In Reply to: Re: The real argument is Good Illusion of live music versus Bad illusion -- analog or digital make little difference posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 6, 2007 at 14:29:45:
I was, however, involved with large speakers in a large auditorium where the audience could not tell if behind the screen there was a live small group playing live or merely speakers. I knew that it was reproduced but could not believe how many said they thought it was live music. I too am amazed at how many here claim their music reproduction sound real to them, including Richard, if I recall correctly.Obviously, the quality of the illusion is what motivates audiophiles. Who can take issue with that. As to whether analog or digital do the best in this illusion, I think at their best I can hear differences but not give the nod to one rather than the other. I still prefer vinyl whether it is because of old ears or the superiority of analog reproduction I would not claim to know. It doesn't really matter to one not influenced by the measurement of the wrong things in audio.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I have always assumed that the purported AR demonstration was apocryphal. - Norm 11:51:19 04/07/07 (1)
- Heck, even Edison was able to fool (!) audiences with his "tone tests". That's nothing! nt - clarkjohnsen 12:15:17 04/07/07 (0)