Just to clarify my own position on hifi systems:

• I believe that an audiophile system ($2000 up to $20,000 and above) may very well sound much better than my own really cheap ($500) system. But I don't think that the difference would increase my enjoyment of the music. And I am convinced that 99% of the improvement results from the amp and speakers. The other components have little to no effect on the sound.
• I don't think that any custom power line cables can improve the sound of a hifi system. In rare circumstances with extremely unstable power feeds additional hardware may be required to stabilize the voltage, but very rarely (like 0.1% of all situations).
• I think that any speaker cable that costs more than $20/meter is a waste of money. It is explained in great detail on various websites. Even some hardcore audiophiles admit that.
• I believe that some tube amps sound better than transistor amps. However, they change the signal. They add distortion, but a "good" type of distortion which creates additional "warmth". Some may prefer an absolutely linear amplification though ... so while I like the sound of tube amps, I would say that transistor amps are more accurate.
• CD vs. Vinyl ... that's a difficult question. Let's put it this way: Some vinyls sound better than some CDs. Some CDs sound better than some vinyls. But I don't think that there is a general rule.
• "CDs sound harsh compared to vinyls": I think that's nonsense. Many audiophiles are consistently ignoring the fact that CDs have a greater frequency bandwidth than vinyl and tape. CDs go up to 20khz, while vinyl and tape only reach 17khz at best. However, the original master tapes typically reach beyond 17khz, so a remaster directly to CD might reveal more details in the upper frequency range and therefore sound more "harsh". But in this case the harshness was already there on the master tape, and is hardly a problem of the CD.
• "The 16 bits of the CD are not enough to capture the full dynamics of an analog recording": Nonsense. Let me just clarify that 16 bits does not equal 16 steps. 16 bits equal 65,536 steps. The resulting dynamic range is much greater than that of a vinyl recording. In fact it is so much greater that on some CDs the sound engineers are already compressing the signal because otherwise some listeners complain that there is too great a difference between silent and loud parts. Of course this compression is bad, because it changes the signal ... such a compression should be applied as a filter during playback, not during recording.
• "Compressed audio (mp3 etc) doesn't sound as good as the original": That is true. However: Depending on the system that is used for playback and the situation (home, car, walkman etc.) it can be totally acceptable. Personally I easily hear the difference between 64kbps/128kbps files even on cheap systems, while 192kbps files are harder to recognize and (at least for me) acceptable even on a decent system.
• "It is not possible to enjoy music on a PC". This is not true. It all depends on the components of the PC, and how it is connected to the amp. You have to use digital extraction of the audio, you must not compress the extracted audio, and the extracted audio must be routed to the amp digitally, without processing. If all these conditions are met, listening to audio on the PC is virtually identical to listening to audio using a CD player.
• "Musical CD players are better than cheap CD players". Yes and no. "Musical" CD players do some advanced processing and are thus changing the signal. The result may sound better ... but not because the "musical" player does a better job at extracting the audio from the CD. It cannot extract other (or more) information than any cheap player.

• First of all when you first get used to a $20 000 system it would be PAINFUL (atleast in my experience) to get back to using a $2000 system and certainly i think that when i can really feel the presence of the entire symphony orchestra in the room will make me enjoy the music even more. Especially on recordings with grand orchestras the weakness of low end systems will shine through.
• I use proper neutral cables with bi-wiring that does not add anything to the sound...it cost about $200 pr meter and its really worth it! First of all the gold used in this cable has to cost a bit and there is a special soldiering technique which guaruantee no loss. By using Bi-wiring you shorten down the signalway from the crossover filter and by that reduce loss. Also it is 100% pure copper not remelted copper that will also cause signal loss. Also the isolation against other Electrical Signals is of higher quality than low end cables. All in all these things surely make a difference!
• I dont really like Tube amps but i would only say that Pure Class A amps would come close to the warm sound that certain Tube Amps can give
• Vinyl will always be better than CD
• Compressed Audio is always horrible on quality headphones!
• Well certainly you can enjoy music on your PC but you can't make it sound as good as a proper dedicated system!
• Ofcourse they are better! More expansive D/A converters provides a better resolution and adds more detail to the sound. Also some CD players have sampling modules which can give some better dynamics!

Also by using spectrum analysis you can see that a tone of 15 000hz Sampled on a CD 16bit/44,1khz will be distorted.

Analog devices can reach much higher frequencys before becoming distorted so this means albeit the CD player can sample sounds as high as 22 000hz which is higher than the human hearing (20-20 000hz) it will begin to distort alot sooner.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Ofcourse they are better! More expansive D/A converters provides a better resolution and adds more detail to the sound. Also some CD players have sampling modules which can give some better dynamics!

Sorry ... but that's absolute nonsense. No D/A converter in the whole wide world can "add detail". There is also no way to "give better dynamics". All these "musical" circuits do is to apply post processing to make the signal sound more pleasant. If it sounds better to you - no problem with me. But it has nothing to do with improving the quality of the signal.

Let me rephrashe it: it does not add any detail to the signal, it just make the signal's reproduction more detailed

A Upsampling board would boost the normal cd dynamics from 96 db/s to perhaps a 100 by sampling the it up to 192khz

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Also by using spectrum analysis you can see that a tone of 15 000hz Sampled on a CD 16bit/44,1khz will be distorted.

You and your spectrum analysis ... seeing distortions on a spectrum analyser and actually hearing a difference are two completely different things.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Analog devices can reach much higher frequencys before becoming distorted so this means albeit the CD player can sample sounds as high as 22 000hz which is higher than the human hearing (20-20 000hz) it will begin to distort alot sooner.

 ok, CDs sound like crap generally. I give up!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Let me rephrashe it: it does not add any detail to the signal, it just make the signal's reproduction more detailed A Upsampling board would boost the normal cd dynamics from 96 db/s to perhaps a 100 by sampling the it up to 192khz

You make no sense here ... dynamics don't have anything to do with frequency. The dynamic expansion is due to the fact that these circuits convert 16bit to 24bit. This is done by interpolation, which by nature smoothens the signal. But this technically is a degradation of the signal ... it may sound better to you, but actually information from the original signal is lost.

Aha i think anyone will know that the tone is distorted because at 15 000khz there will be only enough space for three samples per cycle.

And three samples per cycle the Digital media will not be able to reproduce a Sine wave...infact the wave it reproduces will be more of a sawtooth or square wave....and that is certainly a horrible distortion!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: Let me rephrashe it: it does not add any detail to the signal, it just make the signal's reproduction more detailed A Upsampling board would boost the normal cd dynamics from 96 db/s to perhaps a 100 by sampling the it up to 192khz You make no sense here ... dynamics don't have anything to do with frequency. The dynamic expansion is due to the fact that these circuits convert 16bit to 24bit. This is done by interpolation, which by nature smoothens the signal. But this technically is a degradation of the signal ... it may sound better to you, but actually information from the original signal is lost.

Yes it goes from 16/44,1khz and by using interpoltion and complex filtering on the signal it is then sampled up to 24/192khz it would improve dynamics a tiny bit and i certainly does not hear any negative effects by using this technique.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: Let me rephrashe it: it does not add any detail to the signal, it just make the signal's reproduction more detailed A Upsampling board would boost the normal cd dynamics from 96 db/s to perhaps a 100 by sampling the it up to 192khz You make no sense here ... dynamics don't have anything to do with frequency. The dynamic expansion is due to the fact that these circuits convert 16bit to 24bit. This is done by interpolation, which by nature smoothens the signal. But this technically is a degradation of the signal ... it may sound better to you, but actually information from the original signal is lost. Yes it goes from 16/44,1khz and by using interpoltion and complex filtering on the signal it is then sampled up to 24/192khz it would improve dynamics a tiny bit and i certainly does not hear any negative effects by using this technique.

Of course you can't hear them because they happen beyond the resolution of the human ear. The step towards 192khz was mainly done because professional audio equipment works on that level. The problem is that when mixing different sources together and applying digital effects signal artefacts are created which can be in much lower frequencies than the source signal. Because of that professional equipment uses frequency ranges up to 4 times the CD range.

Which one looks the most pleasant?

