Re: MD: Senses fatigue
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The difference between the least expensive receiver (that would be considered by the industry definition - if there is such a thing) "HiFi" and the most expensive individual components is insignificant when compared to speakers. Well, that may be a bit of an exaggeration (I think other components are also important, and make a substantial difference in audio quality), you are correct that good speakers are vital to a good-sounding system. I agree 100%!! Using flat settings and volume equilibration compensators (I just made that up, but you know what I mean) most well designed electronics will probably have identical audio properties as far as the human ear is concerned. I would have to disagree with that, Larry. If that theory were true, given a good set of speakers, one would not be able to tell the difference between a $500 NAD receiver and a $2000 NAD receiver (both are very well-designed and manufactured). In reality, you can. There is a substantal difference in soundstaging and detail. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Senses fatigue
Don Capps wrote: A. This is a common argument forwarded by the subjectivist camp in audio jounalism. So...in other words...we can't trust our OWN ears and therefore must trust those of a magazine reviewer or an audio salon salesman to tell us which sounds better, no? Is there no objective means of determining a component's performance? Or the differences between components? No Don, there is no way to objectively determine the difference between two things that are subjectively different. That seems simple enough to me. It applies to food for example. That's why you may like Prego and I like Ragu. The same thing applies to audio. I remember the arguments on the list between a Sony and Sharp portable MD recorder several years ago. Each side insisting that the unit they chose sounded better. The difference in components varies not only from brand to brand and model to model, but even from unit to unit (of the same model). Fortunately most of these differences are beyond the ability of humans to hear. As Ann suggested in her reply to your post, "buy the cheapest one that sounds as good" (paraphrasing). The weak link in the chain will always come down to two things. The listing room (which you are limited to some extent to control) and the speakers (or headphones). The difference between the least expensive receiver (that would be considered by the industry definition - if there is such a thing) "HiFi" and the most expensive individual components is insignificant when compared to speakers. Also, I'm not stating anything new when I say that you have to audition speakers at home. They may sound great in the listening room at the store, but not in your listening room. Again, price can not be used as a guide. Or, perhaps the differences between well designed equipment are actually so insignificant that they disappear under well controlled double blind conditions and (particularly) when the price tag is hidden. I agree 100%!! Using flat settings and volume equilibration compensators (I just made that up, but you know what I mean) most well designed electronics will probably have identical audio properties as far as the human ear is concerned. It is the speakers that are the critical (and most subjective) factor. Because most of today's music is "electronic" comparisons between live and recorded can only be make with certain types of music (such as classical). In my humble opinion, if you can make electronics that can keep the distortion as low (unfortunately this becomes very hard with analog tubes, tape, vinyl, etc.), the frequency response as wide, the signal to noise ratio as good and the dynamic range as wide, analog would sound better then digital. That's because that concert was analog to begin with and so are our ears. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Senses fatigue
las wrote: In my humble opinion, if you can make electronics that can keep the distortion as low (unfortunately this becomes very hard with analog tubes, tape, vinyl, etc.), the frequency response as wide, the signal to noise ratio as good and the dynamic range as wide, analog would sound better then digital. That's because that concert was analog to begin with and so are our ears. No, then the analog would sound the same as the digital, if I'm interpreting your statement correctly: If analog was the same as digital, analog would sound better. I know that you are making the distiction between the analog process versus the digital process (continuous vs. discreet) but if all things are equal, then the result should be equal. You're saying that digital is inherently inferior, because our ears are analog. But our ears are digital. When a sound wave wiggles the basilar membrane, it causes selected, individual, DISCREET nerves to fire. Which nerve depends on the frequencies and amplitudes of the sound. A digital recording of sufficient quality will cause the EXACT same nerves to fire as the analog recording of similar quality. 16 bit 44.1 kHz is not sufficient to exactly reproduce an analog sound waveform, given the ear's resolution of 20 kHz (if your'e lucky) and 130 dB (before you go deaf). But 24 bit 96 kHz probably is, given a 144 dB dynamic range, and 48 kHz frequency response. To be absolutely sure, 32 bits would probably be better, and maybe bump up the sampling rate to 192 kHz. But at that resolution, there will be no difference in the ear's response to an analog or a digital signal. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
