Since They will No Longer Make CD's

heiney9

Jitter is found everywhere in the digital music production chain.

H9

steveinaz

I get jitter after my 2nd pot of coffee, and it actually enhances my performance.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

Simply not true, but ok if you say so. You obviously haven't done a lot of research.

I will say it one more time, then I'm done.

The debate about jitter (any jitter, not just what Beef seems to be selectively talking about) is not whether it manifests itself but how it affects the final outcome and whether or not we can hear all the various types.

That said.................after work I will be enjoyng my rig.

heiney9 wrote: »

Jitter is found everywhere in the digital music production chain.

H9

You claim to have such a deep understanding of jitter, yet this statement proves otherwise. It has been stated many times that jitter only affects timing-dependent applications. This is stated in the Linn document, as well as many others. This is not something that is up for debate, but is something that lies in the very definition "jitter." Since not all parts of the digital production chain are timing-dependent, not all can be affected by jitter. This is a very simple concept, yet it seems to remain outside of your grasp.

headrott wrote: »

BeefJerky, you need to think of the digital signal as more than "a stream of numbers". Those numbers are still made from electrons passing through wires, capacitors, resistors, transistors, etc. There is still an effect on those electrons by those components. The 1's and 0's are therefore effected by those components. So, when the 1's and 0's end up in a digial "bit for bit" file, those 1's and 0's are in theory an unaffected 1 or 0 but that is assuming a true perfect transfer of those electrons. That is, those electrons are not affected by any component and are "perfectly" transferred from one source to another. There is no "perfect" transfer of electrons in a computer system or any electronic compenent(s). Also, those electrons still have to travel through space and time and are affected by that travel. Even though there is a "correction" for this, it is again not a perfect correction. If you believe there is a perfect transfer in an analog or digital realm, perhaps you don't understand what you are saying as well as you suggest. As I have stated before, my ears and brain let me hear that there is no perfect transfer.

The nice thing about how modern error correction works, is that we also know when said error correction fails. This is applicable to the CD ripping process, as the CD drive will report that the error correction has failed, so you know that you have a problem. This also goes for reading or writing to a hard drive; the drive will report that the error correction failed. Same goes for computer memory as well as the multiple interfaces inside of a computer. They all have error correction and detection. If it still fails during a retry, you will know. This is inherent to error correction, and the proper functioning of computers. If it weren't for this, your computer wouldn't be able to function reliably for anything

As for jitter, that is not an error of incorrect data, but a timing failure. As has also been stated, that only applies to timing-dependent devices. In terms of this discussion, that means your sound card or DAC. If you rip your disc properly, those are the only parts of the chain that are able to be affected by digital "errors" or jitter.

Again, what do your ears and brain hear?

I only trust my ears and brain so much. I am fully aware that humans have limitations and are not perfect systems. Knowing that is an important part of life, IMO. As for your ears hearing differences between two different lossless files or sources, it really is just a failure of the human system; nothing more, nothing less. The placebo effect has been proven time and time again in science, and the typical audiophile's refusal to acknowledge that is just pathetic.

steveinaz

Well, in all fairness; accepting that placebo is present 100% of the time is also pathetic, no? Otherwise we'd all be rockin our Grand Prix systems from Walmart, right next to the Hello Kitty edition CD player.

headrott

You only addressed a portion of what I brought up. And, you talked about something I didn't bring up directly (jitter). Please address what I talked about and not just a portion of it.

But again, you are assuming a perfect error correction. It doesn't exist. There is a tolerance level of that error correction. If that tolerance level is met or exceeded, then the error correction comes into play. Any errors that fall below said error correction tolerance will not be corrected.

Also, any digital signal is timing dependant (jitter). All digital signals travel through space and time no matter what type of device we are talking about. Some digital signals may have shorter distances to travel and therefore are less affected by timing issues, but they are still affected.

Greg

Edit: Also, are you trying to tell me what I am hearing? That is impossible. First off, you don't have my ears, brain and conciousness. And second, you have never heard my audio system.

Greg

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

You only addressed a portion of what I brought up. And, you talked about something I didn't bring up directly (jitter). Please address what I talked about and not just a portion of it.

I did. Error correction clearly contradicts everything you stated, so I didn't need to go into further detail.

But again, you are assuming a perfect error correction. It doesn't exist. There is a tolerance level of that error correction. If that tolerance level is met or exceeded, then the error correction comes into play. Any errors that fall below said error correction tolerance will not be corrected.

