for instance, that Dawn dish detergent is better than other brands even though Dawn really has a better package of surfactants than most competitors and, over time, P&G has invested a lot of research into improving it. (E.g. ultraconcentrated soaps were an advance in practical chemistry and you really can clean more with less soap)

Although their ads must be a reason that Dawn is market leading I’m pretty sure the ads, through their style, make a withdrawal from the legitimacy bank account.

There can be real quality improvements, if you’re editing, recording, mastering, producing audio. If the thing you sample isn’t the same as the thing that’s going to be played back, then a higher sampling rate is sometimes called for.

This is true in imaging too. You don’t need HDR or raw formats or excessive resolution if you only show the same thing you captured, but sometimes you do if you’re going to modify it.

Some of the lore around high sampling rates is when people make a rule of thumb for recording and apply it always without thinking about the specifics of a situation. That’s easy to do, but you also have to examine the cost of using a high sampling rate. Does it cost a lot or hurt? If you’re running short on storage space, maybe, but usually no, it’s usually a tradeoff with very low downsides.

Sales people and corporate marketing absolutely do take advantage of this, for sure, and turn what are legitimate tradeoffs for some professionals into specious needs for mass market consumers.

Similarly you can't really hear more than 16 bits worth of sample depth if you got your levels perfect but in the real word recording in the studio and field a few more bits of headroom make a big difference.

Thus I'd expect people to record at a high sample rate but I think there is no practical delivery rate.

I'm somewhat agnostic as to whether or not people can hear anything atr all past 44.1kHz, particularly because if you consider how accurately people can point out objects in a real physical soundfield (e.g. like a blind man shooting a gun) and you believe phase accuracy is the key, you'd make the case that people can hear timing differences that couldn't be captured at 44.1khz.

But no "surround sound" technology comes close to replicating how accurately you can spot things in real life and I don't believe practically any commercial recordings past 44.1khz are noticeably better on any real equipment.

I kinda relate this to sporting equipment or cars or other things people buy. Like, nearly everyone on a road bike is riding and wearing race gear, which is uncomfortable, while very few people are actually training or racing. Or, people often buy cars or computers that are far faster or more powerful than they need. Those things get rationalized similarly, with claims that the extra is necessary and makes a difference, or fears that it might be needed someday, and little reflection on the downsides.

However: You did notice something different. I know you're using APs, because you noticed something different. What you noticed wasn't audio "quality" per se; you noticed the APs' faux-Atmos. Its a similar vein to saying that the vogue "TAYLOR SWIFT 9 DIMENSIONAL SURROUND AUDIO" [2] Youtube videos are "higher quality"; obviously Atmos, when its at its best, is packing more data from the master, more microphones, more streams. But, you're muxing all that data down to a lossy wireless codec, and then outputting it through two speakers. At best, what you're hearing is not necessarily higher quality, but is simply "more pleasing". And, when Apple Music delivers truly-fake-Atmos tracks, meaning the Atmos was synthesized and processed from original Stereo masters, which does happen quite frequently with older music on the platform, it might even be accurate to say that what you're hearing is actually worse quality; but it might still be more pleasing.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/118295

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMsqFc7-Z4

Now there is a huge difference between a good master and a mediocre master and often when people release on a fancy format they start with a better master. For instance a lot of CDs are victims of the loudness war and it isn’t hard to make a better release.

That's the "dirty secret" of lossless audio: If you ask even someone in this 1% to do the same thing, but for music the experimenter picks and that they've never heard before: that 1% literally becomes 0%. Maybe there's some gigahuman audio codec engineer employed deep in a basement at Dolby HQ who knows exactly the classes of imperfections that AAC encoding imprints into tracks and also has superhuman ears and such... but its damn close to 0 humans who could do this.

What this says about why anyone cares that AM, Tidal, Qobuz, whatever offer lossless audio, or that Spotify doesn't, is certainly interesting. It does seem like a tremendous waste of bandwidth and local storage, to me. But, I totally and fully subscribe to the message of the original article: It matters to me that this quality is maintained, that it exists for those people who do care about it, and that what I am consuming is as close as possible to what the original artists intended (rather than letting a bunch of cooks into the kitchen with opinions about which hertz are more important than others).

I know people can't hear sine waves above 17kHz but there are questions about transient response and particularly how accurate you would need to represent phase if you want to replicate how well people can spot the direction of sounds in the real world. (Notably no "surround sound" technology of any kind would help a blind man with a gun shoot as accurately as they can in the real world)

1)you indeed meant kbps so you were not conflating with kHz.

2) you chose the kbps unit because most systems offer those as quality parameter.

3) Phase shift on 17kHz cannot be accurately adjusted with a 17kHz*2 sample rate based system.

All 3 true but... I don't want to sound too pedantic pointing out that... I think those findings do not fit the context of the parent comments.

TL;DR: If we're not going to aim for better, what's the point at all?

> If it weren't for the piano soloist (the conductor probably didn't notice, he just knew to defer to the piano soloist's concerns), we would have played the concert on a very slightly out-of-tune piano, and then... > > What? > > Nobody in the audience would probably notice. Certainly not in the specific. Nobody is standing up and saying, "there, see how G above middle C has one string that is 0.2hz out of tune with the others?!" Nobody is standing up and saying "that piano is out of tune, what a travesty." Perhaps some of the more sensitive listeners would have felt some vague sense that the piano could have sounded nicer, that maybe the hall needs a better piano, or something. > > Did the piano sound better, after all that work? Yeah... it did, I think. Hard to say. I'd like to pretend it was some colossal difference, but that's really the point. My big stupid ears are not the best judge here. Just trust the people who have the best discernment.

> Only a very few people possess the level of discernment needed to know how bad your local concert hall's piano is, and precisely how it is bad.

> If their art dies out, maybe nobody will know how bad all the pianos are. And then we'll all have slightly worse pianos than we would otherwise have. And I mean if that's the way things are going to go, then let's just steer the Earth into the Sun, because what's the point of any of this.

This is a really strange choice of example, since advances in video compression and streaming have obviously been used to deliver higher quality at a cheaper rate.

They are all the effect of price per unit of quality going down.