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". Yes, my friend, those attributes are indeed difficult to define. It's always hard to describe subject things. But these are true attributes of audio. And it has taken many audio engineers many years to learn their craft because there are no books that describe what these attributes really are and how to get them. Its learned by word of mouth and thousands of hours in from of a pair of speakers.

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. Yes. It is easy to measure. But again, were talking about two imperfect audio formats - analog and digital. There are different benefits and drawbacks to each. And everyone's ear will perceive these nuances differently regardless of what which format a measuring device says is best. Its an age old problem.

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. :) Whew. I could never get away with dancing in my office chair! :-) But I do take music with me everyone I go.

...

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. I wouldn't say that it's psychological. Its just that everyone has different hearing capabilities as well as different listening environments. For instance, if a person has ultra sensitive hearing in the mid frequency range, that person may be more likely to chose a system that has the side effect of "cutting" the mid-range. A system that accurately reproduces midrange may actually hurt this person's ears or be perceived as boxy. There just is no standard that can please everyone. I *thought* I once hear you say (forgive me if it wasn't you), that you liked bass in your music. Well, there are people who find heavy bass to be "boomy." Its an endless subjective chain. Welcome to the world of sound. :)

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. Not quite so. For the perceiver, perception IS reality an thus not so irrelevant.

...

[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. Yes. Its partly lots of things. Again, its hard to describe and measure because its different things for different people. For most of us on this list, Kraftwerk is great music, but I can believe there are those out there that would differ. Why, because they perceive what is good different than others.

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. In the pro audio world, tape does not refer to cassette tape. Tape refers to very expensive multi-track tape recorded and played on expensive machines which run at speeds far higher than the consumer cassette format. And since you mentioned tape - analog tape has one quality that digital cannot reproduce. That is, when one saturates analog tape, (turns up the input volume very loud), the resulting distortion is something that can be very musical. However, if digital audio is saturated, a harsh, unlistenable distortion occurs. As a result, digital audio must be artificially limited or reduced in volume on the way in. One out of place transient can ruin an otherwise good recording.

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. :) I don't want to resist the technology, but I do completely agree with you on the MPAA! ;-)

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? But sometimes air has to be added to the recording to make it sound more professional. It doesn't always occur naturally in the recording processes. Again, this is a process of mastering (final sweetening of the mix prior to duplication and release). Its really hard to explain. But if a recording did not have it, digital or analog, the music may sound flat.

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. Try just going into a store that sells high end gear and test some of this stuff out we're talking about. You will hear the difference. You may not be able to justify the costs, but at least you'll know.

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. :) See! The components in an audio system really do matter. You may not have realized what you were missing before getting the new headphones. And in reality, it can get better form there. You really do get what you pay for. If you knew all the corners companies cut in order to mass produce "consumer" grade products, you'd be amazed. We've all been burned by that in one way or another.

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 can completely understand this.

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. You've said nothing that has offended me. I think you have been very friendly and I've heave greatly enjoyed the debate.

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. Suffice it to say that digital audio is really not as simple as it may seem. In the interest of not putting everyone (including myself) to sleep, its probably best not to delve into the specifics.

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. A ha! That would be considered having a master then!

To avoid jitter, data transfer only needs to be perfectly synchronous during A/D and D/A conversion. Exactly. Hence the need for a master clock. We're not talking about copying digital WAV files (which is a simple process). We're talking about real-time conversion. When one is converting audio in real-time (either from analog to digital or the reverse) things become much more complex.

...

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. Yikes! I shudder at the thought!

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. Yes. There is much more processing of audio than you may have realized prior to the time it lands on a CD or vinyl. And depending on the final format (CD or vinyl), the process can be different.

...

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! Well, there are sound cards that are mid priced (under $1000) that are 24 or 32 bit and have reasonably good convertors. But the really good stuff is far more expensive. In general, the more expensive, the better the convertors and the better the quality of the digital output. If you want to experience great digital audio, unfortunately, that is the only way. Consumer electronics always fall short because of the compromises in the components.

Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/