I quote your statement again:
I responded to this, because it was simply a wrong assertion.
Now you have modified your assertion and restricted it to "no audible loss" and maybe you´re right (not that there is objective data to back that claim up, but nevertheless....), but please keep the statement technically correct.
Wishes
Yea I agree lets close this thread and move on to other things in order of importance ie areas in which DIYers are able to make a difference.
1) speakers and their environment
2) sources ADC<>DAC
3) amps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15) cables
Last edited:
While that sounds reasonable, it does not take into account that we are listening to _imperfect_ illusions of reality.
As long as you´re not able to recreate the original soundfield you have to cope with individually different reactions of humans to the "errors" (means deviations from the original soundfield) in the reproduction.
Wishes
Of course there is: Meyer/Moran, "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback"
Do we objectively know what these individually different reactions are? Only then it would make any sense to alter the signal to individual needs.
Did you actually read this paper or are you just referring to the abstract?
From the data that was published in the JAES and the additional information posted at the BAS website one can only conclude that a lot of information is missing and that the validity is questionable (objectivity might be questionable too and if it is reliable is hard to say).
Wishes
Last edited:
As posted before just look at the variance in each data point if a group is tested (provided the data is reported and that is unfortunately not always a given).
I am not sure what your conclusion means.
Normally an individual choose a reproduction that meets the individual preference.
Wishes
They don't - well not if they are competently designed and the test is a dbt.In sighted tests they probably do seem different but we know why thats the case and its nothing to do with the engineering of the device. The need to believe (and to tweak) is strong, but for electronics (DACs, amps, cables etc) its often not necessary to tamper with levels of performance that is essentially better than human hearing can resolve.
As if I care which brand or model sounds best, I would say if you can't hear the differences you need to use a better system for testing.
Not wanting to offend Yamaha but
The best speakers in the world can't recreate information that are lost in the rest of the system so to me everything is important, starting at the recording studio and ending between the ears.
This is a valid point, but you have to understand that the problem that you refer to is mostly in the source material and its format, both of which are not in your control, they are a given. Hence considering what can be done at the reproduction level, I'll stand by my claim, and go even one step further and claim that only objectively defined accuracy has much vailidity in that case. The personal subjective preference variations for errors lies almost dominately in the source material and not in the reproduction.
So, are we in search of the $50.00 competent amp now?Can't you think of any competent amp below the 50000 that might better your choice?It would make your point (?) more serious
No altering of the signal can fix what is lost already, the only way is to start with a 'correct' signal and then preserve and reproduce it as accurately as possible. The closer you get to perfect the easier it get for the brain to reconstruct the performance and reveal the detail. Once spoiled, it is hard to be happy with less though.
Well this is completely false, as with most of what you have said. Think about it for a minute. I can undo "anything" that has been done as long as I know what has been done, which isn't always the case however, but often it is.
How can you undo-not to mention reconstruct-anything if it is lost at the source?I think what Andre means by "the only way is to start with a correct signal..."he means at the source.
If there is a portion of the signal which has been completely removed then no, it cannot be reconstructed, but that is not usually the case, in fact it would be rare.
Problem in convincing people of this might be, that there still are two major contributing factors
(largely outside your influence) envolved in achieving aural bliss:
Recording-quality and listener’s state of mind.
These two factors vary all over the place and
more often than not little or nothing is known about them.
When a person is dissatisfied about the end-product of the chain,
chances are that he will try to change (tweak) the chain without knowing anything
(or very little) about those two major contributing factors.
He’s basically trying to solve an equasion with two unknown variables that vary all over the place.
I only link papers that I've read. It might be questionable but so is if tomorrow the sun comes up.
Really? Let's see you 100% 'undo' MP3 compression. You can 100% know the algorithm.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.