Chrobrego wrote: > Not to deviate from the original debate but just to mention the > complexity of the HiFi sound capture and reproduction, I would avoid the > expression "bit-perfect" but rather call it "bit-unperfect". Bit is > digital - not real - world and already translates irremediable sound > alteration that truncates the signal as the result of the quantification > applied during PCM conversion. This is simply not true. search this forum (or the internet in general) for "Sampling Theorem". It can be heavy going for the non-mathematician, but the short version is that digital audio can perfectly reconstruct an analogue sound wave. This is a fact, not a matter for opinion.
Chrobrego wrote: > I think it is also wrong to oppose the "real" from the "psychological". > They are both linked tighly together when it comes to music perception - > we are not machines! An infinitesimal signal difference could result in > total different perception of the music from an individual to another. > And it may have nothing to do with the strict ear sensitivity but rather > with how our brain interpret or react to the signal which leads to > emotion, etc. It has also something to do with our own experience or > what some people call ear education. > 10 years ago I was listening to a lot of mp3 and personnaly could not > see distinctly the difference with a CD. Now I have my music in flac and > when I try to listen to mp3 music streamed from Internet radio I find it > almost unbearable. Yet my ears have probably lost a lot of their - > scientifically measurable! - sensitivity since that time but that is > largly compensated by what I know the real music should sound like. I am sorry, but I am struggling to understand this. Of course the human brain does all sorts of things with stimuli which neuroscience is nowhere near explaining yet. But the stimulus must enter the brain first, and in the case of sound waves, that's got everything to do with "strict ear sensitivity"! Chrobrego wrote: > So I would not underestimate the possible impact caused by any > difference in the signal process chain inside an electronic equipment. > After all, why do the amplifiers have a "source direct" which switch off > the display and apply a shorter path for the signal? is it also "an > indicator of something wrong"? You're talking here about the analogue side, which is completely different. Of course source direct type functions can have an audible effect, although I would hope that the higher the quality of the basic design, the less relative effect they would have. Chrobrego wrote: > At the end everybody is free to choose its own threshold for optimal > quality. People will also argue on the differences between cd vs vynil, > cd vs sacd, spotify 320kbits vs Qobuz, PCM 16 bit vs 24 bits, etc... > Where is your limit, guys? Well, having spent far too much time and money in the past on SACD/DVD-A hardware and software, I have come to the realisation (through blind testing) that CD is fine, and I should have concentrated more on the analogue part of the chain. By the way, do you have any comments on my reply to your previous post? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13460 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
