rcox1 wrote:What gets me is that so many people buy disjointed components instead of building a system, and are attached to out of date components that make no sense with current recordings.
... Many of us grew up with cheap speakers in our tv and in our transistor radio. Compared to those, my built in laptop speakers are gold. My amplified speakers I suppose use are superior to anything I would have hooked up to transistor amplifiers I could afford as a young adult. In any case, from what I can tell the current music is recorded, and remastered, quite differently from the way it was back when vacuum tubes were the norm.
Are you trolling? The laws of physics have not changed much since tube amplifiers were the norm. To get good low-frequency response, your speaker has to be a certain size. That said, electronics have advanced. Even cheap (Transistor) powered speakers
can have better sound than old tube amps.
ManaUser wrote:Reminds me of a previous run-in with an audiophile I had. He claimed there is no such thing as true lossless compression, and was offended that anyone would claim otherwise.
I became a bit of an audiophile after taking a two-year electronics program. If it was me, I would agree there is no such thing as true lossless compression: Every recording device has imperfections. The sampling rate and resolution you chose also determines how much information you retain. For example, an 8khz 8 bit mono Wav file will be (approximately) telephone-quality lossless compression (the telephone system uses some power-law compression, IIRC). CD-Quality audio is 44.1KHz, 16bit stereo. All "lossless compression" means is that you can convert from one lossless format to another (of sufficient quality) without loosing data. It is still possible to lose data due to bit-rot.
EDIT: I do get annoyed at "audiophiles" who claim the quality of the cable (past a certain minimum) make a difference in digital sound quality. Unless you are getting drop-outs, a bit is a bit.