Scientist vs. Audiophile

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: The audio system is perfect when the brain can't tell the difference between the actual musicians sitting in the room and playing the piece and a recording of them doing it. This is the same thing as the screen which is so good that the brain can't tell what is real and what is a illusion.  I just refuse to believe that having such a system will improve your life. Or put another way: Without such a system you can enjoy music as much as with one.

Well atleast i get a bigger emotional response from a high end system than when i listen to music on the PC. But i guess you would have to be an audiophile to understand

The audio system is perfect when the brain can't tell the difference between the actual musicians sitting in the room and playing the piece and a recording of them doing it.

This is the same thing as the screen which is so good that the brain can't tell what is real and what is a illusion.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: To properly create the illution of a 105 man strong orchestra you need ALOT more than a reasonably good system...even my system that costs $ 30 000 can't do it properly Nonsense. I can enjoy a good album (be it classical, rock or metal) on any kind of system. I can also enjoy listening to it encoded in WMA 64kbps. I don't focus on the sound quality at all. For example I really enjoyed testing the Logitech X-210 computer speakers that I bought for my parents last weekend. I connected them to my computer just to test them and was amazed of their sound quality. Mind you, they cost 35 EUR. A cheap 2.1 system, but amazingly powerful and accurate considering how crappy some even more expensive computer boxes can sound. I was listening to it for quite some time without even realizing it. And while I was listening I of course heard the limitations of the system ... but I didn't mind. I focused on the music.

Ah well im sure you can enjoy it but you can never produce the same feeling like if you had the entire Symphony orhcestra right in your living room.

But certainly when you are used to high end systems you get annoyed by the lack of quality on a low end system. A really good system can make good music even better, because music is all about emotions and the more "real" the music sounds the more "real" the emotions are...and while imight get goosebumps listening to a certain track og a high end system og high volume i will not get the same excitement on a low end system...buts thats me as i said there are many that can't hear the difference between a 128kb/ps mp3 file and a SACD

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure, if you spend enough money you can build a perfect screen. But what is the point? BTW: I would rather try to focus on the motif, not the medium

Im just saying that someday you can get digital media that has such a high resolution that the brain nolonger can differ the issultion from reality.

Forexample the really high end stereo equipment is meant to reproduce the symphony orchestra like it was right there in your living room so your brain could no longer differ between having a symphony orchestra in your living room and between listening to it on a cd forexample but it requires some really good equipment!

That screen is REAL i tell you that much! It is used by some american science institute!

Yes i still love the Mars Volta and although Scabdates was a slight disapointment its still pretty good

Distance does not matter...if you had forexample a room and you had the entire screen fill the room and then put a picture of the room that is on the backside of that screen. Then it would be impossible to differ the "real room" from the picture taken of the room on that screen!

If you where 10cm away or 100meters would not matter...your brain could simply not differ it from reality!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: Digital audio will always have it flaws to analog just as a digital O can never be totally round digital music can never reproduce a perfect sine wave. You're totally missing the point. Even an analog O is never totally round. Zoom in closer and closer ... eventually you'll see atoms/molecules. The point is: The ear has a certain resolution, and it is totally irrellevant whether the reproduction of a signal is degraded beyond that resolution. It simply doesn't matter.

Yes but the resolution is still not high enough to sound exactly the same as a analog recording. There is infact a screen that has such a high resolution that you can't tell apart reality from what is shown on the screen...now thats future!

Digital audio will always have it flaws to analog just as a digital O can never be totally round digital music can never reproduce a perfect sine wave.

In my opinion it all boils down to the how experienced the listener is. I know certain people that can't tell a mp3 file compressed in 128kb/ps apart from a full quality cd-track!

So if people is not experienced enough they don't know how good it can get and therebefore they are adept with sound that is unmistakably weaker!

As said it all comes out when you play music with a 105 man strong symphony orchestra! There's where the $3000 falls WAY short of the $30 000 stereo! The difference is like night and day like 128kb/ps mp3 files and cd's in SACD format!

And if you really want to save money get a vinyl player! My vinyl player is a pretty cheap one ($500) and it can outplay most CD players that cost perhaps between $1500-2000!