 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Hi fi is about accurately reproducing the original source. |
quote:
And as for your remarks about vinyl, it just shows how utterly ignorant of high end audio you are. A high quality turntable like a Linn LP12 produces a more pleasing sound than CD. |
Quick -- who can spot the contradiction??
Agathon, apparently you don't understand how modern digital system works. With electronics, interference is a given. The better shielded, designed, and constructed it is, the less noise will be generated.
That's what the SNR measurement is. The iPod isn't shielded very well so the electronics interfere with eachother, producing noise -- hence its 90dB SNR rating. The Zen is slightly larger, and can therefore position certain parts farther away from the chips that can produce the noise, which allows it to have a 98dB SNR.
If any audiophile doesn't understand how digital systems work and how SNR works with them (indeed calling them "useless" is like saying a 48x CD-ROM isn't necessarily faster than a 4x CD-ROM...it's about accurately reproducing the data, afterall!!), then they're the stereotypical audiophile who shuns the science of sound reproduction to the "art" of it.
And the moment you talk about the "art" of it, you completely contradict yourself if you talk about "accurately reproducing the sound".
Vinyl, after all, had a SNR of 40-50dB, 60dB if you were anal about dust constantly.
Vinyl has a "more pleasing" and "softer" sound to some, but this doesn't mean it's of higher quality.
Figure out the difference, Agathon.
Once audio entered the digital age, it became more of a science than an art. Electronic components and how they work together determines the audio quality of the output, and electronic components and how they work together can easily be measured.
The fact remains, however, you've yet to provide anything to back up your claims. SNR is certainly one of the valid metrics for sound quality, and even video quality (digital cameras, for instance). I agree it should be one of many, but you can't do a double blind test on a forum. 
So either come up with a double-blind test between the two, or just drop it. SNR is an accepted and scientific measurement of audio clarity and how well it's reproduced, you can't ignore it just because it's easier to believe Apple's overpriced iPod is better.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hmmm... statistic facts vs 'trust me, I know what sounds better'?
Agathon, you are sounding a bit foolish here. |
Yeah right. Which hi fi would you buy, the one that the statistics favour, or the one that sounds better to you? The two diverge. A system that is better on paper can be beat by a supposedly "inferior" system. Audio reproduction is in the end an art and not a science - just like recording is.
Asher can post all the stats he likes, it simplt doesn't follow that quality follows statistics. You really need real people with real ears, rather than measuring devices.
In fact I can't believe I'm even having this debate. What nutbar would think that statistics can tell you anything meaningful about artistic quality?
All the statistics in the world do not a good piece of equipment make. That's just common sense; and that's the point I've been trying to make. It's not my fault Asher doesn't understand this elementary point. That's all this "debate" comes down to. My advice to the initial poster is to listen to the two devices and make up his own mind (not that mp3 players produce awesome sound quality). That's what I do when I buy audio equipment. I tried every discman in the store before I bought my last one. 
Anyway, there is no contradiction in saying that vinyl often produces a better sound: it's a matter of fact that CD often sounds unnaturally "bright". Of course, vinyl has its limitations and you need very expensive equipment (like a Sondek) to get the best out of it, but it does tend to produce a warmer, more involving sound. Don't take my word for it, try it out yourself.
The same goes for listening to music on a dedicated audio hi fi as opposed to a home theatre system which compromised because it is designed to be used to play movie soundtracks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Yeah right. Which hi fi would you buy, the one that the statistics favour, or the one that sounds better to you? |
What's wrong with you, man?
The one that sounds better is the one that you buy.
Which is why it's best to listen to both, of course. How many times have I said this now?
But it's not possible to do that online. And the measurements of the sound clarity is a good indication of sound quality, especially with digital devices, because it is not an art and it is a science.
Sound reproduction for digital means isn't an art. Stop pretending it is.
quote:
Anyway, there is no contradiction in saying that vinyl often produces a better sound: it's a matter of fact that CD often sounds unnaturally "bright". |
That's because, if you look at the waveforms, it's not as "smooth" as analog sound. This is remedied with 24-bit formats, such as DVD-Audio and WMA9.
