Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee
Want to conflate, misconprehend and mischaracterize a few more issues?
1. The strongest argument concerning indistinguishable differences, is digital transfer media. ie, an HDMI cable is an HDMI cable, is an HDMI cable [pretty much the same for optic fiber].
2. The differences between exotic cables and plain ol' lamp cord is pretty much debunked, but there's no one 'gotcha' definitive double blind test to which to refer. And actually there is evidence of some differences with some cables, but whether those changes are better, worse, cleaner, dirtier, more colored, or more 'true.' is up for debate.
3. It's not just crowing about 'digitized' sound, it's critiquing whether 44.1 kHz [or the often much lower rates of Mp3] is sufficient. Few argue that SACD or DVD-A aren't excellent digitial media
4. Another side issue is mastering, partially due to Mp3s and partially due to radio play, the studios are mastering massive amounts of normalization into today's tracks, meaning there's less decibal differences between the first high-hat tish and the 'thundering crescendo' than ever. Not really a digitization issue, but some might be confused if overhearing one of those asshole audiophiles bemoaning the current state of sound.
5. HD radio is funny, but not because it's being played on a crappy system. It's not even a higher definition of content. It's digitized and compressed so the actual 'HD' is the ability to play multiple channels on one frequency as a byproduct of digitization and compression. That and the 'it's either there or it's not' nature of digital content, being touted as 'clean clear uninterupted sound.' There are no standards for what quality of content is broadcast.
|
The industry new mastering of music is BS.
they know it's being stolen, uploaded/burned, re digitized.
MP3s quality? good enough for most ears that are shot from too many loud concerts anyway.
Lou Reed included, likely can't hear past 10K anyway.