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! :-)

Interestingly, just last evening, I read a series of letters in Mix magazine (a professional recording magazine) from readers who were arguing over opinions presented in a previous issue by several industry recording engineers who were against the Digidesign Pro Tools Digital Audio system. Not surprisingly, some readers feel it is great while others feel it is too "clinical" sounding. Both sides were passionate in their viewpoints. So clearly, simple measurements of accuracy (Pro Tools is now 192 KHz, 24 bit) will never prove which is best to some given population.

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. Exactly! Which is why I don't think digital or vinyl (analog) is better in all cases. The easiest response is: It depends! I think some music sounds better on vinyl and some better on CD. It is helpful to remember that since the mastering process is different for each, one may sound better or worse for this reason alone. The Mix, for me sounds better on vinyl (maybe because it was a high quality German pressing). I'm not sure on Expo 2000 comparisons as that track was VERY heavily produced which may have robbed the track from some of its presence.

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.

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. There's no way around this. But going a bit further, "warmth" and lack thereof is probably something that you have experienced yourself without realizing it. For instance, I think most people would agree there is a certain "difference" in Kraftwerk's early recordings (pre - 1983) and 1986's Electric Cafe, 1991's The Mix and Expo 2000? One might say that there is more warmth in the earlier recordings. Interestingly, those were all done on analog instruments. EC was recorded with digital equipment on analog tape - already somewhat "colder" than say Tour De France (all analog). While The Mix and Expo 2000 was all digital. Completely different sound, and much more clinical than the classic recordings. Which is better? I won't even start that discussion! But perhaps you get my idea.

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... But it does not mean "lacking in highs." The original Computer Love had warmth but it was not lacking in highs. "Air" denotes a certain level of frequency content in the 12k - 15k area. Air can give a recording a sense of clarity and presence with the side effect of helping the listener to perceive the spatiality around individual instruments in the mix. In singing, it might be the aspiration in pronunciation of certain syllables. 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. Although a machine can in fact measure certain distortions (sometimes related to warmth), it cannot measure what amount is right to give a sound that property.

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. 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. 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. For instance, I don't collect old cars and spend ten times their worth restoring them - but some people do and I can still enjoy the fruits of their efforts without wanting to do it myself.

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. From my viewpoint, it really depends. As I mentioned, I'm not a diehard for either. I have preferences in both mediums - depending on the album and artist.

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. Yes, you could create your own format. But you'd have to control the recording and mastering process as well to get the best quality. Even with higher bit resolutions, until some engineers stop squashing the dynamics of digital audio with brick wall limiters to make it as "loud" as possible, digital audio can still sound flat.

...

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. Actually, it has to be that way. When two digital devices are connected, they MUST be synced and only ONE can be the master. If both run at even the slightest different speed, you get artifacts in the audio stream. The alternate methods are to either have the most accurate clock as the master or have a more expensive dedicated, highly accurate master word clock that drives all digital devices.

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.

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. The basic idea of the article (and other articles on the digido.com site) is that digital audio is a strange beast. There are benefits as well as drawbacks and quality equipment and techniques are important in dealing with it. And believe it or not, *sometimes* that means adding something analog to the processing chain.

Eh? I haven't heard of MP4. Whose work is it? These pages may answer a few questions:

http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/ http://www.psytel-research.co.yu/showcase.htm Currently Apple's latest beta version of Quicktime Pro will generate and play back MP4 files. It is available for both PC and Mac's. I was referred to Apple by Dolby Laboratories when I inquired about the AAC format.

...

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. 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.

...

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! DVD Audio is already 24 bit 96 kHz and multi-channel. But the format is still young and needs to catch on to the masses before more titles become available. For 32 bit and higher, you'd need the raw audio files and in some cases, the matching software to play them with. In Kraftwerk's case, you'd have to do lots of convincing begging to get hold of those, I'm quite sure! :-)

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