On 20 Dec, 16:21, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"borosteve" wrote in message

...

Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be some
sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think that all cd
players sound the same and that measurements and specs of components
are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when all you had to
worry about was how many watts your speakers could handle? Come on
guy's if you really don't like quality sound *give it a rest and talk
about something else on another group! Maybe there's a group about
saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to annoy everyone? Maybe
their's a group about nerds who just like to see their own posts on a
screen!!

Borosteve.

Speaking only for myself, I am most definitely *not* anti hifi sound, but
anti the non-scientific and engineering based opinions which, when analysed
objectively, i.e. using measurements, do not prove what is being alleged.

For many years (even before the '70s) audio engineering professionals were
aware of the limits of perception of human hearing, and that, provided the
equipment measured below that threshold, then any reduction in distortions,
noise, frequency response errors etc. would not be perceived. For amplifiers
we reached those figures many many years ago, consequently, until we started
seeing designs which deliberately introduce audible distortions, the only
difference between amplifiers was one of loudness, subject of course to the
amplifier being used within it's design parameters for level and load
impedance. So, what's the point of discussing amplifier sound?

When CD was launched, it *was* *"pure, perfect sound forever", compared with
the limitations of vinyl, cassettes and FM radio. There was certainly a
question about the quality of the first CDs, some of which were made from
equalised and compressed disk-cutting masters out of ignorance of the new
medium, but that is a separate issue. *D-A conversion did improve from the
first 14bit x 4 oversampling, but we have had 24 bit 96k or better
converters for years now, so CD playback quality would be pretty much a dead
issue, if it wasn't for CD production now having gone silly with
over-levels, clipping etc. It seems that CD players can sound different in
their handling of these over-levels, and *that is an interesting area for
study, but it needs instrumentation and measurements, not subjective
opinions if we're ever to characterise and understand fully the processes
involved.

In my view, the valid subjects for discussions of sound quality are
loudspeakers, which are still far behind complete transparancy, vinyl
reproduction, which will never be transparent, and data-reduced digital
formats which *can* be transparent, but seldom are.

Measurements give a repeatable, verifiable indication of performance.
Double-blind controlled listening tests can highlight differences which may
have escaped measurement, but note that *everything* can be measured. If
something is audible, then it is measurable. It may be difficult to measure,
and perhaps new instruments have to be invented. As a case in point,
measurements of data-reduced formats could not be done with the conventional
analogue-based equipments, so new analysers had to be invented. The
converse, that everything measurable is audible is *not* true as there are
clearly understood thresholds of hearing.

So, when someone posts a purely subjective view of what something sound
like, you can expect those of us with a more engineering-based view of audio
to comment. Otherwise, people might go on believing that cables sound
different.....

S.

--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

but cables do sound different..