[geeks] Working Music vs Thinking Music

[Joshua D Boyd]

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 05:54:39PM -0400, dave at cca.org wrote:
> avriettea at speakeasy.net writes:
> 
> >> As in 45RPM vinyl.  A *lot* of folks believe that it has far better
> >> audio quality than any format that followed it.
> 
> >i've heard the argument before: vinyl is analog, sound is analog, cd's 
> >are digital. it seems reasonable enough to me, but i dont know anything 
> >about the intricacies of sound and audiophilestuff, so i cant comment.
> 
> Bah.
> 
> The human ear has limitations. If the digital representation
> goes beyond those limitations, then it's as good as anything
> else.

I think it is a mistake to limit ones self to what one can easily be
identified.  What about the way that high and low frequencies affect
the room that affect you?  What about the way the "unhearable"
frequencies resonate on your body?

But, my biggest beef is the bit depth of the samples more than the
sampling frequency.  In particular, I wish for either different
encoding, or significantly more bits (24 may be enough).
 
> If you want to be really picky, are the discrete electrons
> carrying that audio signal from your amp to your speakers
> "analog" or "digital"???

Well, since the sound is mainly about how fast they are moving...  And
speed is analog.
 
> Audiophiles are people that think the proper way to test the
> frequency range of a piece of equipment is to sit in a soundproofed
> room with the lights dimmed and listen to an album. They wouldn't
> know proper test equipment if it fell on their heads.

I think that is one of the best ways to test some gear.  Otherwise how
will you know if you really like it?  But really, it probably should
be more than one album.

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd