On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, jtalbert wrote:
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.
Now I'm starting to get a better picture of the problem. From what you're saying, the real issue is not the recording media alone, but matching an individual pair of ears to the audio engineer's performance on the recording instruments. That explains why some people spend $80,000 on a high-end stereo system and are still unsatisfied with the sound. High quality is not necessarily the best for a particular person. It's just more likely to be good.
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.
Isn't that what graphic equalizers are for, though?
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.
I see. You're very good at explaining these things. Thanks!
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.
The things they don't tell you. Now I'm wondering what really goes into my McDonald's hamburgers. :)
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.
I'm not good at bluffing the salesbeasts, and they always pounce on you in those places.
You've said nothing that has offended me. I think you have been very friendly and I've heave greatly enjoyed the debate.
Thanks. You're a pleasure to converse with.
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!
I guess that settles that then. :)
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.
Now I understand why people compare different releases of the same material even on CD. -- /* Soleil */