mtrycrafts said:
As long as it is only about enjoyment, absolutely no one cares.
But, at times, people make testable claims of dubious merit and credibility. That needs to be challenged
I can agree with that. I've been rereading this thread - more for enjoyment than anything else - and I don't understand most of the very technical info - and there seems there is ALOT from both camps, and that’s ok, but to me it all seem a little silly (not in the "this is a joke" way, but in the "neither of the camps will ever win their argument" kind of way).
Since this thread started the other day I've been contemplating the arguments. I've been interested in this subject for many years but lack the expertise to fully understand either camp and discuss it from a technical standpoint. But that doesn't mean my view should be any less on audio equipment when it comes to "what sounds better". In the end this is what your arguments should boil down to. Not which one has more info, not which one is recorded better, not any other real bit of techno fact at all. You may say "Hey, but its these things that make up why piece "A" sounds better than "B". While this is true in “micro” sense of the arguments it is not in the “macro” (or large scale) sense of the argument. I say it assuming we are not dealing with junk equipment and each piece of equipment represents a good sample (not the best - b/c VERY veiw could afford the best, but a good piece).
Let me try to explain my rambling: in the end BOTH digital and analog are compressing the music. On does it by converting a real sound into 0's and 1's and then unconverts its in time and space so you can hear it. A record does it by taking a waveform and etching it into vinyl - its compressing all that sound into a jagged little line. The spinning of the record with the stylus extracts the information and converts it into sound.
Both are compressions of sound in larger sense. Both take a live performance and convert it into a system so the sound of the performance can be extracted in your room later. HOWEVER, neither system captures the real performance. . .
One: every live performance is different every time it is played, wether or not is played in the same room, hall, whatever its never the same way twice, that being said . . .
Two: every listening room is acoustically different so if you could tote around your equipment from room to room sometimes it would sound great and others maybe not so good.
What this means is, you can argue about the fine points all you want, they are not that significant in the big scheme of things. In the end when you put the music on, does it make you feel you are there (mind you, you will be there in your own personal shown in your particular room, but you should feel if you are there.)
So what to do - LISTEN, and listen allot. That’s all that will be required to know which camp you think is for you. You will need to do an A/B test and it WILL be subjective. But music is art and art IS subjective. The equipment just lets you hear it. It is just a means to an end. It doesn’t matter how technically accurate it is, if it sounds great - it is. Its just that simple.
Mind you I am not getting into which media is more convenient, we are discussing which sounds better. You don’t need to be a technician or scientist to appreciate that.
AND ALL OF THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. However wrong it may be.
