Unfortunately, downloading the full paper requires an AES membership. However it's been discussed widely in articles and on forums, with the authors joining in. Here's a few links:
This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.
I disagree. What I said is an objective, testable statement.
āIf you prefer X, you can X, but if you can prefer Y, you cannot Yā is equivalent to āX is possible and Y is not possibleā. So, I have made two statements:
A CD can accurately reproduce the sound of any vinyl record
Vinyl records can not, in general, reproduce the sound of all CDs.
And whether or not the sound is accurately reproduced can be tested in double-blind trials.
As I havenāt done those trials myself, I consider it possible that my statement is objectively wrong. Which wouldnāt make it any less objective.
Forgive a non-native speaker of English here, but donāt ineffable qualities tend to be those qualities that donāt actually exist in a physically real way? Such as, the added āmeaningā given to a sound, a place or an act by our knowledge of things that have nothing at all to do with the physical sound.
Why would I want to listen to a live transmission of the Vienna New Yearās Concert rather than a recording of the preview performance from December 30th? I am sure there is no objective difference in the quality of the music performed. If people didnāt tell me, I wouldnāt know. Still, the choice is clear for me.
Wellā¦ English isnāt my native language either so thereās that . But Iām pretty sure in this case we are using ineffable to mean āHard to put into words but still an important part of the experienceā.
And I do agree with Dacree that there is an ineffable quality at play here, Iāve only argued that this quality has more to do with peopleās expectations of the medium than anything arising from the medium itself. Iāve argued that music is made to make you feel an emotional response and that this in itself accounts for the response people get to music. Knowing something is ādigitalā or āanalogā only colours* our perception of the experience of sound.
[size=10]*BTW. I meant to use colours instead of colors, just because English is not my native language doesnāt mean I canāt wield it with a deadly Kung Fu grip when so inclined.[/size]
If its not the same performance then Iām sure there could possibly be objective, measurable differences in the performance. As to the quality of that performance? Youād have to hear both to determine if it makes a difference to you.
Even then that difference could be subjective, maybe you were in a better mood when you listened to the first performance or if you listen to the performance back to back and thereās a difference in volume, youāre more likely to prefer the louder version.
We point to these differences in perception as that hard to describe thing that makes music personally meaningful. Yes, you can make objective statements like the ones in your post, but then these tell you nothing about how you experience an event.
Iām temped to write a really long post about how the fidelity of recording and playback mediums are objectively irrelevant for music (Specifically for music) as a way to address how they are subjectively meaningful. Maybe Iāll come back to this later when Iāve got some time to spare.
Records are more harmonically ādanceableā and anyone who doesnāt use audiophile Ethernet cables has been educated stupid by government and schools.
Perhaps youāre thinking of DenonLink, which isnāt ethernetāit just looks like it to someone who sees the RJ-45 connectors, and assumes all sorts of things about packets, error correction, grounding, ans so on.
IIRC, the Denonlink player came with a cable, Iām not sure why Denon decided to make a luxury version. Possibly it was the suspicion that cable snobs wouldnāt buy Denonās expensive premamps and sacd players if they couldnāt source an outrageously priced cable. HDMI has probably supplanted that anyway.
was designed to carry multichannel digital audio, with no error correction. Better than connecting multiple analog cables and forgoing digital crossovers and the like, but other hand, shielded cables were a must.
Of course, once ethernetāactual ethernet, with packets and stuff-- became established in home audio-- a bluray player, an appleTV and so on all connect to a router using ethernet cables, the usual scam companies decided āwe can make cables tooā.
Sure, I donāt buy the cheapest cable, I buy ones I like the look of. For my alternate vinyl setup I think I spentā¦ $25 total on cabling? And there is probably $19 worth of copper in those hefty things.
This little guy, while only tubes for the preamp, sounds spectacular. And that amazon price is way, way higher than I paid.
Now Iām going down a rabbit hole. I have another piece of equipment from the late fifties that is kind of a Frankenstein, and I may do some work on it this weekend (it sounds like ass, but shouldnāt).
I just checked the guts and the tubes appear to be new-ish, but something is going on (Old Gibson, should be a screaming little thing but It isnāt).
Donāt even mention the brace of Danelectros that need work.
. But Iām pretty sure in this case we are using ineffable to mean āHard to put into words but still an important part of the experienceā.