Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Apr 15, 3:40 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote
> > And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
> > it is actually happening.  After that it is in the past, and the only
> > thing left of it is the memory.  So the "absolute" is actually only a
> > memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>
> > To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>
> No it isn't.

But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
see.

>The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
> doesn't.

That, i am sorry, is nonsense.  Most reproduced sound is actually
quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded.  It has notes,
pitches, and timing.  You can sing along to the tune played on the
junkiest boom box.  You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
tom or a snare.  Usually.

Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
from the live event.  But it is certainly "like" the live event in
many ways.  It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
is it.

> If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
> memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one
needs
> to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live
music
> as possible.

"High Fidelity" is at least measurable.  "Absolute Sound" isn't.

Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
never get to hear it through loudspeakers.  But they can usually tell
which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
hear it.