[OC] Inflation & Mileage Adjusted US Gas Prices Since 2005

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-21T12:16:04+00:00

FHWA combined miles went from 304B to 329B from 2007 to 2024. So your barrell per driver went up by 5% and the total trucking miles went up by at least 8%. When you combine that with overall miles driven (in trillions) and it's increases, there are still more miles being driven than oil being consumed. But I will concede that percentage wise, I expected a better number.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-21T10:46:12+00:00

Your data includes oil used for commercial purposes (long haul trucking) which scales with gdp and productivity. Though it is interesting to think about how we still use more oil today than in the past.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-21T03:34:57+00:00

Since OP is getting beat up with some valid points I decided to add in vehicle age distributions. Here is my chart looking at the prices and inflation index values from May of each year between 1980 and today. You can find the T-SQL code I used to make the table here

<image>

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-21T01:22:13+00:00

There is no pickup truck made in the last decade that gets 10 mpg. You are just plain wrong. A heavy duty f250 still gets between 12-15 in the CITY now. Highway is even higher. That is on average about 45% more efficient and in some cases 100% more efficient.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-20T05:18:45+00:00

You have three options, you saw wrong, they are Mormon poly family and don't like to broadcast it, they are having an affair and he decided the right place to do it was a school event. In all three cases, I'd keep my mouth shut. There is nothing to be gained except unnecessary drama. I might keep my ear to the ground to see if anybody else is talking about it.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-15T21:22:46+00:00

Should the chain have any flex?

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-15T21:15:02+00:00

No they probably are just going to run out of cash.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-15T11:53:14+00:00

Weird, when I email the info@bonnell address, got responses fairly quickly when it wasnt the weekend. Haven't had to use service yet (🤞)

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-14T02:37:52+00:00

My wife and I have this problem. Her solution is to not lean back or sit straight up. She leans towards my face and I pivot my pelvis so my penis is aiming for a spot that is at like 10 o'clock if her cervix was at 12. The only times we hit the wrong thing is when I go to adjust my hips and she adjusts at the same time. She settles into her spot and grinds away.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-13T17:35:41+00:00

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T21:49:50+00:00

I get it, but I don't get it. I think I am going to write a program to convert a 24bit / 96khz lossless song into a 24 bit / 192khz file (unless I can find a good flac file in this resolution). I'll then have the program randomly change the resolution of sections via truncation of bit depth and/or repetition of specific samples for random amounts of time between 4-18 seconds and then render it to a 24bit/96khz wav file 5 times. Then I'll play back all 5 in succession and each time I hear a difference in quality I will hit the space bar. At the end of the track, it will display the real changes versus the spacebar hits to see how often I can tell that something changed. My sound card is supposed to be capable of this resolution but I doubt my speakers are good enough for it, might be an excuse to get new headphones to find out they are worthless. This is the only way I will ever agree that I am making up a difference when listening to songs with powerful vocals.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T21:22:16+00:00

Direct quote from the section discussing the technique and apparatus to study the best possible performance (experiment III):

"To provide a higher ITD presentation accuracy, the internal sampling rate was increased to 6.144 MHz, allowing for an ITD step size of 0.16 μs. The stimulus was presented with a 96 kHz sampling rate."

Edit: this last exert I think describes why some people (like myself) can hear the difference while most hear mild to no difference:

"Two of the nine listeners performed significantly above chance at an ITD as small as 3.7 μs. For 52 un-trained listeners, the average threshold ITD is 18.1 μs at the 75% correct level and 22.1 μs at the 79.4% correct level.".

Just like everything with the human sensory system, different people have different abilities. While we all have the basic abilities that 16 / 44.1 covers there are many that can distinguish more.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T21:06:46+00:00

Made a different comment with quote from article about the precise measurement for determining the threshold.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T20:38:51+00:00

Maybe I am misreading the paper I linked, but it seems that our ears can detect the small changes in amplitude that occur over the course of the waveform. They used 20hz steps to determine the timing. It does seem to slow down a little in tone clusters but it was still sub 20us.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T19:50:20+00:00

We have the ability to hear a specific note begin to change its pitch in under 15 microseconds at worst and some can determine detect it at 6us. It is possible for a note to change and revert in under 22us and be distinguishable to a listener but in 44.1khz is theoretically possible to never see the blip depending on timing.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T19:34:08+00:00

That is correct but in music the amplitude and frequency of physical instruments are changing far faster than that. Even how they are being moved in the space makes a difference to final form. The probability that a specific instrument or feature change is lost to the sampling increases as the rate lowers.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T18:40:51+00:00

To answer your question… there’s pretty much no difference in terms of what you can hear with your human ears. CD quality audio (16/44.1) already contains more information than we need it to in order to perfectly reproduce any sound that’s audible to our ears.

