boulderskies

Point taken. But if you go back to the original post, the link between endianness, codecs and SQ was stated much more emphatically than "theory" or empiricism. That's what drew my natural skepticism (I that healthy, not negative). Cucumber's second post was much more empirical. And yes, of course, I applaud his attention to detail and thoughtfulness in sharing his experiences with us. I learned a lot, which is always important.

This is what I call the "Scientific Method" (very humorous-thanks for the laugh): ...little endian for PC and Intel Mac) at a certain level, in 100% of the tries, lit the mid charge led of my right sub amp at x second and get y piece of furniture to resonate while not with the wrong endianness file.

I couldnt agree more with your last paragraph. What I have logical problems with are statements of subjective opinion (based on albeit technically valid concepts) being expressed as if they are concrete and verifiable facts.

Thank you. I didnt pick that up.

Well I've done some more reading on endianess and have found nothing that supports the merits of big-endianess vs little-endianess and vice versa. It seems they are basically different memory formats based on the processor type (not machine) the software was originally designed to run on. And any reference to sound quality is purely subjective. I wonder if anyone on here knows of any documentation which might support superior SQ with one over the other. Its really interesting stuff though. Scott

Sir, actually I do need to take the time to understand the details of the sources of your first entry on this post. Its the only way I can decide if I agree or disagree with your point about endianess and sound quality or not. So far, I'm not buying it but I am learning a whole lot that I didnt know before and for that, I thank you. Scott

Does anyone remember what this thread was about? Right-it was a NYT article that so many found fault with. I am in minority here. I think it was pretty much spot on. I think it painted a pretty good picture of where we are today, music reproduction-wise. Many of you seemed to zero in on the expense of high-end gear. Even though that was mentioned in the article, to me, it didnt come across as one of the central themes. Are we viewing the world again thru our systems? No-the thrust of this article, to me was the changing culture of listening to music. And to us, it should be GOOD news, not questionable. Younger people are slowly coming around to desiring to hear their collections with a little more sound quality. I'm pretty sure that's what the article was about (not how WE are in the minority, how much WE spend, how good OUR systems sound. After all, it wasnt really about US, was it? (all due respect) Scott

I would take all the usual precautions (in this order): * Power down everything, make cable connections, power back up. * Ensure all other programs are turned off, including wi-fi. * Enable your music player. Rule all of these out FIRST. If you still have the issue, ensure power is consistent with what you were using with the Air. Also, make sure your settings in Sound are the same.

Respect endianness (relates to file/processor interaction ; further readings might be : The FLAC Audio Format | Start at Zero and aiff). Apple discretely turned AIFF little endian: it matters. FLAC is big endian while Intel processors are little endian. WAV is the uncluttered little endian file format: convert your files to wav just before playing (store flacs for size & tagging). It takes seconds with XLD (Mac) and it’s free (though we should all donate). Yes FLAC offers lossless compression and all your bits are there; but it doesn’t sound as good as AIFF-C and WAV is even better. Because of endianness. To exit any process that can have a hold on a file, including the Finder, seems best practice. I'm having a hard time getting my head around how the positioning of the bytes could affect sound. Other than one of the articles pointed out that WAV and FLAC do it differently, its not clear. At least to me...

Even though I'm 102, this is a great point we never read about or probably have never considered! Thank you Alex. (Just kidding about part of this) Scott

Alex, good points. I offer this as a counter: I have over 4 decades of experience. Does that give me the right to think and say that I hear "better" or "more" than someone else? I dont have training per se but its my understanding that "training" provides ways of focusing differently on sounds and music. If I had that training, would I hear "better" than, say you? The answers to both of these in my mind is no. Hell no. It just means that I might pick up something someone else doesn't but it doesnt make my hearing superior. *********************************************** And here's another angle on this topic: who says a given piece of equipment is "reference." I read this all the time. And I get the concept if the piece of equipment is in a reviewer's rack for an extended time and he had prolonged experience with how it sounds. But the term "reference" is oftentimes used to connote a piece of equipment that is somehow superior. Who says so? What qualifies it as such? Did the Audiophile Board of Directors meet under cover of dark and establish parameters for different classes of equipment? Or different price ranges? And, more absurdly, is it possible for an Audiophile, since he or she is a self-proclaimed (cuz they are always proclaiming there are, right?) Audiophile to have "Reference Hearing." Can I coin the term, "Reference Accoustical Perception (RAP)?"

It seems we are describing both sides of the same thing: the equipment and the music, the types of which are purely subjective. I love fiddling with the equipment and the software but there comes a point where I have to sort of take a breath and just listen. Honestly one is a means to another. Additionally, its more than a hobby to me. The term hobby somehow doesnt seem to do it justice. A hobby is building model airplanes or restoring a 68 Camaro. Its one dimensional. This thing we suffer from is more than that - its deeper. Its about the physical equipment, but its also about the emotional passion that is the music, for music is really about memories and the stirring of your soul. I know that sounds overly esoteric, but to me, that's what the equipment and the fiddling really is about. Its tremendously personal. What I object to (and what prompted me to start this thread) is the tendency to be exclusionary about it. You know what I mean - the comments of those that feel that being a "audiophile" is somehow superior. That they can somehow hear things no one else can. I personally think that's bullshit. People see and think differently. We hear differently and we work differently. But none of those differences are superior, one person to another.

Where were all you people? It seems we know one more characteristic of the Audiophile: it comes out on Monday.

Of course there's the infamous "Just hit any key." "I dont see an Any Key."

You know, in all fairness, sometimes things happen in IT and you just honestly dont know why. My career was IT and IT support. You'd do all the obvious things and nothing would work. Then, you'd just wing it, and voila. Someone would ask you, what did you do? I'd always say, "beats me, but its working." or, "that's why I get paid the big bucks," or something equally clever. And I'd heave a huge sigh of relief walking away. In telephone tech support, I've noticed a real tendency go by a script. I've usually done the first few steps in the script already, and then the script is exhausted pretty quickly and its, "Can I put you on hold?" That's the que that the person is seeking another script or someone else...