"Michael Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'll take that challenge any day ;) I think you need to specify what you
>>mean by "critical headphone listening" -- what headphones? What amps? What
>>playback sources?
>
>A laptop PC with good sound capability, $100 headphones, using a .wav
>vs. mp3 of the wav, Winamp with no EQ, keyboard shortcuts, difficult
>source material.
A laptop PC, no matter now good its "good sound capability" is, is not a
"critical listening environment." And "$100" says nothing about the
headphones, as there are $25 headphones that are far better than most $100
headphones out there, just as there are $100 headphones that cannot be
properly driven by a laptop and absolutely require a separate amplifier.
That's not to say that the system you used isn't good enough to provide you
with a lot of musical enjoyment, but it's not a "critical listening
environment" by any means.
>This reveals our differences. I would be perfectly happy with an
>excellent computer-based audio system. I'm into what the audiphiles
>call "mid-fi" (which to normal people would be considered very
>hi-fi).
Then you've answered my earlier question-- if you consider a computer-based
system to be "high-end" then your preferences/results make sense, and I
completely respect them. However, that's a completely different thing than
saying "there are no differences" -- the truth is that you can't hear them,
not that they aren't there.
>My A/B setup is much more fair. There are too many variables in your
>setup. You're not A/B'ing ATRAC vs. uncompressed, alone; you're
>comparing two different playback audio-components (the output of a CD
>deck and MD deck). You should use a single DAC. My .wav vs .mp3 A/B
>test is much more fair.
While the DAC issue is technically correct (but see below why your
interpretation of how "flawed" the results are is incorrect), and I agreed
to this yesterday when Rick brought it up (I'll have to do this someday),
your conclusion that your test is more fair is incorrect. The system you are
using (a laptop's headphone jack) is simply not good enough to do this test.
It's like trying to argue the merits of CD vs. SACD by listening to them
through a $100 "minisystem."
Remember, I'm not begrudging the ability of your playback system to
musically satisfy you -- I often use my laptop for music when I'm traveling
or working off-site. What I'm talking about is its ability to act as a
reference-level system for comparing audio formats.
>My diagnosis is that your CD reader and DAC system is better than
>your MD reader and DAC system.
And how would you know that? I get different results than you, which could
mean many different things, and you magically "diagnose" that the reason is
your test is methodologically sound, while my equipment, never before seen
to you, is the problem? LOL
Well, you're wrong -- the difference is not that the CD player is superior.
While I do have some very nice CD equipment, one of my blind tests was
between a Optimus portable CD player -- one that cost $129.99 in 1994 -- and
an MZ-R50, one of the best MD portables ever made. I figured I would test
two portables and see if I got the same results. The results were just as I
explained -- I could clearly hear the difference, and even "not really into
audio" friends could hear the difference. In a blind test.
Are you going to try to tell me that the DAC in my MZ-R50, which was
$350-$400 new and the top of the line, is inferior to a portable CD player
from 1993?
If the CD lost to MD in this test, I could say "well, it was because the CD
player was older and probably had a cheaper DA" etc. But the fact that the
older, cheaper, portable CD player sounded better than the newer, high-end
MD portable gives a lot of credence to the idea that it wasn't the DA.
Someday when I have a bunch of non-audio friends over again, I'll have to do
the "CD through the MD DA" trick. But something tells me that even if my
results were the same, you'd find some way to find fault with my tests,
because you refuse to believe that compressed audio sounds even slightly
worse than the original source...
>My tests predict that if your gear is decently good, you'd find that
>MD sounds the same as the CD to your friends in critical headphone
>tests, and that 256 or 320 Kbps MP3s would also have that same
>potential. Your friends could not differentiate when source A is
>playing from when source B is playing, or tell which one is MD.
The *ONLY* thing your tests, as conducted, predict is that when listening to
the horrible opamp out of a laptop, using the headphones you have (we don't
know what those are), you personally feel that 256 or 320k MP3 sounds the
same as CD. Your tests say even less about MD, since you couldn't test MD
vs. CD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