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Aha i think anyone will know that the tone is distorted because at 15 000khz there will be only enough space for three samples per cycle. And three samples per cycle the Digital media will not be able to reproduce a Sine wave...infact the wave it reproduces will be more of a sawtooth or square wave....and that is certainly a horrible distortion!

There is no short answer to this. But I'll try: At this frequency the human ear can not clearly distinguish a sine wave from any other waveform. The human ear is itself sampling the signal, and its resolution is as limited as that of the CD. Proof: If it HAD a bigger resolution, then we would be able to hear higher frequencies. But we cannot hear - for example - a sine waveform at 30,000 hz. Why? Because our ear is sampling the input not frequently enough.

Go to an university/college and attend a basic lecture about sensory perception - I did. It's not even a technical subject for engineers - it's something that doctors also learn during anatomy studies.

Facts, oliver - not theory.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Which one looks the most pleasant?

As a metal fan I choose the Square, of course. It's also the most interesting waveform from a mathematical standpoint.

Unfortunately, as I explained above, at high frequencies our ear cannot tell them apart.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Certainly thats what's happens in a guitar amplifier when you push the Fuzz bedal box...i think most people can recognize that there is a simple difference between those two signals!

Of course in case of the guitar the frequency is much lower - more like 400 Hz - 3000 Hz.

By using spectrum analysis you can see it is actually ranges from 83hz to 3713hz!

Anyways thats not my point...the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not...the fact that the distortion on CD's occours much as much sharper and harsh and on alot lower frequencys does something to the overall sound image! Remember that there is some things you can not exactly hear but more "feel" them

Lindsay Lohan wrote: the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not...

Sorry to break it to you, but it is. Buy yourself a good book about human anatomy - or better, about the inner ear in particular. I studied it at the university in great detail, especially how sound is transformed into electric signals.

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not... Sorry to break it to you, but it is. Buy yourself a good book about human anatomy - or better, about the inner ear in particular. I studied it at the university in great detail, especially how sound is transformed into electric signals. Nobody puts in doubt your knowledge and the studies you made. But it doesnt helps you to understand something you don't know and that you've never heard!

"If I am on a planet with a positive gravity (lol) and I let go of a hammer, I don't need to watch it fall to know that it actually has fallen".

Thank you Mr. Spock!

Edit: How do you know that I never heard a good audiophile system? Quite arrogant of you to keep making these unverified assumptions.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not... Sorry to break it to you, but it is. Buy yourself a good book about human anatomy - or better, about the inner ear in particular. I studied it at the university in great detail, especially how sound is transformed into electric signals.

Yes i have actually studied some human anatomy and if my memory serves me right there is a part of the ear called the cochlea which is filled with fluid and 20 000 small nerve cells of different lenght. These Nerve cells will react when the particular frequency is passed over to them so when the compressional wave matches the frequency of the nerve cell the nerve cell will resonate and release an electrical impulse to the brain.

However the brain does also calculate the QUALITY of the sound and thus exactly the same frequencys can sound different when interpeted by the brain. So not exactly digital but ofcourse what i really meant to say was that if digital should have sounded good all the parts in it should have been digital because the sound is first analog and then converted to digital and then INTERPETED by the brain.

erlenst wrote: Lindsay Lohan Remember that there is some things you can not exactly hear but more feel them WTF ?? [/QUOTE wrote: Forexample we have a sampling frequency of 44.1 khz although we cant hear 44,1 khz the factors we cannot hear will work in on the factors we can hear...if you get what im saying

Forexample we have a sampling frequency of 44.1 khz although we cant hear 44,1 khz the factors we cannot hear will work in on the factors we can hear...if you get what im saying

Lindsay Lohan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not... Sorry to break it to you, but it is. Buy yourself a good book about human anatomy - or better, about the inner ear in particular. I studied it at the university in great detail, especially how sound is transformed into electric signals. Yes i have actually studied some human anatomy and if my memory serves me right there is a part of the ear called the cochlea which is filled with fluid and 20 000 small nerve cells of different lenght. These Nerve cells will react when the particular frequency is passed over to them so when the compressional wave matches the frequency of the nerve cell the nerve cell will resonate and release an electrical impulse to the brain.

