[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
24.221.101.222
In Reply to: RE: I suppose... one could look as the original .wav as the equivalent to the "negative" in film... posted by danny kaey on July 03, 2007 at 19:12:22
....the darkroom work, manipulating the exposure and/or cropping the paper for the best perspective and composition. When I was a "shooter" a million years ago, some photographers specialized in perfect format, and/or full frame reproduction, trying to capture the perfect image without embellishment or with minimal darkroom work. The prints showed the film sprockets, warts and all. Effective, but not always pretty.
What we do with music, and the audiophile hobby, is tune our systems (and the music, inevitably) to our hearing and personal preferences. Then there are the strictly-by-the-book EE's and objectivists that postulate that measurements should be such-and-such, therefore the sound should be that-and-that. I posted elsewhere about my comparison with tube gear....how (historically) it has often measured "poorly", but sounded better to many ears.
In hard disk-based audio reproduction, the theory is that one wishes for the most perfect bit-for-bit rip, without any loss, and that therefore should sound the best. But my ears have heard the LAME 320 encoding, which is both lossy and compressed (although far more benign than other codecs), and it sounded much better to my ears than the bit-perfect, error-corrected WAV and FLAC files....go figure.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]