My MP3 player broke!

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: You can even not compare it. It's day and night... Then let me continue to live in the night. In the night of theories and mathematical formulas, opposed to the "day" of music, emotion and pleasure.

That's an offensive and hurtful comment, Oliver. You can post any opinion ... but don't say that I can't appreciate music as well as you can. I enjoy music as much as you do. And I rarely ever think about theories and formulas while I'm listening to music, and neither do any other people who just happen to be experts in the computational/electronical science and therefore understand all these devices a little better than you do (you've said that yourself many times).

oliverstoned wrote: Don't deform my words, please. I've never said that you can't enjoy music. The fact is that you rely on theories while i rely on a pragmatic aproach based on listening. Nothing to do with the fact to enjoy music or not.

My theories are proven - your pragmatic approach can only be proven by yourself. That's the difference. Please don't deform my words either - don't change "fact" into "theory". A fact is proven, a theory not.

oliverstoned wrote: Your theories says that transistor amps work better than tube

Yes, that's a proven fact. That doesn't mean that an transistor amp will always sound better than a tube amp. You know that I even said myself that I in some situation prefer the sound of a tube amp.

But if you examine the waveforms you can easily see that a tube amp distorts the signal. No denying, no excuses.

oliverstoned wrote: that digital is more accurate than analog...etc.

I never said that. Digital will always be less accurate than a good analog system. But the human ear is - in a way - digital itself. The ear only contains so many cells which convert the acoustical energy into nerve impulses. And these nerve impulses are then simplified by the brain.

To cut a long story short: If even audiophiles can't tell the sources apart in listening tests, then the whole matter is just not worth talking about.

oliverstoned wrote: One more time, i didn't wanted to be offensive...i was just comparing our respective approachs, while you think i was judging your musical sensitiveness, which is not the case at all.

I took no offense, and I hope you didn't either.

oliverstoned wrote: Don't underestimate human ear/brain.

Don't overestimate it either.

Listening Tests

are the ultimate solution.

oliverstoned wrote: Bob--> -I don't talk about crappy players. Analog is much more softer than digital, that's an empiric fact.

How do you know that the "softer" sound is more authentic?

oliverstoned wrote: -Little earphones are very bad for your ears as it's very close to the eardrum.

Not true. They are closer, but also much less powerful.

oliverstoned wrote: Mike--> i do it virtually every day by switching from one source to another. And the differences stay the same.

Then why do most audiophiles consistently refuse to do listening tests? They keep saying "I can easily hear the difference", but refuse to prove it.