That's another feature where the Zen one-ups the iPod. The iPod only supports 16-bit or lower, the Zen does 24-bit or lower. Not to mention the Zen also supports WMA-lossless, which doesn't affect any quality whatsoever but is 1/4th of the original size. And when you have 20, 30, or 60 gigs -- it's very practical.
Let's face it, Agathon: You're trying desperately to know what you're talking about. You obviously haven't the faintest idea how digital media works, otherwise you'd understand the significance and accuracy of the SNR ratio and importance of 24-bit audio.
And another thing: The contradiction wasn't in saying vinyl sounded better. The contradiction was you said hi-fi nuts are all about reproducing the sound as accurately as possible, and CDs are far more accurate than vinyl is. You just think Vinyl sounds better.
See the contradiction?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah right. Which hi fi would you buy, the one that the statistics favour, or the one that sounds better to you? The two diverge. A system that is better on paper can be beat by a supposedly "inferior" system. Audio reproduction is in the end an art and not a science - just like recording is. |
Reproducing the sound is science. How your brain interprets the sound waves might be "artistic", but like all art that interpretation is a matter of personal preference. So you're right to test every walkman in the place to find one that sounds good to you, but you're sounding very much like an art snob.
quote:
Anyway, there is no contradiction in saying that vinyl often produces a better sound: it's a matter of fact that CD often sounds unnaturally "bright". Of course, vinyl has its limitations and you need very expensive equipment (like a Sondek) to get the best out of it, but it does tend to produce a warmer, more involving sound. Don't take my word for it, try it out yourself. |
That's only because the sound is compressed to well within the dynamic range of human hearing (20-20KHz)on most CD's while on LP's the sound was not compressed at all (and therefore included sounds outside of that range). The best sounding 'CDs' I have are vinyl recordings that I digitized, cleaned-up (plug for wave corrector), and burned. They are crystal clear and sound better than the vinyl.
Last edited by SpencerH on 25-07-2003 at 17:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Hi fi is about accurately reproducing the original source. |
I hope you don't mean "the sound at the original recording environment" here, 'cause that's just plain wrong- recording is an illusion, created through skilful mixing, overlays, electric and electronic doodads, mastering, whatever. However accurate two speakers are at reproducing the sounds of "an orchestra", thinking of music like that completely bypasses the point of a recording, the fact that it brings additional things to the sound that can never be done live. To that end, the perfect setup for any particular recording may be everything from mono to full-on surround, depending on the creative intentions of the producer in question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
However accurate two speakers are at reproducing the sounds of "an orchestra", thinking of music like that completely bypasses the point of a recording, the fact that it brings additional things to the sound that can never be done live. To that end, the perfect setup for any particular recording may be everything from mono to full-on surround, depending on the creative intentions of the producer in question. |
I agree completely
Indeed, for example look at The Flaming Lips' album Zaireeka which requires 4 cd stereos to be played properly. In other words, a bit more than 2 speakers. (which reminds me, in my new setup I could pull that off without having to move anything around...)
Nowadays artists and producers know that they can do more things, be more creative using the different channels, and they take full advantage of it, sometimes. This isn't the 70's anymore Agathon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
What's wrong with you, man?
The one that sounds better is the one that you buy.
Which is why it's best to listen to both, of course. How many times have I said this now? |
How many times have I said that. 
quote:
But it's not possible to do that online. And the measurements of the sound clarity is a good indication of sound quality, especially with digital devices, because it is not an art and it is a science. |
Yeah, OK - go buy your audio equipment based on numbers. 
quote:
Sound reproduction for digital means isn't an art. Stop pretending it is. |
All sound reproduction is an art. That's why British made hi fi equipment tends to sound "different" from US made equipment. It's an art in the same way that graphic design is an art: sure we might use technology to get better results, but the end result is an aesthetic judgement by the human ear. There's no escaping that.
quote:
That's because, if you look at the waveforms, it's not as "smooth" as analog sound. This is remedied with 24-bit formats, such as DVD-Audio and WMA9. |
It's made it better, but it still isn't the same.
quote:
Let's face it, Agathon: You're trying desperately to know what you're talking about. You obviously haven't the faintest idea how digital media works, otherwise you'd understand the significance and accuracy of the SNR ratio and importance of 24-bit audio. |
And you obviously have no idea what makes good hi fi.
quote:
And another thing: The contradiction wasn't in saying vinyl sounded better. The contradiction was you said hi-fi nuts are all about reproducing the sound as accurately as possible, and CDs are far more accurate than vinyl is. You just think Vinyl sounds better.
