Kellen wrote: > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf > > I am a simple photographer which makes these infos far to complicated > for me to get into my brain. > > Does this infos mean that we need to ? the science (Fourier) invloved in > digital audio (PCM) because it doesn't do a good enough job (compared to > ear) of representing the analogue signal that digital is asked to > capture? > > Does this infos explain why some people are so critical of digital? > > Thanks
Most likely not ,that paper went way over my head :) But the reason to why some are " critical to digital " is very well understood otherwise , they are audiophools in lives in parallel reality . And the time/frequ accuracy of a analog system is actually much worse , if wow and flutter measurement on tape decks and LP player rings a bell that's the " analog jitter " . So even if human "time frequency acutely " is better than previously understood it would actualy make the case for digital not the other way around IMHO . Can some one explain that paper ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98124 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
