jeffmeh;194743 Wrote: > Well, I would think that one could argue that vinyl is inherently better > in that analog reproduction is not limited to 44,100 samples per second. > At a high enough sampling rate though, the argument falls apart, since > there must be some sampling rate that is beyond human auditory > perception (even through golden ears).
Analogue forms of data storage are also limited in how much information they contain - it's just slightly harder to estimate. I saw a nice calculation once of the information capacity of LPs. It worked out that for the very first few plays of a new record, where apparently more high-frequency data is reproduced (much of it between 20 and 30 kHz, but never mind), the data capacity is comparable or even slightly greater than CDs, but after that the record wears out a little, loses the top end, and the data capacity is less (by a factor of a few, maybe, not by a huge amount). -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34379 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
