Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:23:15 -0700, eseedhouse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote
(in article <fu6caj02j1n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> 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.

That's what I've been saying all along.
> 
>> 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.

Some aspects of High-Fidelity are measurable and others while measurable, 
don't correlate to how they sound. Speakers are a perfect example of this.

 
> Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
> never get to hear it through loudspeakers. 

That's why it's often referred to as "the holy grail" of audio.
Unattainable, 
but as with Sir Percival, worth pursuing.

> But they can usually tell
> which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
> hear it.

Not necessarily. Often, personal biases take over and people revert to
them. 
Like picking the louder of two systems and perceiving louder as "better". 
That's why its so im****tant to constantly re-calibrate one's ears -
unless, 
of course, accuracy to real music is not im****tant to one, then its a
matter 
of "if it sounds good to me, etc......"