# Hyperbole is the worst sin in the universe



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Or maybe not, but it annoys the heck out of me. This thread was inspired by a post stating that AAC+ is “light years” ahead of MP3. What does that mean? Well, for me it means I should ignore the post (and probably its author).

When someone says, “the difference is night and day,” does that mean they think the two items being compared are opposites? Maybe one can use the phrase to describe a mirror canon. I’ll go so far as to accept it when comparing a Morton Feldman work to _The Rite of Spring. _But 99.9999999% of the time it simply indicates the writer’s lack of a sense of proportion.

n.b As far as I can recall, I have used hyperbole in a post once. But I noted the fact. And in that one instance, it was subjectively true for me.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I really like your thread title, it's the best title ever written in the history of the written language. Bravo! 

I understand your frustration. And hear and read hyperbolic statements often. I don't know whether people are using these exaggerations for effect, because they are lazy writers, or because they lack a sense of proportion (as you say). It's important to be precise when you write and speak, and I call out my students nearly every day for this kind of imprecise language. 

Some examples I hear:
A student walks into a room before class begins and there are three of us in the room, and the student exclaims, "there's no one here!". I reply, "what? Am I and the others no one? Are we nobody?"

Someone complains, "they're always getting the weather wrong." Well not exactly, the three-day forecast is about 90% accurate, and the two-week forecast is about 50% accurate. It's not always wrong, just sometimes. 

Another teacher will say, "that kid doesn't know anything.". Again, I'm sure he knows something. What should be stated is that the student couldn't do that test. Parenthetically, it really irks me when teachers (in the staff room in my department) call particular students dim or stupid, when I know because I attend school music concerts, that some of these students are particularly talented in other areas: music, writing, art, etc. (I'm not a music teacher)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm still trying to figure out what somebody meant when they said that Bruckner's 9th symphony was light years ahead of his 3rd symphony. Light years? Did Bruckner take the symphony to inifinity and beyond?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

jegreenwood said:


> And in that one instance, it was subjectively true for me.


Well, if it was true for *you....*



Manxfeeder said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what somebody meant when they said that Bruckner's 9th symphony was light years ahead of his 3rd symphony. Light years? Did Bruckner take the symphony to inifinity and beyond?


Especially considering a lightyear is a measure of distance... not time.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I agree. Does the excessive and improper use of 'literally' count as hyperbole? It certainly bugs me, literally.

Hyperbole has its place in writing, but I much prefer understatement. As literary devices go, it's not too shabby.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

senza sordino said:


> I really like your thread title, it's the best title ever written in the history of the written language. Bravo!


Agreed. And the title is self-referring, because it is an hyperbole by itself. A linguistic gem.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> Well, if it was true for *you....*
> 
> 
> Especially considering a lightyear is a measure of distance... not time.


I found my 2014 post (on another forum). I was referring to _Songs for Swingin’ Lovers_ and _A Swingin’ Affair._

I try to avoid hyperbole when I post here, but speaking only with respect to my own music listening experience, these two releases may be the most revelatory audiophile albums I own. My dad had all of the up-tempo Sinatra Capitol releases, as well as some of the Reprise releases, and I listened to them a lot growing up. As an adult, I bought a number of them on various media, but overall my interest waned, compared to Ella for instance. Now I understand why. I was hearing a poor Xerox copy of Sinatra at best. Listening to these two discs in particular (where every measure is ingrained in my deepest memories) I heard the richness, depth and complexity of his (excuse me - the) Voice.

A Proustian moment for me and more. 

And by the way - does the Nelson Riddle orchestra sound great or what?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I prefer parabole over hyperbole.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

I thought 'hyperbole' was a very large bowling alley - but then again I know nothing


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Malx said:


> I thought 'hyperbole' was a very large bowling alley - but then again I know nothing


No, hyperbole is a cosmically large bowling alley.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Malx said:


> I thought 'hyperbole' was a very large bowling alley - but then again I know nothing





jegreenwood said:


> No, hyperbole is a cosmically large bowling alley.