Very good! It is also worth pointing out that these electric impulses are digital. Each impulse has exactly the same shape and amplitude ... only the frequency of the impulses is used to carry information.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: However the brain does also calculate the QUALITY of the sound and thus exactly the same frequencys can sound different when interpeted by the brain. So not exactly digital but ofcourse what i really meant to say was that if digital should have sounded good all the parts in it should have been digital because the sound is first analog and then converted to digital and then INTERPETED by the brain.

Even worse: Most of the time the sound is converted from audio to analog electrical by a microphone ... then sampled to digital multitrack hd recording. Then it is copied and manipulated by effects digitally a couple of times, including the mixdown to two tracks. From this source (usually 24bit/192khz) the source is then downsampled to CD audio (16bit/44.1khz). Then when you put it in your player, the signal is converted from digital to analog electric, and then to acoustic energy which is again sampled by the cells of the human ear and converted to electric impulses.

Isn't it amazing that after all that we can hear no actual difference to the original source? I mean, audiophile metaphysics aside, a trumpet on a CD still sounds like a trumpet ...

Of course the key to all this is that during all those steps the resolution of the process signal is way beyond the resolution of the ear. So although with each step errors are introduced, in the end we hear no difference because the errors are beyond our perceptional threshold.

oliverstoned wrote: It reminds me of a "scientific" theory from Mike saying that tape wasn't good cause there are less magnetic particles than ear cells Could you remind us (in detail) of that, Mike?

I wonder what else I said according to your memory.

Yes the ear is digital in the sense that forexample a signal of 100hz will always resonate at then release the same amplitude but lets not forget that it is what the BRAIN interpets these electric signals as that makes what we hear! And that interpetation is fairly complex and can sound different from person to person albeit their ears is exactly the same

Just to sum it up:

So by watching a spectrum analysis on a record played from a vinyl source and a analysis from a cd source the signal generated from the vinyl is THEORETICALLY better.

So then it is up to the BRAIN to interpet these signals and then it will deceide if it is pleasing or not. Some people can't even hear a difference between vinyl and CD!

And please remember even what you DON'T hear can make a difference on what you DO hear!

Thats the last thing i say in this debate...i don't think we are goin to settle this thing anytime soon

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: It reminds me of a "scientific" theory from Mike saying that tape wasn't good cause there are less magnetic particles than ear cells Could you remind us (in detail) of that, Mike? I wonder what else I said according to your memory. Delete as quick as possible what you have written about that, before i find it again!

I'm never ashamed to say thatI was wrong on something, and I certainly would not say that everything that I'm saying is true 100% ... but of course I try to only say things that are objectively true.

But I'm too lazy to dig out that post ... show it to me, and I'll comment!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Just to sum it up: So by watching a spectrum analysis on a record played from a vinyl source and a analysis from a cd source the signal generated from the vinyl is THEORETICALLY better. So then it is up to the BRAIN to interpet these signals and then it will deceide if it is pleasing or not. Some people can't even hear a difference between vinyl and CD! And please remember even what you DON'T hear can make a difference on what you DO hear! Thats the last thing i say in this debate...i don't think we are goin to settle this thing anytime soon

ABX tests are the best way to determine if two things really are different. Works with beverages, wine, cigarettes ... and audio! Anything else always leaves some doubt ... be it fact or myth!

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: It reminds me of a "scientific" theory from Mike saying that tape wasn't good cause there are less magnetic particles than ear cells Could you remind us (in detail) of that, Mike? I wonder what else I said according to your memory. Delete as quick as possible what you have written about that, before i find it again! I'm never ashamed to say thatI was wrong on something, and I certainly would not say that everything that I'm saying is true 100% ... but of course I try to only say things that are objectively true. But I'm too lazy to dig out that post ... show it to me, and I'll comment! Yes you deleted your post of course. So you're ashamed. We only rely on listening tests, whereas you rely on book theories.

I didn't delete any of my posts. You simply cannot find it ... that's not my problem. But you are really making a fool of yourself, oliver, for consistently badmouthing me without any evidence. Fortunately I do not want to "counter-attack" ... I did so in the past, and it only led to more trouble. So I'll just leave your ridiculous posts as they are, and leave it to the others to decide which one of us is more credible.

oliverstoned wrote: Anyway, Lindsay and i have refuted your theories point by point! But you'd prefer to die than admitting that you're wrong!

