Noble100,
You just made my point better than I ever could. Why test anything when we already know better? I won't waste my day typing, but I can at least put 1 hole in all your theories.
"The truth is that vinyl records, reel-to-reel tapes and redbook cds can all sound very good but none of these formats are hi-resolution formats."
With regards to vinyl and reel to reel analog tapes, you can't put a level of resolution on them in any meaningful way, like you may be able to do with digital. Why? Because analog resolution will vary depending on the equipment used in the recording and the playback process. Not only that, there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital. So in the end, you guys are just guessing. You talk science and objectivity, but don't use a shred of it yourselves. And that makes you completely subjective. The funny part is that you don't even realize it. I mean, if you were trying to be objective and back your ideas up with good factual information, would you really want to use this as a source to build an argument on?
"There was a recent N.Y. Times article that claimed his self-recruited test subjects could not tell the difference between redbook cds and hi-res recordings of the same music. Little wonder since they were comparing identical things."
A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously.
You just made my point better than I ever could. Why test anything when we already know better? I won't waste my day typing, but I can at least put 1 hole in all your theories.
"The truth is that vinyl records, reel-to-reel tapes and redbook cds can all sound very good but none of these formats are hi-resolution formats."
With regards to vinyl and reel to reel analog tapes, you can't put a level of resolution on them in any meaningful way, like you may be able to do with digital. Why? Because analog resolution will vary depending on the equipment used in the recording and the playback process. Not only that, there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital. So in the end, you guys are just guessing. You talk science and objectivity, but don't use a shred of it yourselves. And that makes you completely subjective. The funny part is that you don't even realize it. I mean, if you were trying to be objective and back your ideas up with good factual information, would you really want to use this as a source to build an argument on?
"There was a recent N.Y. Times article that claimed his self-recruited test subjects could not tell the difference between redbook cds and hi-res recordings of the same music. Little wonder since they were comparing identical things."
A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously.