Do We See Better Than We Hear?

[Vito Corleone]

Why is high-end video so much of an easier sell to the general public than is high-end audio?   Why is HDTV all the rage, but compressed MP3s played through {censored}e speakers is "good enough" for many of the same people?

Is it because the differences between standard vs. HDTV are far greater than the differences between standard vs. high-end audio?

Is it because video is a medium that demands more of the consumers full attention?

Is it because the average human being doesn't perceive differences in audio fidelity as much as they do with video?

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

---

guido61 wrote:

 

 

Why is high-end video so much of an easier sell to the general public than is high-end audio?   Why is HDTV all the rage, but compressed MP3s played through {censored}e speakers is "good enough" for the same people?

 

Is it because the differences between standard vs. HDTV are far greater than the differences between standard vs. high-end audio?

---

 

I believe that the difference between standard and HDTV are indeed greater than between "standard" (over-compressed CDs and MP3s) and high end auido (playing media that's well produced, recorded, and manufactured). That's because standard TV has always been pretty bad. We had low quality audio which, by the 1950s started to get pretty good, and by the end of the 20th century, was back down to 1940s quality. HDTV shows people something they've never seen before, and it's really not all that expensive. And it will impress them more than hearing a $40 LP played on a $20,000 turntable through $40,000 speakers.

 

Is it because video is a medium that demands more of the consumers full attention?

 

Sort of, but not quite in that way. Video images are constantly changing every few seconds, so each scene takes a much shorter attention span than listening to even one song on a CD. Also, TV production tends to zoom in on things so you can see detail even when sitting 15 feet away on the couch. You'd get annoyed listening to a record if the guitar got louder when there was a solo.

---

Is it because the average human being doesn't perceive slight differences in audio fidelity as much as they do with video?

 

You'd have to compare the experience of llstening to an MP3 to having a band playing in your living room to have as much dramatic differences as is possible between standard and HDTV. HDTV is a much easier sell. If my 1982 Zenith ever quits, I'll probalby buy an HD-capable TV even though I still get my programming over the air.

[MikeRivers]

Another slightly related thought. I heard a eulogy on the radio for an old time sports broadcaster and the commentator made the point that in the old days before televised sports, the announcer had to create all the images with what he said and how he said it (high resolution announcing). TV sports announcers don't need to do that since the pictures are right there in great detail. It's the camera persons and video producers who are doing all the creative presentation now.

I have a blind friend who, when he has friends over to watch a game, turns the sound on the TV off and turns on the radio if the game is being broadcast. They all enjoy it more.

[Ernest Buckley]

Sitting down to watch something is less work than actively listening to something. 

[ermghoti II]

 

We absolutely see better than we hear. In fact, hearing may be our poorest sense. The clues are in vocabulary. In English, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of words dedocated to describing sight. One can accurately describe an object such that an individual can identify it accurately, without ever having seen a similar object.

 

By comparison, sound has exactly two unique adjectives: loud and quiet. Every other word used to describe sound is borrowed from another sense, is a descriptor used in musical theory (disonant, harmonious), or is onomonapia (bark, sizzle). Not only is it impossible to describe a sound without having an agreement in place as to what the adjectives mean in that particular context, it is nearly impossible to discuss the same sound heard by the same two people.

 

EDIT: Sense of smell is definitely worse than hearing. The only adjective I can think of off the top of my head that isn't borrowed is some variation of "stink," which really only means "bad, pertaining to a smell."

[blue2blue]

 

---

ermghoti II wrote:

We absolutely see better than we hear. In fact, hearing may be our poorest sense. The clues are in vocabulary. In English, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of words dedocated to describing sight. One can accurately describe an object such that an individual can identify it accurately, without ever having seen a similar object.

By comparison, sound has exactly two unique adjectives: loud and quiet. Every other word used to describe sound is borrowed from another sense, is a descriptor used in musical theory (disonant, harmonious), or is onomonapia (bark, sizzle). Not only is it impossible to describe a sound without having an agreement in place as to what the adjectives mean in that particular context, it is nearly impossible to discuss the same sound heard by the same two people.

 

EDIT: Sense of smell is definitely worse than hearing. The only adjective I can think of off the top of my head that isn't borrowed is some variation of "stink," which really only means "bad, pertaining to a smell."

---

Apples and oranges.

But the human auditory system is amazing complex -- and amazingly good at analyzing audible cues and clues around us to let us know what is happening.

It evolved, in part, as a sort of advance warning system -- that much is easy and obvious -- but also as a way of collecting valuable clues about the environment, including but not limited to the dimensions and layout of the immediate environment, the texture of surfaces, even the humidity, presence of standing or flowing water [critical to organisms in the natural environment].

Watch a blind person navigate an unfamiliar environment with his cane using echolocation.

And, with regard to smell, certainly there are animals with far more advanced olfactory systems, but what our human system can tell us is, nonetheless, pretty darn amazing, too. It's a chemical analyzer right there on the front of our face, taking in the environment, even providing a last-moment warning to keep us from eating something nasty.

It's all pretty amazing to me.

But then, the fact that we're alive at all is...   

[Beck]

Don't discount marketing (No pun intended).  No major players are pitching high fidelity audio anymore because there's no money in it. 

 

Other than that I would say we see differently than we hear rather than better or worse... and perhaps most importantly these days we don't focus on music as much without a visual to go along with it.  So by design music is more in the background of some other main (visual) event.

[Lee Knight]

---

Beck wrote:

 

Don't discount marketing (No pun intended).  No major players are pitching high fidelity audio anymore because there's no money in it. 

 

 

 

Other than that I would say we see differently than we hear rather than better or worse... and perhaps most importantly these days we don't focus on music as much without a visual to go along with it.  So by design music is more in the background of some other main (visual) event.

---

 

 

And ironically, this is the way things were before recorded music.

 

The conductor's arms flailing, the violinist's hair whipping back and forth as an insane passage is being maneuvered. Even cute Betty Sue struggling through the new Stephen Foster hit's sheet music for the party in the parlor. It's the way it's always been until home playback devices like the Victrola came into our homes. Then stoned kids with Yes' Close to the Edge and headphones... but hey, that album art kept my interest too.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Related to this subject, here is someone who is blind but uses echolocation (!) to "see":

 

 

http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/the-blind-man-who-taught-himself-to-see-20120504

[techristian]

I don't think it is an issue of perception but rather one of tradeoffs. If the end user can get 1000 movies on their phone they will be just as happy as watching a few on their 52" 1080,  because they are getting quantity rather than quality. The same with mp3s. Look how popular youtube is. Most of the videos there are below SD quality, but it is FREE CONTENT and LOTS of it !!

 

Dan