See the contradiction? |
Nope. A vinyl recording of an orchestra simply sounds more like a real orchestra than many CDs. I know, I go to concerts.
CDs tend to suffer from what audiophiles call "brightness" - an unnatural hardness and edge to the sound. Vinyl doesn't. The advantage of CDs is that they last longer and don't suffer interference from scratches. It also is a lot less expensive to get good sound out of CD than it is out of vinyl.
It's as simple as that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I hope you don't mean "the sound at the original recording environment" here, 'cause that's just plain wrong- recording is an illusion, created through skilful mixing, overlays, electric and electronic doodads, mastering, whatever. However accurate two speakers are at reproducing the sounds of "an orchestra", thinking of music like that completely bypasses the point of a recording, the fact that it brings additional things to the sound that can never be done live. To that end, the perfect setup for any particular recording may be everything from mono to full-on surround, depending on the creative intentions of the producer in question. |
I'm not really interested in electronic music. I prefer the sound of real instruments played in real spaces - having bongos playing behind your head may be an interesting technical feat, but I fail to see the point of it. All music other than classical and some jazz is basically kids' stuff anyway. Whoever said I was an art snob is right.
In fact recording need not be an illusion created by all that crap. The best orchestral recordings I have were made with very few microphones. The later practice of extreme multimiking tended to produce an unrealistic sound picture.
I'd rather have a pair of ESL 63s because they simply have no peer at creating a 3 dimensional sound picture of an orchestra. They aren't shabby at reproducing electric instruments either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hmmm... statistic facts vs 'trust me, I know what sounds better'?
Agathon, you are sounding a bit foolish here. |
Welcome to debating Agathon. Look at our Iowa vs. Bismarck argument. He wouldn't consider any of the statistics, but just went with his "gut feeling" that the supposed superiority of a German gunnery crew would enable Bismarck to beat a battleship that was technologically superior in every way.
quote:
Originally posted by AgathonNope. A vinyl recording of an orchestra simply sounds more like a real orchestra than many CDs. I know, I go to concerts. |
I go to rather a lot of concerts. Hell, I perform in them. I also have a pretty good sound system at home, with a turntable. I can say, unequivocably, that CD sound is superior in terms of generating a "realistic" quality than vinyl. There is a big difference in quality between analog and digital recordings, yes--but if you take an analog on vinyl and an analog transferred to CD, the CD sound will be superior (assuming equal skill in making the media). I have the same performance of Mahler's 5th on both vinyl and CD, and the CD is better all-round.
Many people don't know how to treat audio CDs to get the maximum sound benefit. Some recordings suffer from "digititis," where the lower voices are murky and muddles. Using a simple black permanent marker on the bottom of the CD around the edge, and then making spokes to the center will improve the sound incredibly.
I suggest you check out Decca's new releases of classical music (the "Legends" series). They are 96kHz 24-bit super digital transfers, and they blow away any vinyl I've heard of the same recordings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Welcome to debating Agathon. Look at our Iowa vs. Bismarck argument. He wouldn't consider any of the statistics, but just went with his "gut feeling" that the supposed superiority of a German gunnery crew would enable Bismarck to beat a battleship that was technologically superior in every way. |
And was taking advantage of technology that may or may not have been installed on the Bismarck had it survived to the end of the war. In any case I posted plenty of material showing that the Iowa class' performance at long ranges was plagued with problems.
quote:
I go to rather a lot of concerts. Hell, I perform in them. I also have a pretty good sound system at home, with a turntable. |
What do you have?
