On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, jtalbert wrote:
Jumping in here a bit...that's the problem with music and sound...it will always be subjective. Sure, one can easily apply measurement tools to "prove" accuracy but, in the end, personal preferences, listening environments and equipment quality will be the determining factor. I'm not a fan of measurements either. They may be a good starting point for selecting equipment but there will always be a need to use one's ears make a final decision. This is the way music is created, mixed, produced and mastered - by ear, and not by specifications.
True, but it's pointless (though fun) to argue CD versus vinyl using subjective arguments, because they're subjective. Each person is going to continue thinking his preference is better. Using objective standards is the ONLY way to conclusively say that one is better than the other. It's like arguing about which of two deist religions are right - it's never going to accomplish anything because neither side can prove their god exists.
Measuring equipment can only measure objective accuracy. It can not measure things subjective things like "warmth", "air," "smoothness" and other factors that shape the listening experience.
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. 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.
I would somewhat agree. But CD digital audio does have many imperfections in its current format. 16 bits is simply not enough. If by some miracle we could hear Kraftwerk's more recent (i.e., digital) music in its original 24 or 32 bit format, the difference would be quite apparent on any decent sound system - with good convertors I might add! :-)
Oh, certainly. As I've said before, CD audio as it is now sucks.
I would argue that neither one is better than the other in *all* aspects. Neither format is perfect in any way.
Yes. Today I finally realized this important property of the debate: Vinyl supporters say that *some* vinyl systems (ie, good records, expensive equipment) sound better than most CDs, whereas I say that *most* CDs sound better than most vinyl, regardless of equipment. I prefer the bulk solution because it's *generally* better. Vinyl can be considered a better format for a niche market, just as I could build myself a super high-quality digital recorder and make my own high-quality CD format if I cared to.
Rather than attempt to answer this here, I'll point to a great article on jitter by mastering engineer Bob Katz: http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html
Excellent article. This one sentence explains it all: "A typical D to A converter derives its system clock (the clock that controls the sample and hold circuit) from the incoming digital signal." That sucks. That's a cheap-ass solution. They should be buffering the data in a FIFO and using a crystal oscillator to deal it out to the DAC. As he mentioned later, transients in the power supply voltage can affect crystal oscillators too, which I didn't realize, but there are solutions for that too.
I'm in complete agreement here, too. MP3 of course is not perfect, but it is quite convenient and good enough for casual listening. I've already tried MP4 and it sounds even better. I'm just waiting for it to catch on.
Eh? I haven't heard of MP4. Whose work is it?
The choices of which to use is based upon a unit's *sound* and NOT simply which component is the most scientifically accurate.
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.
16 bit audio is the primary reason we now have 24 and 32 bit audio formats with tools that run at 48, 64 and 128 bit internal precision.
*Nice*. I want to get me some of those! -- /* Soleil */