On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:40:41 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote
in message :
...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...
Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.
Really?
And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.
I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern
SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.
The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP
format
has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a
well-exploited
iPod.
It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it,
but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody
who
tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that
they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that
they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a
little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts
of
MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over
LP,
finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I
guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)
I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.
And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.
I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source, in a proper
blind
test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.
Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold? Or are you
nominating MP3 for high-end status?
Depends on your definition of 'high end'.
If an MP3 encoding a 'high end' source is 'transparent' to a discerning
listener, in
a blind test, on a 'high end' system, the only way it isn't 'high end' is
in terms of...its
measurements.
So, are you and other anti-MP3 folks 'measurementalist' only when it comes
to MP3s, Harry?
This assumes of course, that you've actually done the blind tests...it
seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step.
I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.
I do occasionally listen to streaming internet music stations at background
level though my HK computer speakers, but even when doing that I can only do
it for a short time before I get totally fatigued. I much prefer to listen
to radio on my secondary stereo system as an alternative.
Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to satellite radio in the car
or as background at home, but not critically or attentively. Though not as
bad as streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy compression used by
XM/Sirius is still audible.