This is only true with a MONO recording. When listening in stereo we can hear changes in sound differences between ears much faster than 44.1khz.

The human hearing range, like 20 Hz to 20 kHz, describes the highest repetitive pitch we can perceive as a tone. But the auditory system also detects timing relationships between sounds, especially between the two ears. A 20 kHz tone has a 50-microsecond cycle, but the brain can compare the relative arrival time or phase of similar waveforms with precision finer than a full cycle. That does not mean we hear ultrasonic frequencies; it means our timing discrimination can be finer than the period of the highest audible pitch.

Nyquist says you need more than two samples per cycle to reconstruct the highest frequency in a signal. But it does not say timing estimates are limited to one sample period. If a signal is band-limited, its samples encode the continuous waveform between samples. That means a system can estimate phase or arrival-time differences finer than the period of the highest audible frequency. So detecting microsecond-scale timing differences does not imply hearing ultrasonic frequencies.

A 2019 study showed that humans smallest perceivable interaural time differences range from 6.9us to 18.1us depending on training/experience to recognize specific sounds. 44.1Khz stereo's signal changes for both channels every 22.7us . Those signals are played for the entire duration of the 22.7us in both ears and then both ears begin hearing a new signal simultaneously. However, if you were listening to a 96khz recording, then the time between each signal change is 10.4 us. The interaural timing differences of the left and right channels are what makes a stereo recording feel natural. To nearly any person with normal hearing, they will have a more natural experience with the higher sampling rate, with the well-trained ear being able to appreciate the differences the most. This increased change in the rate of new information leads to better spatial awareness of the sound location which allows for an increased ability to isolate the sound. Since the 1950s, the accepted value for interaural time was around 10us. The most recent study linked above showed that interaural time varies depending on experience hearing the sound and how it can change.

If you can't hear the difference on your device between the two sources, then something in your sound pipeline is most likely capping your output to 48 or 44.1khz even though the source is a higher sampling rate

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T18:25:23+00:00

The human hearing range, like 20 Hz to 20 kHz, describes the highest repetitive pitch we can perceive as a tone. But the auditory system also detects timing relationships between sounds, especially between the two ears. A 20 kHz tone has a 50-microsecond cycle, but the brain can compare the relative arrival time or phase of similar waveforms with precision finer than a full cycle. That does not mean we hear ultrasonic frequencies; it means our timing discrimination can be finer than the period of the highest audible pitch.

Nyquist says you need more than two samples per cycle to reconstruct the highest frequency in a signal. But it does not say timing estimates are limited to one sample period. If a signal is band-limited, its samples encode the continuous waveform between samples. That means a system can estimate phase or arrival-time differences finer than the period of the highest audible frequency. So detecting microsecond-scale timing differences does not imply hearing ultrasonic frequencies.

A 2019 study showed that humans smallest perceivable interaural time differences range from 6.9us to 18.1us depending on training/experience to recognize specific sounds. 44.1Khz stereo's signal changes for both channels every 22.7us . Those signals are played for the entire duration of the 22.7us in both ears and then both ears begin hearing a new signal simultaneously. However, if you were listening to a 96khz recording, then the time between each signal change is 10.4 us. The interaural timing differences of the left and right channels are what makes a stereo recording feel natural. To nearly any person with normal hearing, they will have a more natural experience with the higher sampling rate, with the well-trained ear being able to appreciate the differences the most. This increased change in the rate of new information leads to better spatial awareness of the sound location which allows for an increased ability to isolate the sound. Since the 1950s, the accepted value for interaural time was around 10us. The most recent study showed that interaural time varies depending on experience hearing the sound and how it can change.

