Its funny how people can become dismissive when i said that the transfer of MP3 files onto a cd in my subjective humble opinion sounded as good when played on my system.
Couple of different things here... No one is being dismissive. There is no issue with discussing the scientific reasons with why something is... The entire process of recording a signal and playing it back is a scientific one after all... Listening is a subjective quality but how something gets played back and the preservation of the signal is scientific. A simple fact, that is easily proven is that if you convert a lossless file to mp3, it will lose signal accuracy. That is not an opinion, but an undeniable fact. By definition, the signal just can't be as accurate. No different from recording from one VHS tape to another. It is a lossy process.
If you liked it more, then you obviously liked the distortion characteristic that it applied compared to the original. There is nothing wrong with that - different people like different things. Talking about signal accuracy is a science though.
I am thus loathed to be told how a piece of music should sound because the law of physics ( especially Adcoms) long account wants to prove that ther is only one way because science says so. If i had it my way the best recordings ever made and are a pleasure on my modern system are the jazz records of the 1940s and 1950s which is as best you can get in analogue.
So what has been discussed here is signal accuracy in reproduction... In fact, given that science is what made it possible, it is a scientific process. Audio equipment didn't come to be a different way. It isn't my way.... It is because there is no other way and there is no other explanation. You can't purchase equipment which is based on good science and engineering, and then ignore those factors when comparing different equipment or formats. That turns the quest into a religious one rather than object. At that point you are arguing 'belief' because that's what people want to believe.
As said, what I have stated for the most part isn't an opinion, it isn't my intellectual property but facts about the signals and systems involved. It isn't because I believe one thing sounds better than another - I have been careful to refer to 'accuracy' for that reason... What people like is subjective and what is most accurate, isn't necessarily the way they like it...
If technology has so advanced then why are there as many crap recordings as good ones.
This was mentioned before and the answer is simply that signal quality is not what drives a lot of audio engineering. A lot of it is marketing as was referred to within the wiki article that referred to the loudness war and compression of the dynamic range. Secondly to that, popular music for example is deliberately distorted to sound good on a technically inferior pair of cheap headphones on an ipod, or computer speakers. The result is that when played through a far more accurate system, you hear the flaws with that distortion. In other words, it is marketing decisions that are causing the issues - not the science.
In many of these instances the recording has become brighter which was better than the original recording as modern technology does not endorse tone controls.
Which is exactly what I spoke about... Modern digital technology does not have the same distortion characteristics (although it can have a couple of its own under certain conditions - i.e. jitter) that some of the older technology has. So while you have a more accurate signal, some people are more comfortable with the older technology because it produces the sound they are used to, not the sound that is more accurate. That is fine.
BUt the crux is what you perceive is good to your eye and ear not what physics dictate.
Absolutely. But it is worth identifying the science behind what makes it sound good or bad for certain people. I don't think it benefits anyone to ignore facts behind what is going on - otherwise you won't get improvement in the equipment.
