1) Audio quality is subjective, period. According to Joe, test results are objective. I'm fine with that, and am glad these tests are performed. I DJ most frequently in a hotel ballroom, not a test lab. While I don't have an engineering degree, or specific lab test results, is there no value in the admittedly anecdotal observations, using years of my own DJ experiences, here on a DJ forum? Is disagreeing with you some kind of attack on your engineering credentials? If so, why?
2) The source is lossy compressed. "Corrupted" is judgement call, and your interpretation. You're welcome to view it that way, but it's coloring your responses.
I believe "could be" inferior or superior is a valid point of view because of the sheer number of variables in any given piece of recorded music. Your own statement references "high end tape", not just tape. Similarly, an mp3 is not ONE thing, either.
3) If YOU read the forums, Joe, you'll find that the advice constantly being given is to NOT use your performance computer as a multi-task machine, despite the fact that it's possible. How many computer problems (including those mentioned on forums like this one) are "user error" - the kind you CANNOT make on a CD player? More options = more things that could go wrong, if you, the user, subject yourself to them. Your statements here cannot be fact, as stated: you're comparing to nothing. What are you claiming that computer playback is inferior to? Many, many recordings now are CREATED and/or recorded via computer (ever heard of a program called Protools?). Are you suggesting that digital recording is inferior?
I would have drawers fail, mistracking, skipping, sticking, etc., and I take good care of my CDs. Via computer, either EVERY file plays (and correctly), or none of them do (and it's usually some kind of config. error on my part). Claiming something, calling it fact, and using all caps doesn't make your opinion anything more than your opinion. I value your opinion, but it's still just your opinion, for the most part.
4) I do, and I use common sense. I can elaborate further on that, if you wish.
5) Joe, one last observation and a question that's always puzzled me about you. You're the CD purist here, but you're primarily a karoake host, is that correct? You talk about inferiority of certain methods of music playback, while playing "cover" versions, for people to sing with? Do you see any irony in this? You're coming from an odd perpsective to argue "keep it real", to me. From my more limited experiences with karaoke, I'll take the actual Earth, Wind & Fire over any studio band's attempts to make instrumental karaoke recreations. And I'm willing to bet many of these recordings were made, using computers, Joe.
I guess I'm still in it.... However, Steve, your response was well thought out and presented. I hope my reply will be equal to it:
1) You are completely correct.
AUDIO response IS subjective. I never argued the point. I was merely speaking in electronic terms regarding the music source. Though subjective, there ARE (myself included) people who can hear the difference, even on the best of playback devices. I happen to hear them as flat. One of my friends hears them as tinny. Another ( who must be some kind of wierd savant) can hear random changes in BPM.
As many will say ( and with whom I agree), the majority of listeners probably won't notice the difference. I just don't want to stiff those who can. Just because I might get away with it, doesn't make it right-
FOR ME.
Disagreeing with me on a subjective basis doesn't attack me. Heck, subjective disagreements are half the fun of forums! However, disagreeing with the electronic testing is just a waste of time. The results are what they are. There's nothing to argue.
2) You are also correct here. My use of the word "corrupted" is probably incorrect, at least in regard to a
professionally made ORIGINAL MP3. Unfortunately, even these are missing a LOT of information, as previously tested, and are still...um...lacking. Then of course, people who download music are not getting originals, and then corruption IS present. Those who rip their own are in most cases amateurs ( if talented), and corruption shows there too.
3) Even a PC dedicated to music performance only is still a PC, and built for purposes other than that for which it is being used. It is not designed specifically for music reproduction. Yes, it can be modified with both software and harware to do a better job, but this in itself can cause problems.
Yes, players can have their own problems, as described by you. However, the cost of repair or replacement is TEENY compared to to those of a PC ( Sorry about the caps again, but I believe it helps get the point across..:sqembarrassed
.
Good software costs good money. A good PC costs big bucks. Good backup equipment will cost the equal of the other two. This forum contains HUNDREDS of posts in regard to all the problems inherent with PC use, and very few in regard to players.
Even if a player were to EXPLODE in use, you lose a disc (or a few with a multi-drawer) and the player- a couple of hundred bucks. If a PC blows up, you lose the PC, the music library it contains ( tens of thousands of songs?), the software, and the hardware upgrades such as a top sound card and video board. A lot of time and money.
Steve, this is only one reason why
I, and only I, have no desire to switch yet. When it's worth it to switch to a superior media, I will, as I have done before.
4) Steve, there are some who's common sense I may question- in all parts of my life- ( including my own on more than one occasion), but you are not one of them. The post above asks nothing but solid questions, presented in a non-hostile manner. For that I thank you, as well.
5) This one I must answer with a smile on my face. First the serious side: Except for Midi freebies, most are studio recorded on master CDs, not computers) so the sound quality is as full a range as can be produced on that media.
As for the smiley side, unfortunately you are right. The sound quality may be recorded properly, some covers can be pretty horrific. I have heard some terrific, dead on covers as well, but.....:sqembarrassed:
However, because of copywrite law, that's what is available. There are no alternatives. I use the best available ( subjectively speaking, of course...)
One last bit about electronic testing results. Remember, these are not sound tests but a test for accuracy in regard to duplicating original music.
Just an extra monkey wrench: Electronically, VINYL is still the best for audio RANGE.....
Steve,
I hope I have clarified my points. If not, please let me know. I will attempt to do a better job.
The only thing that gets to me is the constant preaching. CD people don't try to switch anyone. Vinyl people don't either. However, the PC Posse seem to have a great need to "spread the good word"
I have my own beliefs regarding the reason for that, but they are not germaine. What is germaine is that when some one tries to convince ME of something, they had better have facts, or I will push back. That's not just here, not just about music- it's about anything from politics to business to cars to all that life entails.
