las wrote:
>
> In my humble opinion, if you can make electronics that can keep the distortion
> as low (unfortunately this becomes very hard with analog tubes, tape, vinyl,
> etc.), the frequency response as wide, the signal to noise ratio as good and the
> dynamic range as wide, analog would sound better then digital. That's because
> that concert was analog to begin with and so are our ears.
No, then the analog would sound the same as the digital, if I'm
interpreting your statement correctly: If analog was the same as
digital, analog would sound better. I know that you are making the
distiction between the analog process versus the digital process
(continuous vs. discreet) but if all things are equal, then the result
should be equal.
You're saying that digital is inherently inferior, because our ears are
analog. But our ears are digital. When a sound wave wiggles the
basilar membrane, it causes selected, individual, DISCREET nerves to
fire. Which nerve depends on the frequencies and amplitudes of the
sound. A digital recording of sufficient quality will cause the EXACT
same nerves to fire as the analog recording of similar quality.
16 bit 44.1 kHz is not sufficient to exactly reproduce an analog sound
waveform, given the ear's resolution of 20 kHz (if your'e lucky) and 130
dB (before you go deaf). But 24 bit 96 kHz probably is, given a 144 dB
dynamic range, and 48 kHz frequency response. To be absolutely sure, 32
bits would probably be better, and maybe bump up the sampling rate to
192 kHz. But at that resolution, there will be no difference in the
ear's response to an analog or a digital signal.
-steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
