ed wrote:If the hierarchy of quality is correct, isn't that really an elitist, white patriarchal construct that has zero to do with the delivered quality? If ones ears are fucked and ones speakers are shit them what earthly difference does it make? So Neil Young can be actualized? Come on.
I recall the bs about limes per mm for lenses. What are the lines per mm for photo paper? What difference does it make? Whos zooming who? Speak up dammit.
ETA the implication of this is that you can implement Rob's idea but NOT actually monky with the audio. No one will notice.
A nod, my friends, is as good as a wink to a blind horse. That is the essence of marketing. I give it to you free gratis.
I was looking at the new 4K TVs in the store the other day. They've come down in price a lot in the last year or so, BTW.
These have even more pixels than the old "Full High Definition" (1080p) that was the top of the line 4 or 5 years ago. It's about 8 million pixels for the 4K resolution compared to about 2 million for 1080p. If you put your face a foot away from the screen you can sort of see that, yeah the detail is even finer than for HDTV, which itself was a huge improvement over what we used to have in the old CRT TVs.
But really, though, are you going to notice it when you are sitting on your couch 8 feet or so away from it? Probably not. You get used to it and stop noticing the difference after a while. I think it's kind of the same thing here. You do notice
if you see the lower quality again (which used to seem fine) after you become accustomed to the higher one (although I don't know if that's true with 4K vs 1080p). (And of course you can only see the difference if you are getting a broadcast signal in 4K.)
I guess that's just how it goes: what was once state-of-the-art becomes inferior eventually.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.