I answered every post. My opinion hasn't changed ... but at least I don't go around and claim that victory is mine.

oliverstoned wrote: That would be hard in your case!

Not as hard as in your case ... when you're arguing on the level of "trumpets sound harsh on CDs".

oliverstoned wrote: Trumpet is hard to reproduce. And Cd shows its (short) limits there. I find it rather sad than funny...

Last time I checked it worked fine. I'll listen to some trumpet tracks tonight ... maybe I've been living a lie all my life. I'll let you know when I've thrown my computer out of the window.

Ah well as we all know what make's a trumpet sound like a trumpet is the different frequency components that is compiled by the brain and then put together and then produce the sound which we all know as a trumpet. However as i said before Vinyl recordings can reproduce the different components too a much larger degree than cd at 16bit/44,1khz can. As you say a guitar has a max groun tone is 3700hz approximately but its harmonic overtones can range at a much larger scale even above 15 000hz!

But all in all its up to the listener to deceide if you think this sound better or worse, more dynamic and so on...there is no scientific formula or fact that can prove that this sollution sounds better than the other because it is the Brain that compiles these sounds and the human brain is fairly complex

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Ah well as we all know what make's a trumpet sound like a trumpet is the different frequency components that is compiled by the brain and then put together and then produce the sound which we all know as a trumpet. However as i said before Vinyl recordings can reproduce the different components too a much larger degree than cd at 16bit/44,1khz can. As you say a guitar has a max groun tone is 3700hz approximately but its harmonic overtones can range at a much larger scale even above 15 000hz!

As can the CD ... it reaches up to 22,000hz, just like the human ear. Well, actually well BEYOND the human ear. 20,000hz is the maximum, typically only reached by very young people.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: But all in all its up to the listener to deceide if you think this sound better or worse, more dynamic and so on...there is no scientific formula or fact that can prove that this sollution sounds better than the other because it is the Brain that compiles these sounds and the human brain is fairly complex

Yes - in fact the brain is so complex that it even combines the actual perceptions with our own experience and expectations. So sometimes we believe what we want to believe ... that makes it extremely different to remain objective. Do you honestly believe that somebody who spent $20,000 on a hifi system can actually have an objective opinion on the difference between his system and a cheap one?

oliverstoned wrote: Mike-->You admit that you can't hear the difference between original and Mp3 wheraes you admit that ther's a difference. That's the same with trumpet.

I've had it up to here with your lies. Read the first post again and then try again.

oliverstoned wrote: And yes, it's a paradox of good Hifi is that it reveals the good like the bad. It reveals the limits of CD technology while it exalts the qualities of good analog equipment.

Wishful Thinking ... how simple the world can be. I envy you!

Well as i said is that when the frequency components at higher frequencys begin to distort it will have something to say about how the overall experience is felt.

Remember sound is much more than what we can hear!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Well as i said is that when the frequency components at higher frequencys begin to distort it will have something to say about how the overall experience is felt.

I explained it above - the distortion is in a frequency range that we cannot hear. Sad (for your theory) but true!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Remember sound is much more than what we can hear!

Maybe ... but that is a metaphysical discussion. Wenn discussing hifi systems I try to limit the discussion to the things that we can hear.

Ah so you are saying that we cant hear distortion above 15khz?

Besides take forexample the sampling frequency that has to be twice the sound we want to sample for it to sound decent although we cant forexample hear 40 000hz

And what my point with that everything you cant hear might is that there are some sound issues that can not be explained by physics,theory and formulas. The only thing that could deceide which is better is a listening test. But on paper digital is much weaker than analog

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Ah so you are saying that we cant hear distortion above 15khz?

No, I'm saying that the distortions of the 15khz sine waveform are typically much higher in frequency than the waveform itself - like 2 or 3 times higher. And these are well beyond our perception.

Remember that 15khz is a really high pitched sound. It is not a musical note - more like the typical sound which diseminates from some TV sets. Or like some Tinnitus sounds like the ones that you hear in games like Counter-Strike: Source when a grenade explodes right in front of you.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Besides take forexample the sampling frequency that has to be twice the sound we want to sample for it to sound decent although we cant forexample hear 40 000hz

You might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theore m

You don't seem to get the idea.

Yes i understand the sampling theorem but i just took it as an example and yes i know that 15 000hz is high pitched but it remember that there is also these high pithced frequencys that make the guitar sound like a real guitar!

And dont underestimate the human ear! It can hear a difference in frequency of just 2hz!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: Yes i understand the sampling theorem but i just took it as an example and yes i know that 15 000hz is high pitched but it remember that there is also these high pithced frequencys that make the guitar sound like a real guitar! And dont underestimate the human ear! It can hear a difference in frequency of just 2hz!

That depends on the actual frequency range:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

I'm willing to bet that nobody can distinguish 15,000hz and 15,002hz.

GoldenSpiral wrote: The fact is that digital audio at 44kHz-16-bit reproduces the analog sound very very well, but NOT exactly, and that expensive audio equipment improves sound, but only very slightly.  it comes down to whether you think that tiny tiny difference is worth paying out the nose to fix.

Thanks! I agree 100% with these two statements.

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!

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.

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!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: 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!

Ok. And just how close do you have to be to that screen? I mean, if you move too far from it your eyes can't recognize all the details anymore. Then where is the difference between that screen and a normal one?

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!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: 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!

 well, you certainly are quite creative, I give you that!

BTW: I'm currently rating Scabdates on my homepage ... you still into Mars Volta?

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

^ 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

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!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: 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!

You just need a reasonably good system with big speakers - and a decent volume.

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.

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

Lindsay Lohan wrote: 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.

The point is: I don't need to have a perfect system. I don't try to improve my system until it is perfect - because that is not possible. Audiophiles are obsessed with reaching that state of perfection ... paying enormous amounts of money for anything from gold-plated connectors and vacuum-contained cables to specially coated walls and their own private power plant. And all that for what? For some mysterious improvement in sound which they cannot even hear in listening tests?

Lindsay Lohan wrote: 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

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.

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.

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

Lindsay Lohan wrote: 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

Well, I guess that if I had paid $30,000 for a hifi system I would be pretty sure that it's much better than cheap system. Nothing anybody else says would make me think otherwise. Admitting that cheap systems sound nearly as good would make me look like a fool ...

But go ahead, enjoy your system. I don't envy you or oliver at all ... I'm perfectly satisfied with my own system. I'm even thinking of downgrading to a digital Logitech 5.1 system ...

If you want GOOD quality for a cheap price...get a VINYL player it can outbeat CD players on over 3 times the price

Lindsay Lohan wrote: If you want GOOD quality for a cheap price...get a VINYL player it can outbeat CD players on over 3 times the price

See my first post. Vinyl is not better than CD in real life. I'll happily accept any slight differences between the original master and the CD if I in return get the luxury of not having to handle vinyl discs with all their mechanical shortcomings.

This is how I listen to music:

1. Turn the computer on.
2. Turn the hifi system on.
3. Start Winamp.
4. Select Album from the media library.
5. Go.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: If you want GOOD quality for a cheap price...get a VINYL player it can outbeat CD players on over 3 times the price See my first post. Vinyl is not better than CD in real life. I'll happily accept any slight differences between the original master and the CD if I in return get the luxury of not having to handle vinyl discs with all their mechanical shortcomings. This is how I listen to music: Turn the computer on. Turn the hifi system on. Start Winamp. Select Album from the media library. Go.

BLASPHEMY!

Lindsay Lohan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: If you want GOOD quality for a cheap price...get a VINYL player it can outbeat CD players on over 3 times the price See my first post. Vinyl is not better than CD in real life. I'll happily accept any slight differences between the original master and the CD if I in return get the luxury of not having to handle vinyl discs with all their mechanical shortcomings. This is how I listen to music: Turn the computer on. Turn the hifi system on. Start Winamp. Select Album from the media library. Go. BLASPHEMY!

No, just reality. I ripped all my CDs to the computer in 192kbps WMA ... and soon I'll change that to WMA Lossless for my favorite albums. Combined with the right soundcard (Creative X-Fi) this results in a perfect copy of the CD.