On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:45 -0400, ron thigpen wrote: > These bits everyone is so fond of characterizing with pure perfection > are an abstraction.
I don't believe that I ever said that. Or at least I never intended to even imply that we are at perfection. > Amplified and sent to an imperfect transducer and pumped into a > non-ideal acoustical space. Oh, there is much more to go wrong than just this. I've got over thirty professional microphones for my recording studio. None are linear. Neither are any of the mic preamps. Let along A-to-D convertors, effects, etc. Then there is studio acoustics and ... > What could go wrong? Everything. "Perfect Sound Forever" was, is and > shall continue to be another case of marketing fluff. Again, not what I've said. All I was talking about is getting the best sound possible from the bits in a Red Book CD. That is all you can get. We've been talking about how good EAC and similar programs are at extracting the data, and compression. > FLAC encoder input = FLAC decoder output, certainly. But extending that > to a statement that a system processing identical bitstreams will > produce identical sound is to ignore an awful lot of real world complexity. What are you trying to say here? I don't understand. It is easy to move bits arround. It is a lot harder to talk about converting bits to music > Before attributing the strength of a mathematical proof to your > understanding of a physical system, it is best to be sure that you have > modelled the entirety of that system. There is no such thing as a isomorphic mapping of a mathematical model to the real world. Again, what are you trying to say here? -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