quote:
I can say, unequivocably, that CD sound is superior in terms of generating a "realistic" quality than vinyl. There is a big difference in quality between analog and digital recordings, yes--but if you take an analog on vinyl and an analog transferred to CD, the CD sound will be superior (assuming equal skill in making the media). I have the same performance of Mahler's 5th on both vinyl and CD, and the CD is better all-round. |
Well, I've had the opposite experience - albeit on a pretty expensive turntable (not mine BTW - as a poor student I can't afford one).
quote:
Many people don't know how to treat audio CDs to get the maximum sound benefit. Some recordings suffer from "digititis," where the lower voices are murky and muddles. Using a simple black permanent marker on the bottom of the CD around the edge, and then making spokes to the center will improve the sound incredibly. |
That's not what bothers me. It's the "brightness" that many CDs seem prone to (this is mainly a problem with digital recordings though).
quote:
I suggest you check out Decca's new releases of classical music (the "Legends" series). They are 96kHz 24-bit super digital transfers, and they blow away any vinyl I've heard of the same recordings. |
Check out the represses of the old "Living Stereo" stuff (particularly the Reiner - Bartok disc). Those sound pretty damn good (stellar actually) IMHO better than the CD transfers.
I have a couple of the "Legends" series, the Kertesz "Bluebeard's Castle", which is very good and the Walter/Ferrier "Das Lied von der Erde" which is not too bad, even for mono.
Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to try these out on a good system since I left my hi fi back in NZ and sold my speakers. My current apartment is an acoustic nightmare so I haven't bothered bringing over my CD player and amplifier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Now, I know, I don't personally consider classical music to be art since it just involves meaningless and shallow reproduction of some original creative act hundreds of years ago, but even if you do surely there's no additional meaning added on by the record? Whereas in living music, of course, the very act of recording brings out qualities in the material- the record in the Rock idiom is intensely meaningful, in many ways the very essence of the musical form whatever live enthusiasts may say. Why sell yourself short? If you're not going to listen to music where the recording matters as part of the art, why do you need to listen to recordings at all? |
How many times do I have to point out how wrong you are in this? You claim rock music finds the record idiom so meaningful, but how can you say the same isn't true for classical music? The great classical recordings feature performances that are intensely meaningful and deep to the performers at the time, and it is, consequently, magnificent art. Coupling this with your comments in the Basque thread, I sincerely have to wonder if you make it a habit to spout out on things of which you're intensely ignorant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So then Agathon, if you want the sound of an orchestra, why not go see a live concert? Why waste money on expensive stereo equipment if you're not getting any additional pleasure out of it? |
I do. Well I haven't for a while since my last experience listening to the TSO had me on the verge of killing people who were talking during the performance and tapping their feet (to Sibelius of all things).
I wasted money on expensive stereo equipment because much of the music I want to listen to is not regularly performed by any orchestra, much less the TSO. I mean hardly anyone is going to mount a performance of Bantock's Celtic Symphony because it requires six harps!
quote:
Now, I know, I don't personally consider classical music to be art since it just involves meaningless and shallow reproduction of some original creative act hundreds of years ago, but even if you do surely there's no additional meaning added on by the record? |
It's about quality of reproduction. The problem with listening to an orchestra on record is that it requires a fairly expensive setup to get a reasonable sound picture of the orchestra.
quote:
Whereas in living music, of course, the very act of recording brings out qualities in the material - the record in the Rock idiom is intensely meaningful, in many ways the very essence of the musical form whatever live enthusiasts may say. Why sell yourself short? If you're not going to listen to music where the recording matters as part of the art, why do you need to listen to recordings at all? |
Well that's overstating the case. If I listen to, say, the first Dire Straits album, I want to hear the authentic sound of Mark Knopfler's custom Stratocaster. Presumably the engineer(s) mixed that record so that it sounded as good as possible, testing it on their studio monitors (probably B&W 801s or whatever they had). I want to recapture what they heard as best as possible, so I would need hi fidelity equipment to do so. If I didn't want to get as good a soundstage as possible I might as well listen to it in mono.
The only difference in this case is that you are trying to reproduce the exact sound emitted from the studio monitors rather than a live performance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
I would just like to say that it as a nice attempt of a threadjack, but in the end of the day Agathon still loses badly.
