On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, jtalbert wrote:
Using objective standards is the ONLY way to conclusively say that one is better than the other. Ah, but herein lies the flaw... There are no "objective" standards for which piece of audio equipment is "better." The standards can only show which is more accurate in a particular aspect (total harmonic distortion would be one, for instance). But all properties taken into account requires a subjective analysis. That's the reason for the debate! Is one car better simply because its engine has more accurate timing? Or is "better" determined by the one with the better gas mileage or softest leather interior? It always depends on who you ask! :-)
Good point, but those are all quantifiable attributes. The vinylists keep appealing to attributes they can't even define, let along quantify. Things like "clarity" and "warmth" and "air". By objective standards I was referring to measurement of the accuracy of sound reproduction - ie, the difference between what the musicians played and what the home audience heard. Not at all easy to measure, but still possible.
But its all subjective, so all that matters is that the listener is satisfied with his choice of medium. Heck, to some people's ears, MP3 is indistinguishable from CD quality while many would argue that point.
Yes indeedy. I'm quite happy using my portable MP3 player to take my music to work or school. It helps keep the work flowing to have a beat to listen to. I'm sure we all dance in our office chairs from time to time. :)
If indeed it is impossibly to construct a "warmth" detector, then "warmth" is something that exists only inside your head, and therefore is not actually contained in the music.
Inside the head or not, this is how we listen to music.
Oh, I'm not disputing that. I hear those things too. I'm disputing whether it's measurable or psychological. If it's psychological, then it's irrelevant to choosing a system because it's not actually a property of the music the system produces. If it's measurable, then it becomes part of an impersonal test to determine the system's quality of sound reproduction. And if it's both, which it probably is, it makes no difference because the psychological part is irrelevant and the real part can be measured.
In my experience, "warmth" and "smoothness" in audiophile code language mean "lacks high frequencies", and "air" means either "stereo seperation" or "echoes". Machines can be devised to detect those conditions.
Actually, these aren't audiophile terms, they are used in the industry by audio professional in every area of the field. You can find a very good article on "warmth" here:
[URL may wrap] http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/uk-0799/uk-0799-warmth/uk-0799-wa...
Good article, but it doesn't mean much to me. He seems to be saying that it's partly psychological - an attachment to the sound you grew up with - and partly harmonic distortion, which is measurable. Tape - ugh. I was a diehard cassette tape fan for years. It sounded not quite as good as vinyl, but was more durable and vastly more convenient. I resisted this newfangled CD thing for a long time. Friends told me I'd be converted and would have a huge CD collection in no time. And... they were right. It sounded soooooo much better than all previous formats that it blew all my objections away. Now tape sounds like telephone to me - very narrowband. Now I occupy myself with resisting DVD technology on principle. I've experienced it, and found it good, but those MPAA crooks need to be under 6 feet (of dirt) before I'll give them any money. :)
And no, a machine can't detect "air" because there is no pre-determined boost value in the "air" frequency range that would have the same objective effect for all recordings. It is the job of the mastering engineer to use his ears (not measuring instruments) to find it and adjust it to make the recording sound best.
I don't quite understand. If it has to do with power within a certain frequency range, then why not measure those levels during the performance and again during playback and compare the measurements?
Oh, certainly. As I've said before, CD audio as it is now sucks. Exactly! Which is why some (I stress the term "some") people prefer vinyl over CDs in certain instances. Although I'm not out to change anyone's mind in the vinyl vs. CD debate, I will state it is likely (though not guaranteed) that you will hear a difference when listening to good vinyl on better components.
This will necessarily be a test left until my (hopefully early and wealthy ;) retirement. I just hope my ears haven't degenerated too much by then.
Likewise, you are likely even to hear a difference with the *same* CD when experienced on a high quality system with exceptional D/A converters.
Good speakers need to come even before that. A friend introduced me to the Sony MDR-D33 eggshell earphones, and I was blown away by the difference they made. Fortunately they had fallen to a reasonable price by virtue of having been discontinued, and I managed to snag one of the last pairs in the city. :)
There really is a difference. And its that difference that drives audiophiles. Sound is their passion. Everyone has a passion that not everyone else will understand.
True, true. Sound is important to me too, but as a student I can't afford to spend progressively larger amounts on progressively smaller improvements in sound quality. I tend to pounce on people who go around asserting things that I consider untrue or misleading, that's all. Consider it debate practice - win or lose, it's a learning experience. Apologies if I've punctured any thin skins.
They should be buffering the data in a FIFO and using a crystal oscillator to deal it out to the DAC.
Digital audio is a continuous stream. What if the transmitting device runs every so slightly faster? Then eventually you get a buffer overflow and you drop bits. If the transmitter runs slower, you have underflow resulting in gaps in the audio. There must be a master clock.
But if the transmitting device is a CD, which I assumed from context, then you simply change the motor speed or skip a rotation if the buffer fill level becomes a problem. In the more general situation, then instead of a master clock you need an asychronous protocol. When the FIFO gets too full, it tells the data producer to pause briefly. To avoid jitter, data transfer only needs to be perfectly synchronous during A/D and D/A conversion.
Eh? I haven't heard of MP4. Whose work is it? These pages may answer a few questions: http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/
Whew! I'm relieved to see that it's actually from the MPEG. I was afraid for a moment there that it was some proprietary Microsoft format.
I would argue that the unit that most accurately reproduces the sound that was recorded should by definition be the best, most realistic-sounding one.
Well in truth, in the production process, recording gear is chosen by its sound or character and not always for its accuracy. This is true for both instruments and processing modules. Many recordings are purposefully run through analog and tube pre amps, compressors, equalizers and microphones PURELY because of the character each imparts to the sound. They are far from accurate, but add a certain quality that artists and producers insist upon.
So then the recording and mastering system is essentially being used as a musical instrument itself - a complementary one that adjusts the output of the other instruments. This I did not know. No wonder people are left trying to find playback equipment that matches the recordings.
available. For 32 bit and higher, you'd need the raw audio files and in some cases, the matching software to play them with.
Also some kind of super-expensive sound card, I'm sure! -- /* Soleil */