4yanx: Proof is in the eye and mind of the beer-holder.
I look at it like this:
Audio reproduction is a blend of human perceptions and science. Through science, we can break down and assess what we perceive as humans. When science can fully explain ( never happen ) what we perceive, we will have attained "audio nirvana".
Until that point in time, i am of the belief that anything that subtracts, distorts or makes it harder to recover recorded data is a "bad" thing. If data corruption should occur, the reproduction devices ( digital in this case ) are giving me their interpretation ( through error correction ) of what they think i should hear rather than what the performer / engineers encoded onto the disk.
Since science can verify that this "interpretation of data" ( error correction ) is taking place, isn't it more logical to want to avoid this process at all costs ? Wouldn't this lead one to believe that, due to having the shortest path with the least amount of outside influences, we are obtaining the closest resemblance of what was put on the disc ?
Obviously, we have to take into account the meager performance of our entire system. My question is, why would anyone want to introduce a device that knowingly corrupts the data to a point of requiring greater effort to reproduce and / or "fake it" and then expect better results ?
In effect, error correction means that you are getting information second-hand. Why would you want to do this when you can go directly to the source and not have to worry about mis-interpretation and / or bits and pieces of information being left out ?
Audible or not, error correction should only be viewed as further interference of the signal with the potential for corruption of the data being recovered. It only seems logical to want to avoid the error correcton mechanism itself and any other devices / treatments that would cause the error correction mechanism to come into play. Kind of like treating the cancer and then avoiding anything that might cause it to come back. Sean
>
