On Dec 5, 6:33 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:
Fred Kaplan--a great journalist when he's covering defense issues or
jazz--has also drunk the High End Kool-Aid, and takes umbrage at
Anthony Tommasini's article (discussed in the Audiophile in an iPod
World thread):
http://www.slate.com/id/2179093/
Kaplan, not surprisingly, exaggerates the defects of MP3s, and also
glosses over Tommasini's point that musicians and music lovers can
experience music even without the crisp accuracy that high-fidelity
recording and playback provides. To some extent, Kaplan reveals that
he is listening for different things than Tommasini is. Nothing wrong
with that (unless you make the claim that Tommasini is therefore
somehow an inferior listener), but it helps explain why audiophiles
are few and far between.
Kaplan confuses dynamic range compression with data compression, and
seems to think that lossless compression sounds 'almost as good as' CD.
Like I said: Kool-Aid. (IIRC, one of his little sidebars ranks vinyl
above SACD and DVD-A in sound quality.)
Ironically, Kaplan uses compressed audio clips to illustrate his jazz
columns. He had a great tribute the week Max Roach died, comparing the
Gillespie-Parker quintet before and after the arrival of Roach.
Despite the lo-rez, the difference was obvious.
Which gets back to Tommasini's point: Compression can obscure sonic
details, but that's not the same as obscuring musical details. It can
if it's bad enough, but much of the time it isn't. Which is why most
music lovers feel no need to obsess over fidelity.
bob