More audiophoolery

It's gotta be the same distortion that the musician listened to in the studio :P Audiophools won't accept distorted distortion. :P The only solution: Pay big $$$$ to fly in the guitarist of Rammstein to listen to the audio system in question and ask, "So...does this sound the same?"

D from BC British Columbia Canada

What amuses me is people who want to hear the 'pure sound' of a performance. After its been processed to f*ck in the studio then crammed on a CD.

My take would be that there is much more possibility of objective measurement of display quality on a video signal, you can *see* it, after all. Therefore much less scope for argument and subjective judgement. Maybe I would not want to push this too far, just thinking about color balance and suchlike stuff.

It also takes a lot more money and technical knowledge to be a videophile. Check the prices of professional colour corrected monitors and projectors (high def). Then we have compression formats etc.

Also,

"Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer."

The arrow on the pictured cable is a *two-headed* arrow!

I guess that's accurate, though. I mean, you wouldn't want someone to accidentally try to transfer a signal sideways across the cable ... ?

Some group precently released such, and encouraged fans to do their own remixing --- ahh, it was Radiohead ("Nude"), but Trent Reznor has done the same with some Nine Inch Nails tracks, back in 2005.

I don't think this was done out of audiophile considerations, but because fans were already messing around with remixing many groups' songs. Might as well give them better starting material.

knows?)

There are. Ever hear of LaserDisks? The Vidophools *hate* DVDs.