Please feel free to elaborate on this so-called "tolerance level" of error correction that you claim exists. This is simply further proof that you do not understand how digital devices and error correction work.

Also, any digital signal is timing dependant (jitter). All digital signals travel through space and time no matter what type of device we are talking about. Some digital signals may have shorter distances to travel and therefore are less affected by timing issues, but they are still affected.

Yes, but it doesn't come into play with the underlying audio data. For example, a SATA drive and controller operate synchronously. However, the underlying audio data that is being transferred is still timing-independent at that stage, so it would be unaffected by any sort of SATA timing issues, such as a delay. The player isn't affected by and doesn't care whether a piece of the file is delayed or ahead by a certain amount of time.

Once the audio data leaves the player and heads to the sound card, that is when jitter can begin to take affect. DAC's are a real-time device that is timing-dependent, and since they receive the raw audio data, they can be affected by the timing of it.

Edit: Also, are you trying to tell me what I am hearing? That is impossible. First off, you don't have my ears, brain and conciousness. And second, you have never heard my audio system.

No, but will tell you what you don't hear. You do not actually hear any difference between two different lossless files that are encoded from the same data. This means there is no difference to be heard between an Apple Lossless file and a FLAC file. There is also no difference to be heard between a FLAC file and a WAV file. Finally, there is no difference to be heard between a bit-for-bit copy of a CD and the CD itself.

heiney9

Actually this is all moot

Jitter exists in the time domain so it doesn't matter if you are pulling digital info from a polycarbonate disc or a HD because in order for it to be audible as an analog waveform the digital information has to pass through a time/domain process. That is where the jitter is introduced. Jitter is present in the original recording and it will be transferred along the chain regardless of whether or not it's on disc or HD. A poly carbonate disc has just as much jitter as a HD since both are just the vehicle and once the 1 and 0 get flowing down the road jitter is introduced.

So I say who the flip cares about HD or CD it matters not since jitter will be introduced in the same manner for both. And the jitter recorded on the cd during the recrding process won't magically disapper just because you rip it to a hard drive. Once jitter is recorded on the cd, the only way to get rid of it is to make another master.

Having music stored on a HD or CD, neither has better nor worse jitter characteristics.

H9

Face

Brock, that's a huge over-generalization.

heiney9

Face wrote: »

Brock, that's a huge over-generalization.

I was basically rehashing all that Beefjerky has stated in this thread as I understand it. I don't believe that, but that's what I gleen from everything BJ is stating, although he has yet to prove anything beyond his opinion.

H9

sucks2beme

I have had cd's that can't be ripped, but do play on CDPs. My take, the CDP does a best effort.
As long as it doesn't hit too big of a burst to "skip", it continues on. EAC on the other hand
will not accept it and trys over and over to read the disc. I've had scratch free disks that can't be ripped.
Mostly, they are mid 80's CDs. These same disks gave some high end CDPs fits as well.
Mid-fi units had no problems with them. Being a cheap ****, I just copied them, and then ripped them.
I can hear something isn't right with a couple tracks of the five or six discs in question, but it was either
this or re-buy the disc. The solution to the debate is to download hi-res files. No CD means there are no
read errors. Unfortunately most of the music I'd be interested in will never be released this way.
Let's face it, although some stuff has been made available in hi-res download, SACD, etc,
most of it never will be. The real money has been in crappy low res DRM to death Itunes.
That's where the market bulk is, and most likely will stay. Like 2 channel and tubes, it is a small
part of the world. I enjoy my system more now that my music is easier accessed. If that makes
me a bad person, so be it. It more that matches the performance of many mid-level CDPs and I
don't have to hunt for my music. I'm not going back to that, or to spinning vinyl.
This hobby can be enjoyed at many levels. I go with what makes me happy. How did
something so simple get so damn hard?

headrott

BeefJerky, your method of argument is to twist what others say to mean something other than the original meaning (as evidenced by the last part of your last reply for starters). Or, you don't fully answer what is being adressed, saying that the portion of what you stated is enought to cover the topic completely. Forgive me if I call BS. Since (IMO) you are the one that cannot have a rational conversation (although you accuse others of not being able to) and reply fully to the subjects being discussed I will have to not participate anymore as we are not going anywhere with this (partial) discussion.

Also, please don't try and tell me what I am hearing (or not hearing) with my ears, brain, consciousnous, and equpiment. You haven't the slightest clue what I can or cannot hear. Thank you.