CD > Vinyl in audio quality.
Zen > iPod in audio quality, battery life, audio functionality, and storage. And a cheaper price.
You've admirably tried to divert this discussion into one about why you're an Audio God, but that too has failed. You have obviously no idea how digital music works.
You have no idea how little of an art digital audio reproduction is. The "art" aspect occurs when the producer/mixer mixes the song, and the artist(s) perform them. Once it's recorded, it is purely a science (indeed, mathematical and electrical) on how this music is recorded onto media and played back.
There is no art involved.
SNR measurements for digital devices are accurate and reproducable. You may think one sounds better because of the extra noise for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean its audio quality is higher.
The Zen is larger and constructed better (probably due to 10+ years in digital audio hardware development on Creative's behalf) to produce less electronic noise, which results in a 98dB SNR rating, while the iPod has a "satisfactory" 90dB.
You're paying more for less with the iPods, but it's more stylish. It follows Apple's MO well, with overpriced and underpowered computers but a loyal following which will deny the obvious (see this thread) and pay up for such products.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
|
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The great classical recordings feature performances that are intensely meaningful and deep to the performers at the time, and it is, consequently, magnificent art. |
Okay, skipping past the "reproducing the feelings that the original artist intended with the sole aim of copying them as exactly as possible isn't art" debate (I know that many classical musicians do try to bring something addtional to the performance, though it is hardly in the league of a good rock cover ), that was not what I meant. Certainly the performance recorded can be meaningful, but is the recording itself therefore meaningful?
I think Budapest's Keleti railway station is one of the most beautiful building spaces in the world. Does this mean I think a photograph of it is artistically interesting? No, not unless the photograph itself adds on another layer. There's a difference between an artistic rendering of another artwork and a straightforward, uninteresting reproduction of it. Now, I could look at a postcard of Keleti and it could appeal to me as an evocation, but I wouldn't go around and claim that postcard is art!
Compare the work of the producer/recording engineer in a pop studio to one in a classical concert hall. The ideal of the latter is exactitude- his success is measured only in how little his recording differs from the performance he recorded. The former, however, measures his success in addative terms- what additional dimensions has he brought to the record? With electrified music there's no such thing as the "pure" sound anyway, since everything is run through various speakers and amps and machines, so even a live performance has had sonic contributions from a sound mixer at the very least. A record has many other potential additions, from mere cleanup to entire complex arrangements and their appropriately mixed levels. A great record producer and engineer (or team containing both) will even more than the artist or the individual musicians have been a major creative force in any individual recording.
Not slagging off the people who record classical music, but what they're doing is certainly not art.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I would just like to say that it as a nice attempt of a threadjack, but in the end of the day Agathon still loses badly. |
In your pathetic little dreams.
quote:
CD > Vinyl in audio quality. |
On cheaper systems, yes. With a top of the line turntable, like an LP 12, in my opinion based on my experience, no. Tell me Asher, how many times have you sat down and listened to such a turntable (which with it's extras costs more than your "home theater" system) accompanied with top of the line amplification and good electrostatic speakers? I've made it clear that this is where vinyl shines. Unfortunately most of us mortals can't afford such equipment.
I'm willing to bet, none. In fact I'm willing to bet you'd never heard of Quad or Linn before this thread started. Have you ever compared the sound of the ESL 63s against B&W's flagship Nautilus speakers? This is serious audio equipment, not the stuff you can get at Best Buy or Future Shop.
If there is a debate between CD and vinyl it takes place so far above your head and so far beyond your experience with audio equipment and your taste in music to make your opinion worthless.
quote:
Zen > iPod in audio quality, battery life, audio functionality, and storage. And a cheaper price. |
The first is unproven unless we buy your "numbers = audio quality" thesis, which is so patently ridiculous that I'm surprised you've persisted with it. The only way to prove it is to have a blind listening session with both.
The ipod beats the Zen on design (it's simply far better looking and cooler), size (it's smaller), I have no idea of what you mean by the vague phrase "audio functionality" and it's support of the iTMS which is the best way of buying digital music on the net. And the ipod's software itunes kicks the living crap out of the interface disaster that the Zen uses and the poorly implemented alternatives.
These are the facts. Determining which has the better sound quality cannot be decided by looking at numbers or posting on this forum. Those are also facts.
quote:
You've admirably tried to divert this discussion into one about why you're an Audio God, but that too has failed. You have obviously no idea how digital music works. |
You have no idea about hi fidelity music reproduction. I don't consider myself an audio god by any means. I have an interest in high quality music reproduction because I like music that requires it.
quote:
You have no idea how little of an art digital audio reproduction is. The "art" aspect occurs when the producer/mixer mixes the song, and the artist(s) perform them. Once it's recorded, it is purely a science (indeed, mathematical and electrical) on how this music is recorded onto media and played back.
There is no art involved. |
This is complete pants and demonstrates your complete and total ignorance of hi fi. Read a review in a good hi fi magazine. Those reviews are wholly about how well the engineers have tweaked the system to produce the best sound. There's a well known phrase in hi fi circles, "the British sound" which refers to the kind of sound favoured by the elite British hi fi manufacturers. This sound is described in aesthetic terms (e.g. cultured, well balanced) and is what the engineers aim to produce. It's an art pure and simple.
quote:
SNR measurements for digital devices are accurate and reproducable. You may think one sounds better because of the extra noise for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean its audio quality is higher. |
So according to you "audio quality" means something entirely different from what people can detect with their ears. This is the most astonishingly stupid statement I've heard in a gallery of daft things you've said. In essence you are saying, audio quality has nothing to do with what people can actually hear.
quote:
The Zen is larger and constructed better (probably due to 10+ years in digital audio hardware development on Creative's behalf) to produce less electronic noise, which results in a 98dB SNR rating, while the iPod has a "satisfactory" 90dB. |
But does it sound better? Is the sound well balanced, or do some frequencies predominate in a manner that distorts the music? Are there other sound problems? Noise is not the only relevant factor.
Look, if I went into a good stereo shop and said I want the one that produces the lowest bass frequencies and everything else doesn't matter, they'd think I was mad. The same goes in this case.
quote:
You're paying more for less with the iPods, but it's more stylish. |
This is exactly what I said in a previous post. You pay for the design. It's better looking and more compact.
quote:
It follows Apple's MO well, with overpriced and underpowered computers but a loyal following which will deny the obvious (see this thread) and pay up for such products. |
Don't start this crap again. Apple has had a bad few years keeping up because of Motorola's problems. Those days are over - most people expect Apple to keep reasonable pace with its competitors. It may not produce the absolutely fastest machine on the planet (although I think such comparisons are silly), but it will produce respectable machines for the people who want to use its software.
Frankly, being virus free and not having to use the stupid Windows interface is enough for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
If there is a debate between CD and vinyl it takes place so far above your head and so far beyond your experience with audio equipment and your taste in music to make your opinion worthless. |
I'd say my opinion on this matter is far more relevant.
You, without a doubt, have no clue how digital audio works.
And, amazingly, the iPod and Zen are digital players.
In these cases, the measurement numbers (specifically, the SNR and harmonic distortion figures) are accurate and do have a direct bearing on quality. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Rant and rave about how a $60,000 vinyl LP is of better quality if you want, but don't make me go into why you think that for psychological reasons.
Vinyl simply doesn't capture as much information. It only sounds "better" to some people because instead of being stored as 1s and 0s, it's as an analog signal (which has a far more curved waveform). It is not of higher quality, one can argue it is "smoother" but this is not the case with 96KHz/24-bit recordings (which are, in fact, the format music is recorded in anyways).
quote:
The first is unproven unless we buy your "numbers = audio quality" thesis, which is so patently ridiculous that I'm surprised you've persisted with it. |
Why don't you come back when you understand how digital audio works before making such a stupid statement?
Similarly, let's talk about CD-ROMs. "Your numbers = transfer speeds thesis is patently ridiculous. It is obvious that transfer speeds are an art, as I've proven time and time again by demonstrating the niceness of the appearance of magnesium products. I'm surprised you've persisted with it..."
quote:
I have no idea of what you mean by the vague phrase "audio functionality" |
It supports up to 24-bit audio (vs 16-bit on the iPod).
