25-Feb-2016, 18:31
(This post was last modified: 25-Feb-2016, 18:38 by Hifi_swlon.)
Very interesting thoughts so far…..
I was actually thinking more specifically about the digital data itself, and it's 'quality', getting it from A>B and successfully converted in the DAC, rather than the wider question of subjectivity. If an expensive CD transport and an expensive computer server manage to create a more 'realistic' sound due to how they deliver the data, then there has to be something to it unless people are imagining things completely.
Oh, and I forgot another popular one to add to the list right now from the MQA marketing blurb, which is the 'time smeared' data problem that apparently exists in the audio files we buy, and isn't fixable regardless of how perfectly we transport the data to its destination. Could this actually be the real answer we're looking for, or just another part-fix, or a non-issue just to confuse us further…
I also saw an interesting video clip (I can't remember what it was exactly) but I think it was Stereophile magazine versus scientists/engineers or researchers, and the 'opposition' to Stereophile basically said that in all their testing and experiments over the past years, they've never seen people be able to identify different amplifiers that measured the same and were level matched, and that, in fact, its the human bias based on seeing the 'box' that decides how it sounds. I would love to take part i something like that, to see if a raspberry Pi DAC/Amp versus a Naim Statement or whatever could be picked out blind, I find it fascinating. Anyway, drifted off my own thread!
I was actually thinking more specifically about the digital data itself, and it's 'quality', getting it from A>B and successfully converted in the DAC, rather than the wider question of subjectivity. If an expensive CD transport and an expensive computer server manage to create a more 'realistic' sound due to how they deliver the data, then there has to be something to it unless people are imagining things completely.
Oh, and I forgot another popular one to add to the list right now from the MQA marketing blurb, which is the 'time smeared' data problem that apparently exists in the audio files we buy, and isn't fixable regardless of how perfectly we transport the data to its destination. Could this actually be the real answer we're looking for, or just another part-fix, or a non-issue just to confuse us further…
I also saw an interesting video clip (I can't remember what it was exactly) but I think it was Stereophile magazine versus scientists/engineers or researchers, and the 'opposition' to Stereophile basically said that in all their testing and experiments over the past years, they've never seen people be able to identify different amplifiers that measured the same and were level matched, and that, in fact, its the human bias based on seeing the 'box' that decides how it sounds. I would love to take part i something like that, to see if a raspberry Pi DAC/Amp versus a Naim Statement or whatever could be picked out blind, I find it fascinating. Anyway, drifted off my own thread!
>>> 1st Place Award: Devialet, last decades most disappointing technology purchase. <<<