Greg

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

I was basically rehashing all that Beefjerky has stated in this thread as I understand it. I don't believe that, but that's what I gleen from everything BJ is stating, although he has yet to prove anything beyond his opinion.

And yet you still managed to get things wrong. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother typing out these posts out since it is clear that some posters don't actually bother to read them. Maybe I just like to dance to the masochism tango. However, I will go through your prior post point by point.

heiney9 wrote: »

Actually this is all moot

Jitter exists in the time domain so it doesn't matter if you are pulling digital info from a polycarbonate disc or a HD because in order for it to be audible as an analog waveform the digital information has to pass through a time/domain process. That is where the jitter is introduced.

This is absolutely correct. Here is the definition of jitter as it relates to digital audio:
http://stereos.about.com/od/glossaryoftermsj/g/jitter.htm
The first line of the definition is key here:
"Jitter is an error in a digital circuit caused by timing variations of the discrete samples that make up a digital signal."

Since jitter is a timing error, the raw audio data must go through a time-dependent device or process in order to exist.

Jitter is present in the original recording and it will be transferred along the chain regardless of whether or not it's on disc or HD.

EFM jitter is a type of jitter that is present on the original CD. A good explanation of it comes from Linn:
http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/CD_Ripping_Terminology
Here is the crux of the explanation:
"Unfortunately, because the CD mastering and replication processes are not perfect, errors occur in the shape and position of the bumps. These physical errors translate into timing errors in the recovered EFM signal and this is what is termed EFM Jitter. Because EFM jitter is always present, the CD reading process is designed to be immune to it ? up to a point. "

This type of jitter will generally be corrected via the error correction present on CDs. However, if the jitter is excessive then the error correction will fail. This type of jitter is not directly dependent on whether you are using a PC CD drive or a CDP. However, a PC CD drive might actually handle this better in some cases due to the larger buffer they use compared to a typical standalone CDP. This will only be the case if the cause is an offset pit. However, if it is a misshaped pit, the larger buffer will make no difference.

At any rate, this type of jitter is generally due to problems with the disc such as flaws in the pits, or imbalanced discs. Both of these problems are inherent to the CD and are not related to the particular mechanism used to play/rip the disc. In some rare instances, a defective or poor quality mechanism can cause EFM jitter, however, that can be eliminated by replacing the PC CD drive or CDP.

As with any other type of error correction fail, the following will happen:
1) If played on a CDP, the player will interpolate (guess the missing part) of the waveform; or, if it is too much to interpolate, it will cause a click or skip in the sound.
2) If ripped via a PC CD drive, null data will be inserted, and it will cause a click or a skip in the sound.

Please note that this type of jitter is independent of the audio signal since the EMF clock is completely decoupled from the audio clock.

In addition, one can also experience problems with read offset jitter. However, this is rare and is due to using some old or extremely low quality PC CD drives which cannot consistently start its reads at the same offset value. This is not really a problem anymore since nearly all PC CD drives are accurate stream capable.

A poly carbonate disc has just as much jitter as a HD since both are just the vehicle and once the 1 and 0 get flowing down the road jitter is introduced.

This is not correct. First, hard drives are not susceptible to EFM jitter due to differences in the way they store their data.

Second, any form of removable media will be more susceptible to mechanical instabilities than a hard drive. Remember how unreliable removable hard drives were (i.e. Jaz drives)? This was part of the reason.

Third, hard drives have much more resilient error correction, so even if there is any sort of jitter while reading from the magnetic media, it will be eliminated. Besides, if you are getting read or write errors on your hard drive, it is time for a new one.

Note that SSD's really are the holy grail for media storage, and will likely replace HDD's at some point. However, they are too expensive for large collections as of now.

So I say who the flip cares about HD or CD it matters not since jitter will be introduced in the same manner for both. And the jitter recorded on the cd during the recrding process won't magically disapper just because you rip it to a hard drive.

This is pretty much the case. If jitter is present in the original master or on the CD itself, ripping won't magically make it go away.

Once jitter is recorded on the cd the only way to get rid of it is to make another master.

That depends on the source of the jitter:
1) ADC - a new master will still have the same jitter.
2) Worn master - a new master will solve it.
3) Mechanical problem with stamper - it will need to be repaired, however, unless the master is damaged it will not need to be replaced.

Having music stored on a HD or CD, neither has better nor worse jitter characteristics.

