Took the plunge, Asher--this better be worth it.

[Asher]

Music is art, but digital audio reproduction is science.

I'm not judging which music is better, I'm judging which digital audio equipment most accurately reproduced the digital source. That, too, is a science.

Digital reproduction accuracy is a science, whether it sounds "better" or not is an "art", but I think you'd have to be pretty silly to argue that a digital device with more electronic noise is better than a digital device with less.

[Whaleboy]

As someone who can play the first 48 bars of Moonlight Sonato at half speed on a 13 year old Clavinova, while still struggling to master the intricacies of wood blocks, I must agree with Agathon .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As someone who can play the first 48 bars of Moonlight Sonato at half speed on a 13 year old Clavinova, while still struggling to master the intricacies of wood blocks, I must agree with Agathon .

"As someone with no concept of digital audio, I agree with Agathon regarding digital audio"?

[Whaleboy]

I think the truth is somewhere between the two of you. Stuff like bitrate and distortion per pitch and a load of other things are important, just like the readability of the typeface in a novel for instance, but that's a world away from the sound itself. For example, Drogue and myself have had a long running debate over whether his stereo or mine is superior. His speakers produce a more crisp, forward, lively sound, whereas mine of the same wattage (mine are Keff's, his are Missions iirc) are more transparent. In truth, neither are superior because it's all a matter of subjective preference.

The two of you need to work out whether the differences you are espousing fall into the category of verifiable science or preferential art.

[Asher]

Read my posts more carefully -- I'm not arguing which sounds better, I'm arguing one reproduces sounds truer to how they were recorded. Which, with digital audio, is something that is scientifically measured.

Whether it sounds better or not is subject to interpretation, and rather irrelevant in an internet debate. That's something you can only do with a side-by-side comparison, but I've never heard of anyone who said the iPod sounded better...but countless ones (Boris' account and a review I quoted in this thread alone) which say the Zens sound better.

[Agathon]

Whether it sounds better or not is subject to interpretation.

The problem is that you aren't comparing those two in hi fi,

In hi fi you are comparing the sound of a guitarist sitting six feet in front of you with a recording of said artist playing through loudspeakers. The trick is how well it can fool you into thinking that the two are the same.

[Asher]

I think the point is I'm comparing the two of them as music players.

One outputs comparatively muddled sound, while the other one is noticably clearer.

[Agathon]

I think the point is I'm comparing the two of them as music players.

That is just what you are not doing. You are comparing them as signal preserving devices, as if anyone really cared about that given that it has little to do with heard audio quality.

One outputs comparatively muddled sound, while the other one is noticably clearer.

Not in the sense that applies to heard audio quality, that requires subjective double blind testing.

There is one fact here, and that is that comparing SNR figures will not tell you which one sounds better or which one more faithfully produces the original sound.

SNR is simply not, however you want to twist it, a measure of audio fidelity in the sense in which end users and audiophiles understand the term (i.e. what is actually heard). That is why they basically do not feature in reviews of audio equipment - because they're basically useless compared to actually conducting a listening test.

People who go on about that sort of stuff are the sort of people who think that higher wattage necessarily makes a better amplifier.

[Giancarlo]

SNR is a score of how audio sounds on an objective weight, Agathon. You can't just twist it the other way and say it is not. And any audiophile know it is not smart to buy an Ipod. But what am I saying.. afterall, I did buy the Logitech Z-5500... I don't know anything about audio *not*.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That is just what you are not doing. You are comparing them as signal preserving devices

What does a music player do if it does not preserve the signal...?

SNR is simply not, however you want to twist it, a measure of audio fidelity in the sense in which end users and audiophiles understand the term (i.e. what is actually heard).

Let me get this straight.

The ratio for how much of the actual signal is heard versus noise inadvertently introduced in the process is not a measure for audio fidelty?

That is one very peculiar, and absurd, position...

[Agathon]

Jesus...

The designer of a system for sound reproduction needs to be able to measure the system's performance in a number of areas. While this is not a measure of quality but of quantity, it is a fact that certain quantifiable measurements must be of a certain order to assure quality. That said, it is possible to design systems that sound terrible nevertheless — in other words, a quality system will attain certain measurements, but the existence of those measurements does not guarantee quality.

There you have it. A succint statement of the problems confronting the designer of audio equipment.

Good numbers does not equal quality sound reproduction in the sense that users actually care about.

The problem is that there is no knock-down objective test for what people ordinarily call "audio fidelity". I wish there was - it would make audio equipment so much better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unlike you, I actually have fashion sense.

Ok, Hot Topic boy. Do you dress up in black leather from Hot Topic and do Nazi salutes to orgasm?

[Asher]

SNR is part of a vast array of digital statistics that provide an objective benchmark for audio fidelity.

It doesn't matter, though. Subjectively with listening tests or objectively with measurements, I've never seen anyone say the iPod sounds better.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Unlike you, I actually have fashion sense.

Ok, Hot Topic boy. Do you dress up in black leather from Hot Topic and do Nazi salutes to orgasm?

What a immature dolt.

You ever see any of my pictures genius? I hardly dress up in black a lot... often a black shirt and blue jeans.... I only get some stuff from Hot Topic. I'm mainly an anchor blue boy.

[Agathon]

The ratio for how much of the actual signal is heard versus noise inadvertently introduced in the process is not a measure for audio fidelty?

Not in the sense in which hi-fi reviewers use the term.

There are too many other variables. You can have one system with better numbers than the other and it will sound like ****. Everyone who has ever tested hi fi equipment knows this. I'm surprised you don't.

This reminds me of the original CD vs vinyl debate. The first CDs of classical music were of course technically superior to vinyl, yet didn't really do as good a job as high end vinyl at actually reproducing listenable music that sounded like a concert.

Of course it's better now.