High Fidelity and Hearing Loss
Just as important as the frequency ranges that we have lost sensitivity, are those that are inaudible, such as Infrasound (ultra-low frequencies) and Infosound, which uses frequency bands to transmit data.
Neil Young's attempt to revive high fidelity could be an exercise in futility, given the rise in hearing loss over the past few decades.
Here is an excellent article critical high-resolution digital audio: of this attempt: 24/192 Music Downloads...and why they make no sense.
The history of hearing loss is revealing, in this graph using Google Ngram, comparing it side-by-side with electric guitars, and generally follows the same contours.
Apparently hearing loss first became an issue in the 1920s (in tandem with the Industrial Age), followed by a spike in the 1940s (perhaps due to ear trauma sustained in WWII), a low point in 1965, then a gradual climb to 2000. (Data is not available post-2000 but most likely is still increasing.) Some of this is probably attributed to amplified music (1966-1984), and the second spike (1992-1998) perhaps due to use of headphone use.
With reduced aural acuity, it begs the question whether high fidelity is perceptible. The sound quality of earbuds or headphones also determines what is ultimately experienced.
High-resolution audio is useful in the recording and mixing stages. It may also me useful in the the inaudible ranges. Studies have also shown that HFCs (High Frequency Components) are still perceived in certain parts of the brain. Whether that is of any use is still unknown.
It is also interesting to consider regional effects of hearing loss. For example, do people that take the subway every day lose certain frequency bands and are therefore desensitized to sound and/or music in that range? Would they all experience symphonic music the same way, with the brass sounding muffled to everyone, or is it the acoustics of the hall or both? The questions are many, and there probably is no one "fix". Listening is largely an "averaged" experience based on a multitude of factors.
Neil Young's attempt to revive high fidelity could be an exercise in futility, given the rise in hearing loss over the past few decades.
Here is an excellent article critical high-resolution digital audio: of this attempt: 24/192 Music Downloads...and why they make no sense.
The history of hearing loss is revealing, in this graph using Google Ngram, comparing it side-by-side with electric guitars, and generally follows the same contours.
Apparently hearing loss first became an issue in the 1920s (in tandem with the Industrial Age), followed by a spike in the 1940s (perhaps due to ear trauma sustained in WWII), a low point in 1965, then a gradual climb to 2000. (Data is not available post-2000 but most likely is still increasing.) Some of this is probably attributed to amplified music (1966-1984), and the second spike (1992-1998) perhaps due to use of headphone use.
With reduced aural acuity, it begs the question whether high fidelity is perceptible. The sound quality of earbuds or headphones also determines what is ultimately experienced.
High-resolution audio is useful in the recording and mixing stages. It may also me useful in the the inaudible ranges. Studies have also shown that HFCs (High Frequency Components) are still perceived in certain parts of the brain. Whether that is of any use is still unknown.
It is also interesting to consider regional effects of hearing loss. For example, do people that take the subway every day lose certain frequency bands and are therefore desensitized to sound and/or music in that range? Would they all experience symphonic music the same way, with the brass sounding muffled to everyone, or is it the acoustics of the hall or both? The questions are many, and there probably is no one "fix". Listening is largely an "averaged" experience based on a multitude of factors.