This is not really correct. The types of jitter mentioned above that are relevant to audio are simply not inherent to hard drive based storage. The CD, on the other hand, does have these limitations. However, as noted above, the ripping process will not magically make jitter problems on the CD go away. If it is unable to be accounted for via the buffer or corrected via error correction, then the bad data will end up in stored file. This issue is related to the CD itself, and not the the PC or hard drive.

Now, none of your post here brings up the issue of sampling jitter. Here is an exert from Linn's site on the matter:
"It is important to note, however, that Sampling Jitter is only important at the point of conversion between the digital and analog domains. Whilst the signal is in the digital domain, the sample period is just a number, and as such has no jitter. It is impossible, therefore, for Sampling Jitter to be generated by any lossless CD ripping process. It is, however, possible for Sampling Jitter to be generated by lossy processes such as sample rate conversion."

This is something that I've stated all along, yet some choose to ignore the facts. This jitter will only occur during the analog to digital or digital to analog conversion phase. In the case of pressed CD's the analog to digital phase is out of our hands, so we hope the record companies got it right. We can control the jitter that happens during the digital to analog phase though. This includes having a stable clock at the digital output and a quality DAC. For a computer based system, an external USB to SPDIF converter would be recommended due to the high amounts of noise present in a PC. Assuming that external SPDIF converter has a stable clock, jitter will be kept to a minimum.

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

BeefJerky, your method of argument is to twist what others say to mean something other than the original meaning (as evidenced by the last part of your last reply for starters).

Please give me an example.

Or, you don't fully answer what is being adressed, saying that the portion of what you stated is enought to cover the topic completely.

It was enough to cover your arguments. Error correction methods prove every single one of your claims in post #122 wrong.

Forgive me if I call BS.

Forgive me if I call it as well. I'm still waiting for an explanation of your so-called "error correction tolerance" that you brought up in post #127. However, I know that you cannot give one since it does not exist. Modern error correction and detection is designed to fix an error or detect a failure to correct. There is no tolerance, and error correction will not let a "small error" through. This is simply not how it works. If it actually worked this way, your computer would not function.

Considering this was your whole defense to my perfectly valid retort, your whole argument is invalid. Bits will occasionally get changed, but error correction and detection with either fix it or it will trigger a retry when it fails.

Since (IMO) you are the one that cannot have a rational conversation (although you accuse others of not being able to) and reply fully to the subjects being discussed I will have to not participate anymore as we are not going anywhere with this (partial) discussion.

I'm willing and able to back up my claims, are you?

Also, please don't try and tell me what I am hearing (or not hearing) with my ears, brain, consciousnous, and equpiment. You haven't the slightest clue what I can or cannot hear. Thank you.

Sorry, but mathematics really can prove you wrong on the whole lossless debate. Enjoy your placebo effect.

steveinaz

My argument that HDD music may sound better has nothing to do with jitter (though it could be a factor--it's not the focus of my point), IMO it has to do with the method of storage, and removing a boat-load of unnecessary processes/electronics that are required for an optical drive to operate. Not to mention inconsistencies that can occur with mass-produced CD's.

It's a hunch, nothing more. When I A/B the optical drive against the HD (both running dig coax thru my Benchmark DAC), the HD displays better revealing of subtle details, smoother/longer decay, and smoother treble tonal character. Voices appear more realistically shifted to the midrange, giving them a more organic tone. Again, take it for what it's worth. The differences are subtle, for sure, but recognizable in a consistent manner.

I'm not "married" to any of my equipment, so I don't bother with blind testing---I simply listen, and the better component wins. It's just that simple. I'm after the TRUTH, not bragging rights. And for the labcoat wearing types, like it or not, perception is reality.

[cue music]"If loving Placebo is wrong, I don't wanna be right"[/music]

F1nut

BeefJerky wrote:

Sorry, but mathematics really can prove you wrong on the whole lossless debate. Enjoy your placebo effect.

Wow, just wow!

steveinaz

I guess he set us straight.

Serendipity

This thread is filled with generalizations and just barely scratches the surface of what's going on.

I took two semesters worth of courses on digital and still feel my knowledge is at the fundamentals level.

Serendipity, BSEE

WilliamM2

steveinaz wrote: »

My argument that HDD music may sound better has nothing to do with jitter (though it could be a factor--it's not the focus of my point), IMO it has to do with the method of storage, and removing a boat-load of unnecessary processes/electronics that are required for an optical drive to operate. Not to mention inconsistencies that can occur with mass-produced CD's.

It's a hunch, nothing more.

But doesn't it go through all that anyways, on the way to the hard drive?

snow

To BeefJerky you keep saying that you have proved your points because you got your information from the Linn website and or other places online. Do you believe everything you read online as being the truth? You may have proved it to your self but that doesnt make it so. I think Steve summed it up nicely he is depending on what he hears to be the final judge not what someone else wrote that should be the true test and the only one that really matters.

Certainly I understand at times that both the eyes and ears can be decieved but since we are talking about musical enjoyment here and how our brains perceive it it really isnt important to me whether or not what the information at the websites you found is true or not the only truth that is important to me is the one I hear.

We have had countless debates on whether cables matter for example and the scientific reasons why they do or not, in the end it really doesnt matter, what truly matters is whether or not I can hear a difference. For example I have read many times that tubes create a lot of distortion into the signal and as such I should prefer all SS equipment because there will be less distortion, why is it then I prefer a combination of both? And if I do am I wrong? or if you prefer the sound of all SS gear are you right?

I remember once buying a an amp and by looking at all the specs it should have sounded great but for some reason it didnt and a much cheaper amp with much worse specs sounded great. I think our likes and dislikes audio wise are very subjective and that neither of us are more right than the other because in the end we only need to please our selfs and that should be what is really important.



REGARDS SNOW

sucks2beme

one thing we have to be careful about. That is the guys who create hi-res files from lower res music files
and make these available to the public. Unless you go back to the tapes and re-create the
higher res music, it's worse than useless.A lot of the CDs made back in the day were not
remastered. This made the CD version of a lot of music sound bad. Media changes should mean
re-mastering to that format. I messed around here a bit with that, and the music NEVER gets
better by changing format. 44.1 is as good as cd music gets.

gimpod

You guys still going on about this. :rolleyes:

NO MORE CD's, I say about time, now maybe they can get back to making some good vinyl. :razz:

inspiredsports

BeefJerky wrote: »

You claim to have such a deep understanding of jitter, yet this statement proves otherwise. It has been stated many times that jitter only affects timing-dependent applications. This is stated in the Linn document, as well as many others. This is not something that is up for debate, but is something that lies in the very definition "jitter." Since not all parts of the digital production chain are timing-dependent, not all can be affected by jitter. This is a very simple concept, yet it seems to remain outside of your grasp.


The nice thing about how modern error correction works, is that we also know when said error correction fails. This is applicable to the CD ripping process, as the CD drive will report that the error correction has failed, so you know that you have a problem. This also goes for reading or writing to a hard drive; the drive will report that the error correction failed. Same goes for computer memory as well as the multiple interfaces inside of a computer. They all have error correction and detection. If it still fails during a retry, you will know. This is inherent to error correction, and the proper functioning of computers. If it weren't for this, your computer wouldn't be able to function reliably for anything

As for jitter, that is not an error of incorrect data, but a timing failure. As has also been stated, that only applies to timing-dependent devices. In terms of this discussion, that means your sound card or DAC. If you rip your disc properly, those are the only parts of the chain that are able to be affected by digital "errors" or jitter.


I only trust my ears and brain so much. I am fully aware that humans have limitations and are not perfect systems. Knowing that is an important part of life, IMO. As for your ears hearing differences between two different lossless files or sources, it really is just a failure of the human system; nothing more, nothing less. The placebo effect has been proven time and time again in science, and the typical audiophile's refusal to acknowledge that is just pathetic.

I read this with sadness.

You write as if music was made to be listened to by machines, and not humans.

I respect your right to your opinions, but feel sorry for your inability to enjoy your humanity.

Sometimes science fiction comes true, and maybe the Borg are out there waiting to assimilate you.

snow

inspiredsports wrote: »

I read this with sadness.

You write as if music was made to be listened to by machines, and not humans.

I respect your right to your opinions, but feel sorry for your inability to enjoy your humanity.

Sometimes science fiction comes true, and maybe the Borg are out there waiting to assimilate you.

Agreed and as humans music should be more about the emotions that it evokes in us versus scientific explanations, I bet BeefJerky could have listened to several albums while doing research to back up his claims.

To further muddy the waters and to keep the debate going I feel what is more important than whether or not CD's are going to be made after x date is whether or not SACD's will be they sound better anyways :biggrin:



REGARDS SNOW

tonyb

Nothing in this hobby of audio is written in stone, nothing is absolute.

