adamdea;578475 Wrote: > ... i think the point is] > was that if you isolate the recording of a quiet sound maxing 7 bits > above digital noise floor, then this would be the same as a 7 bit > recording of this noise alone using the full dynamic range of the 7 > bits. [snip] > > ...If you assumed that the analog sytem would be able to resove that > low level noise with infinite resolution (on the assumption that analog > recording works like an optical zoom rather than a digital zoom > [provocative or what]) then the analog recording of this sound would be > better.
Having done a fair amount of analog recording with open reel over the years, I can assure you that if you have an open reel with 65 or even 70 dB of S/N, when you have a quiet passage 50 dB down, you're still in a spot where the recorded info still has only 15 or 20 dB of S/N to work with and the noise floor inserts itself into the music. That in itself represents a loss of "resolution". Lost is this discussion is that quiet passages in music were meant by the composer and/or artist to be quiet. Therefore they are more subject to extraneous noise. It is meant that you have to strain or "work" to hear them versus turning up the volume and expecting them to sound identical to the loud passages. I find most of the "defects" in CD recordings were the result of intentional recording and mixing choices made by the artist, engineer or producer. I have any number of CDs that are absolutely wonderful in their dynamic range and presentation of quiet passages. If one CD can get that right, then it's not the format, and I have many. -- mlsstl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82050 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