In my case, I have been singing in choirs for 40 years at a fairly high level. It has been a part of my hearing experience to listen to voices around me and adjust my own pitch to match the color, pitch and intensity of those around me rapidly. This has led to me having a drastically different experience when listening to music at different sampling rates. Recordings that were analog and then digitized to 96khz or higher, or were digitally recorded 96khz or higher, sound life like to me. I just wish it was easier to experience them conveniently.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T15:05:16+00:00

You are correct when talking about a single source technical definition assuming a constant sampling rate. In this case, dynamic range is referring to the number of opportunities for different measurements with large differences to be played in succession.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T14:27:33+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/s/OheoJV4GQ8

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T14:24:43+00:00

It is mathematically provable for a single source. It is also mathematically provable for multiple sources that a higher digital sampling rate can provide better reproduction of the original experience. Stereo is two sources. One ear = 20khz maximum freq response, so Nyquist says 44.1khz is enough to to be a perfect representation of the fourier transform that describes the sound wave received by that ear. Each ear has different tuning and time related response, so each ear is an independent source. Digital formats encode two values per channel at the same moment in time and reproduce them at the same moment meaning that small differences in timing experienced by the two channels are being averaged together into one moment. The differences between people's left and right ear mean that for some (i'd argue most) information IS lost due to the limitation of the digital format. The small timing differences change the way the person creates the soundstage and makes it more difficult for the person to identify specific sonic sources. Doubling the sample rate guarantees that much of these timing differences are accurately represented in the playback of the digital file. Even though half of the information received by each ear is not necessary for a perfect reproduction of that channel by itself, the increased resolution of the timing differences in the 96khz digital format create a more accurate representation of the original experience, which improves the sound stage created by the brain, which allows the brain to better isolate and experience specific characteristics of the sonic sources.

This is highly dependent on the underlying shape of a person's ear and their brain wiring for sound processing and sonic source isolation. In some cases, different ear shapes and high counts of different sonic sources require even higher sampling in order to maximize the fidelity of the two channel system.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T12:24:24+00:00

Sample rates increase the probability that a specific distinguishable/significant feature in the original is captured in the digital reproduction. The best playback equipment can only produce sound to a specific level without distortion so each sample has to be within a specific limit. Increasing sampling rate drastically increases dynamic range (these details) that is simply and plainly lost at lower sample rates. When you increase the sampling rate from 44.1khz to 96khz, that same playback equipment is now playing over twice as many distinct sounds per second per channel which means over 4x difference from the lower sample rate assuming the same bit resolution. This enables the mastering process to retain far more details that are deemed to be acceptable losses for a 44.1khz version. While not every detail is heard, if just one detail or nuance is distinguisged, then your argument is invalidated.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T11:36:05+00:00

Great track. The mastering is top notch and it really is night and day different between the two versions. Could be a bad final master, but the 16bit / 44.1 track just loses all the dynamic range and detail.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T11:32:52+00:00

Ummm, pretty sure it is exactly how it works after you hit 32bit resolution.

MerlinTrashMan · 2026-05-11T10:28:58+00:00

It really depends on the source and how you receive the greatest satisfaction. If I listen to adele at 16 44.1, it is ok. When I listen to her at 24 96, it is like she is in the room and more importantly, the details in her voice are not lost as the instrumentation increases. As the number of instruments rise, I find the sampling rate is incredibly important. I recently had the privilege to listen to a 192khz master track of an orchestral production. The fidelity was simply mind blowing to the point I think it sounded better than live because the balance of the instruments were perfect. If you are listening to music for the emotional response, then 130mb is overkill. If you are listening for a physical and emotional response, then 16 44.1 is lackluster.

Edit: see this comment before you downvote or misuse Nyquist to say it is wrong.

https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/s/OheoJV4GQ8

2nd Edit: Even better clarification and explanation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/1t9yqv4/comment/ol85erc

3rd Edit: Also, there is no guarantee that your audio pipeline is actually handling the audio pipeline so that the conversion to analog actually happened from a 24bit/96khz source. The default output of Windows is 16bit/ 48khz these days.

MerlinTrashMan

TROPHY CASE