It supports 96KHz frequencies (vs 48KHz max on the iPod).
It supports a far more powerful equalizer, which is a nice despite the fact that you think people should be murdered for using it. I quite like it. I also like adding the stadium-type effects to some songs, or the high-pitched vocals, just because it's nice for a change sometimes.
quote:
These are the facts. |
These are the facts.
1) The Zen has better audio quality measurements, whether you'd like to pretend they exist in fantasy land is up to you. But you're being a moron.
2) The Zen has more powerful DSP chip.
3) The Zen lasts nearly twice as long on a single battery charge.
4) The Zen supports far higher quality audio formats.
5) The Zen is cheaper.
Argue these facts all you want, but you'd be wasting your breath and tarnishing your already abysmal reputation.
quote:
Determining which has the better sound quality cannot be decided by looking at numbers or posting on this forum. Those are also facts. |
Indeed, it is fact that the SNR has absolutely nothing to do with digital audio quality, much like the X-rating for CD-ROMs has nothing to do with maximum transfer speed. These are facts, right?  You've supported them so well!
quote:
You have no idea about hi fidelity music reproduction. |
And obviously you do, because SNR is some mysterious number to you! You apparently have no idea how it is measured or what it signifies, since you seem to believe it means nothing...
quote:
So according to you "audio quality" means something entirely different from what people can detect with their ears. This is the most astonishingly stupid statement I've heard in a gallery of daft things you've said. In essence you are saying, audio quality has nothing to do with what people can actually hear. |
It's astonishingly stupid because your feeble mind seems to not be able to comprehend it, or perhaps you think you're pulling a fast one by feigning ignorance. But, it doesn't matter.
My point is absolutely true: If you think something "sounds better", it does not necessarily mean it's of higher quality. For example, suppose I like a mono-channel, 20Kbps version of a song that I've converted from a regular stereo 1400Kbps CD audio stream. I think it sounds better! I like the simplicity of mono and the weird background clicking noises, it adds so much to music! But is it of better quality?
No.
Much like some people think Vinyl "sounds better" because it has a "warmer" feel, but it is inarguably of worse quality.
quote:
Frankly, being virus free and not having to use the stupid Windows interface is enough for me. |
I'm virus free, and I'm glad I don't have to put up with the stupid OS X interface (one menu-bar unrelated to the position of the window, single-process-per-program restriction, overly-flashy GUI).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Unless you do provide something to claim the iPod has better sound quality, the measurements alone are well enough to determine that the Zen has better audio quality unless you prove otherwise. |
You do realise that you've been attacking a straw man.
Nowhere have I claimed that the ipod has better sound quality. In fact I've said repeatedly that I don't know. It may well have, in fact I suspect it probably does, given the reviews I've seen, but I'm not certain so I'll withold judgement. The reason I've said I don't know is that I haven't tested the players against each other.
And as I've pointed out to you, giving one measurement doesn't prove anything. If it did, people would buy their audio systems by looking at the numbers and reviewers would simply compare numbers. But in the real world they don't. The fact that they don't shows your "argument" up for the pathetic blather it is.
SNR ratings alone are simply not sufficient to make a worthwhile judgement about audio quality, even if that's all you have. There are so many other variables that it's simply irrational to take only one.
Fact: SNR ratings are not sufficient to determine overall audio quality. If they were that's all people would use, but nobody does. It's no good saying that this proves that one must believe the Zen to be better, because the rational thing to do is find out more, which is my position.
It's as if you asked me whether I thought one car was better than another solely based on it's fuel efficiency statistics. All I could say is that it was more fuel efficient. I'm not really entitled to say anything else since I don't know. It would be completely stupid of me to say that as far as I know it's a better car because I know virtually nothing concerning the most important matters, and I know that I don't know - the probability of my being wrong is too high.
But that is, in essence, what you are doing.
I can't believe you've spent over three pages pushing this patently fallacious argument.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-07-2003 22:27
|