You guys know nothing! Hyperbole is actually a hyperspace bowling alley.
Now all I need to do is figure out what hyperspace is, then book my ticket for the Nobel awards ceremony.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> > Manxfeeder said:
> > I'm still trying to figure out what somebody meant when they said that Bruckner's 9th symphony was light years ahead of his 3rd symphony. Light years? Did Bruckner take the symphony to inifinity and beyond?
> 
> 
> Especially considering a lightyear is a measure of distance... not time.


It would be as metaphorical if the person had misunderstood lightyear as a measure of time because the intended "distance" between these Bruckner symphonies is neither spatial nor temporal anyway. Usually language like "in another league", "miles ahead" is understood without problems when metaphorically applied to symphonies, even if they are not football teams or cyclists.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

People who use hyperbole should be tarred and feathered. Then made to hold a sign by a freeway off-ramp, reading "I used hyperbole."











Seriously though, "light years ahead" is a common expression in technical circles, when describing how much more advanced newer tech is than older.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Dave Hurwitz is thankful he’s an atheist and therefore just wants to have fun…


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> Seriously though, "light years ahead" is a common expression in technical circles, when describing how much more advanced newer tech is than older.


People also say "infinitely better" but that doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

NoCoPilot said:


> People also say "infinitely better" but that doesn't mean it's right.


They also say "I am tired to death" or "it's raining cats and dogs" and that doesn't mean ...


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Puddles of poodles.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

I often threaten to bring the "very wrath of God Himself" down upon people...

this, despite the fact that right now, I would give you a hundred - no, make that a thousand - bucks _cash -_if you could tell me where I left the fecking keys to my car...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hyperbole is not a sin, it is a flourish of the impassioned. It is born of emotion, and emotions are good because they reveal passion and true conviction. Those who want to approach every topic with a detached, nuanced, dry and boring academic style do so because they are useless, Apollonian degenerates incapable of imparting any real influence on anything, their minds muddled with a thousand conflicted thoughts.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> People also say "infinitely better" but that doesn't mean it's right.


Is any vernacular technically correct? Should it always be interpreted literally? Pardon me while I clear this frog from my throat.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Couchie said:


> Hyperbole is not a sin, it is a flourish of the impassioned. It is born of emotion, and emotions are good because they reveal passion and true conviction. Those who want to approach every topic with a detached, nuanced, dry and boring academic style do so because they are useless, Apollonian degenerates incapable of imparting any real influence on anything, their minds muddled with a thousand conflicted thoughts.


And they feel this when comparing AAC+ with mp3? See my original post. And frankly, those in technical circles should know better. It doesn’t have any meaning. Even something like “magnitudes better” is potentially more accurate e.g. in measuring processing speed.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

jegreenwood said:


> And they feel this when comparing AAC+ with mp3? See my original post. And frankly, those in technical circles should know better. It doesn’t have any meaning. Even something like “magnitudes better” is potentially more accurate e.g. in measuring processing speed.


To answer your question: MP3 is derived from Mpeg-1 video. Which is roughly VHS quality. AAC+ is derived from Mpeg-4, capable of compressing 1080p Hi-Def video to the same filesize as, or smaller than DVD/Mpeg-2 video. And it still looks much better than DVD video. In terms of technical advancement, AAC+ is in fact far more advanced than MP3. Would you prefer I spelled it out the way I just did, or would you rather read vernacular summarizing it's far more advanced? And BTW "light years ahead" does in fact refer to distance traveled, not time elapsed. The rate of technological advancement is exponential, making it effectively incalculable purely on a time scale.

As for processor speed, the difference between a Core 2 Duo, and 11 Generation i7 is in a completely different universe from the difference between the 8088 of the original IBM PC, and the 80386DX33 when Microsoft Windows became a thing. "Magnitude" would itself be woefully inadequate describing the difference between just those 2 scales. Never mind comparing the actual speeds.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Shaughnessy said:


> I often threaten to bring the "very wrath of God Himself" down upon people...
> 
> this, despite the fact that right now, I would give you a hundred - no, make that a thousand - bucks _cash -_if you could tell me where I left the fecking keys to my car...