Every aspect of audio can be argued one way or another, the end result is only what your ears tell you. If all of our ears where bit perfect, we wouldn't have any of these discusions. Think of the human ear as another piece of gear, all different, all have various build quality, and various handicapps. Our ears are the single most important factor in audio. If one persons hearing doesn't enable him to hear the subtle changes in music, anothers may. This is the basis for personal taste and the age old arguements of " cables don't make a differece" or this or that gear sound the same, blah blah. Science can do numbers, and in some cases even hear things beyond human capabilities, but it can not listen in the same fashion as the human ear.

All these arguements are useless in the end becouse of the human ear. So we all enjoy our music in our own way, what pleases our own ears. Lossless, MP3, CD's, Vinyl, Tape.....doesn't matter. Whatever floats your boat, rock it. There is however, aside from the human ear, one more aspect to all this. It's called experience. If your not willing to try different things, different formats,gear...your limiting what your ears tell you can be good sound. Kinda like if you only let yourself experience a couple versions of that old Motorola flip phone, you would think nothing better exists. Until someone dropped an Iphone in your lap and opened your eyes.

Audio doesn't have to be rocket science, but alittle experimenting goes a long way not only for your own pleasure, but also for the opinions you may spout out on audio forums such as this one.

steveinaz

WilliamM2 wrote: »

But doesn't it go through all that anyways, on the way to the hard drive?

Yes, but once it's done--there's no need to re-interpret the data again in an optical fashion. You're removing no longer needed electronics.

WilliamM2

steveinaz wrote: »

Not the optics portion, and all associated electronics need to support that method of reading data. With a HD, it's a platter and armature w/head.

I think you misunderstood. Don't you use an optical drive to get the files on the hard drive in the first place? I do. It still goes through all those stages.

headrott

inspiredsports wrote: »

I read this with sadness.

You write as if music was made to be listened to by machines, and not humans.

I respect your right to your opinions, but feel sorry for your inability to enjoy your humanity.

Sometimes science fiction comes true, and maybe the Borg are out there waiting to assimilate you.

Exactly Greg. BeefJerky trusts his computer and the numbers it churns out more than his own ears and brain. He stated this himself. It sounds like he is his own innability to hear the differences between sources of music. Why are you like this BeefJerky? Why do you put more faith in a machine than yourself?

Greg

headrott

tonyb wrote: »

Nothing in this hobby of audio is written in stone, nothing is absolute.

Every aspect of audio can be argued one way or another, the end result is only what your ears tell you. If all of our ears where bit perfect, we wouldn't have any of these discusions. Think of the human ear as another piece of gear, all different, all have various build quality, and various handicapps. Our ears are the single most important factor in audio. If one persons hearing doesn't enable him to hear the subtle changes in music, anothers may. This is the basis for personal taste and the age old arguements of " cables don't make a differece" or this or that gear sound the same, blah blah. Science can do numbers, and in some cases even hear things beyond human capabilities, but it can not listen in the same fashion as the human ear.

All these arguements are useless in the end becouse of the human ear. So we all enjoy our music in our own way, what pleases our own ears. Lossless, MP3, CD's, Vinyl, Tape.....doesn't matter. Whatever floats your boat, rock it. There is however, aside from the human ear, one more aspect to all this. It's called experience. If your not willing to try different things, different formats,gear...your limiting what your ears tell you can be good sound. Kinda like if you only let yourself experience a couple versions of that old Motorola flip phone, you would think nothing better exists. Until someone dropped an Iphone in your lap and opened your eyes.

Audio doesn't have to be rocket science, but alittle experimenting goes a long way not only for your own pleasure, but also for the opinions you may spout out on audio forums such as this one.

I would also add one more thing important to listening to audio; that being consciousnous. Without consciousnous, you would only hear audio as a dog does. Granted a dog can hear certain frequecies better than a human, but the dog cannot get a meaning from the notes, rhythm, and lyrics the animal hears. Also, the dog does not care about the sound quality difference between an MP3, Losslesss file, CD, LP or tape. Thank God we have the ability to hear and consciously be aware of the differences between these sources.

Greg

tonyb

Sounstage width and depth, tone......1's and 0's and science can't tell me that.

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

Sounstage width and depth, tone......1's and 0's and science can't tell me that.

But if your 1s and 0s are not correct then you will not have accurate "Sounstage width and depth, tone". :rolleyes: