DeVerm;347294 Wrote: > I was writing a reply to your post but deleted it again because you > didn't quote me, implying that I wrote stuff like "vinyl is better" > etc. which I didn't. I challenge you to quote from my post and prove > the quote(s) wrong.
I was responding to this: DeVerm;347251 Wrote: > A soundwave is analog and has infinite values on both signal-level and > time-axis, while in digital form both are limited, ie. redbook has a > maximum of 65535 signal-levels (16 bits) and only 44100 measurements of > the signal per second. The soundwave is infinite on both accounts so > even a 32/192 "take" records only a small part of that wave. Those are > fundamental differences. So YES analog is closer to the original > because it is analog and the original in most cases is analog too. > Sorry if I implied you said something you didn't, but the claim quoted above is incorrect. It is not true that "analog is closer to the original" - that's just wrong. Again, read Shannon, or any book on info theory, noisy analog channels, etc. Both analog and digital media are approximations to reality, and either can be closer depending on the bandwidth and S/N for analog, and the bit depth and sample rate for digital. > imagine this: we setup a decent mic with pre-amp. To the pre-amp we > connect a 32 bit 192 kHz AD converter and it's output is stored to > disk. We also connect a vinyl-cutter (with RIAA and pre-emphasis > networks like they do for vinyl). Now whe get this fellow with his > cello and he plays a piece that is recorded to both systems. So here we > are, we have the artist, vinyl and digital. I agree with your assessment of what would probably happen in your test. :-) But my point is that you might prefer vinyl for reasons other than SQ, just as I might prefer digital for other reasons. So that test doesn't say much about the contention (whether it's yours or other people's) that vinyl, and analog in general, is superior. That's why I keep proposing a test that takes those other reasons out of the equation: make two vinyl records from the same master, but where one is direct from the master and the other is the master put through a good quality A->D->A chain. If no one can hear the difference that provides very strong evidence that digitizing the signal does not degrade it in any audible way. Do you agree with that? And if we ran that test (using redbook for the D part, say) and you couldn't hear a difference (blind, of course), what would you conclude from that? -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53355 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