They are undoubtedly in the last place you look (you can send the cash via FedEx please)


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

We've only just got over the Superbowl. I don't think any of us could bear another, big hand-egg game of any proportion. Is Dan Marino still playing, btw?


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

With the exception of basketball, which was invented by a Canadian, Yankee sports are as revolting as their Hersey chocolate bars… Urgh… 🤢🤮


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

progmatist said:


> To answer your question: MP3 is derived from Mpeg-1 video. Which is roughly VHS quality. AAC+ is derived from Mpeg-4, capable of compressing 1080p Hi-Def video to the same filesize as, or smaller than DVD/Mpeg-2 video. And it still looks much better than DVD video. In terms of technical advancement, AAC+ is in fact far more advanced than MP3. Would you prefer I spelled it out the way I just did, or would you rather read vernacular summarizing it's far more advanced? And BTW "light years ahead" does in fact refer to distance traveled, not time elapsed. The rate of technological advancement is exponential, making it effectively incalculable purely on a time scale.
> 
> As for processor speed, the difference between a Core 2 Duo, and 11 Generation i7 is in a completely different universe from the difference between the 8088 of the original IBM PC, and the 80386DX33 when Microsoft Windows became a thing. "Magnitude" would itself be woefully inadequate describing the difference between just those 2 scales. Never mind comparing the actual speeds.


Far more advanced is more accurate, although in my user experience that is not the case. And of course we - actually you, although I omitted your name from my original post - were comparing audio in the thread that I referenced.

I know what light years means. Magnitudes can involve any type of measurement, for example compression ratios (if one were 100 times more efficient than the other). But what in the world does light years (about 6 trillion miles multiplied by the number of years) have to do with compression algorithms?

Couch is is correct that hyperbole has a place in communication - I noted an instance where I used it.
But for the most part, it is better used in communicating subjective feelings, responses, etc.

Edit - do you consider lossless formats light years better than lossy formats? And what about hi-res? Now we’re getting into some serious numbers!

Edit - I probably should have used orders of magnitude instead of simply magnitudes.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

jegreenwood said:


> Far more advanced is more accurate, although in my user experience that is not the case. And of course we - actually you, although I omitted your name from my original post - were comparing audio in the thread that I referenced.
> 
> I know what light years means. Magnitudes can involve any type of measurement, for example compression ratios (if one were 100 times more efficient than the other). But what in the world does light years (about 6 trillion miles multiplied by the number of years) have to do with compression algorithms?
> 
> ...


This very forum is loaded with classical colloquial. "Atonal" for example. If read literally, and echoing Schoenberg's objection to the term, atonal music is utterly devoid of any musical tones whatsoever. An atonal piano sonata would be literally described as an a cappella piano sonata. If we're going to purge this forum of all non-literal language, we have our work cut out for us.

Considering the 16/44.1 format was established in the late 70s, early 80s, a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, Hi-Res absolutely surpasses CD quality by leaps and bounds. Oops, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to use non-literal language.

You may not have named me, but it's no mystery to whom you were referring.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

progmatist said:


> This very forum is loaded with classical anachronisms. "Atonal" for example. If read literally, and echoing Schoenberg's objection to the term, atonal music is utterly devoid of any musical tones whatsoever. An atonal piano sonata would be literally described as an a cappella piano sonata. If we're going to purge this forum of all non-literal language, we have our work cut out for us.
> 
> Considering the 16/44.1 format was established in the late 70s, early 80s, a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, Hi-Res absolutely surpasses CD quality by leaps and bounds. Oops, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to use non-literal language.
> 
> You may not have named me, but it's no mystery to whom you were referring.


Something like 24/96 audio literally contains more information than a 16/44.1 CD-quality file, but my understanding is that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from anything higher by human ears. I've never done one of those blind ABX tests or anything but if 44.1 kHz audio can accurately encode sound up to 22 kHz per the Nyquist sampling theorem, that's already just above most people's threshold of hearing anyway, so why even bother with 24/96 unless you're an archivist? So I don't disagree that 16/44.1 contains less information than 24/96 but I'm not sure that it matters if it doesn't affect the listening experience.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> Something like 24/96 audio literally contains more information than a 16/44.1 CD-quality file, but my understanding is that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from anything higher by human ears. I've never done one of those blind ABX tests or anything but if 44.1 kHz audio can accurately encode sound up to 22 kHz per the Nyquist sampling theorem, that's already just above most people's threshold of hearing anyway, so why even bother with 24/96 unless you're an archivist? So I don't disagree that 16/44.1 contains less information than 24/96 but I'm not sure that it matters if it doesn't affect the listening experience.


Those double blind studies are "proving" a negative. And it's true most people can't hear any sound improvement. In the same way, and for the same reason most can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people would never qualify as a naval Sonar Technician. Because they can't hear the subtle differences between the various tones. Before investing a single dollar training new Sonar Techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing. To ensure they can in fact hear the subtleties. One of my own A School classmates was originally slated to be a Sonar Tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained as an Avionics Tech. One of my uncles BTW was a Sonar Tech in the Navy. I have a family history of being able to hear subtleties most people can't.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

progmatist said:


> This very forum is loaded with classical colloquial. "Atonal" for example. If read literally, and echoing Schoenberg's objection to the term, atonal music is utterly devoid of any musical tones whatsoever. An atonal piano sonata would be literally described as an a cappella piano sonata. If we're going to purge this forum of all non-literal language, we have our work cut out for us.
> 
> Considering the 16/44.1 format was established in the late 70s, early 80s, a time when computer memory was upgraded in chunks of either 4 or 16 Kilobytes, Hi-Res absolutely surpasses CD quality by leaps and bounds. Oops, sorry. I forgot we're not supposed to use non-literal language.
> 
> You may not have named me, but it's no mystery to whom you were referring.


I didn't mention you, because your post was simply a trigger for me to respond to a general problem. And I can't see what how "atonal," a term of art meaning the absence of tonality (i.e. key), has the slightest relation to hyperbole. In any event, I am not complaining about all metaphors, just the ones that strike me as ridiculous.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> Something like 24/96 audio literally contains more information than a 16/44.1 CD-quality file, but my understanding is that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from anything higher by human ears. I've never done one of those blind ABX tests or anything but if 44.1 kHz audio can accurately encode sound up to 22 kHz per the Nyquist sampling theorem, that's already just above most people's threshold of hearing anyway, so why even bother with 24/96 unless you're an archivist?


The point is that with HiRes recordings, you often get another mix of the original tracks. With CD quality you mostly get a mix which sounds good on budget equipment. With HiRes recording you often get a mix which unfolds its qualities on high quality equipment.

I tested it - no double test and not blind, difficult enough to get same volume - and I found more "music" in those HiRes mixes, the sound left the speakers in a better way, detached of the source.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Philidor said:


> The point is that with HiRes recordings, you often get another mix of the original tracks. With CD quality you mostly get a mix which sounds good on budget equipment. With HiRes recording you often get a mix which unfolds its qualities on high quality equipment.
> 
> I tested it - no double test and not blind, difficult enough to get same volume - and I found more "music" in those HiRes mixes, the sound left the speakers in a better way, detached of the source.


Hi-Res sound quality is _NOT_ about frequency. The fact Hi-Res is "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. The vastly improved sound quality of faster moving tape also has nothing to do with its ultrasonic capability.

The waveforms of every instrument and effect are non-contiguous when mixed together. It's impossible for a complete, uninterrupted lead guitar waveform to coexist with a complete, uninterrupted bass (guitar) waveform. No 2 objects can occupy the same space. Every instrument and effect waveform is divided into segments, and those segments are inter-woven with all others sharing similar frequency ranges. Every point where all segments meet are most susceptible to digital truncation. When truncation occurs, the edges of all segments get a little fuzzy, and the lines dividing them get a little blurred. The end result is a little less audible separation between instruments and effects, and every instrument and effect becomes a little less well defined. Albeit not to the point where most people can hear it.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

When someone says "literally" when he or she means "figuratively" it's usually prelude to a hyperbole.


----------

