WRONG WRONG WRONG. I never met a single high end audio person who spent big bucks on a piece of equipment because someone TOLD THEM it was good. They buy it because they HEAR its really good and they want it badly enough to buy it. It is the average non - enthusiast who falls for the marketing hype and buys stuff dealers tell them to buy.
Secondly, if you are an electrical engineer you should know that digital audio recording performance is limited by sampling rates and word width. Digital audio is not automatically better than analog recording. It depends on the design and execution of the anslog recorder. Just like a 8x10 analog film camera outperforms a 2 Mpixel digital camera, a well made high end analog audio recorder can blow away a limited digital audio recorder. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. You're right, I'm not an audiophile, but I do not need to be one to know about the technology behind high end professional audio etc. I am an engineer, and pretty much everything you need to know about this is covered in a Signals and Systems course. There is a reason why analog modems cannot go beyond about 2400 baud, and pretty much every modem above this is digital. When you digitize a signal, you can take an FFT of the data to create digital filters that cannot be duplicated in analog. Audiophiles as a general group do not understand most of these principles. Most of them do not understand the technology behind the high priced gear they buy. And probably the vast majority of them are driven by clever marketing that makes them believe that if they buy the highest priced stuff with the cachet names, that they will get the best sounding equipment. Most of them would flunk a real test between genuine high end audio systems. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > you obviously are not an audiophile and no nothing about > high end or professional audio and especially nothing > about state of the art LP reproduction. Professional analog recordings > can and often do sound incredibly good especially those made on the on > high speed (30 IPS) wide ANALOG tape. Early 16/20 bit 44.1/48K digital > was the crap! Yes now that 24 bit 196KHZ sampling exists digital > has mostly caught up to ANALOG but prior to about 1990 that didn�t > even exist even in professional studios. Lp fans do not > want the original analog master recordings of the 50's, 60's, and 70's > digitized and then converted back to analog. With LPs that > is not necessary or desireable. It DEGRADES the sound quality. > And the concensus is that the latest digital sounds AS GOOD > as top line analog recording , NOT "light years ahead" it. Your post > is simply absurd. It is not analog or digital that makes for > a great recording, it is how far each technology is pushed. > And one last thing, Music lovers don�t care how much better > one format sounds WHEN THERE IS NO MUSIC, they care about > which sounds better WHEN THE MUSIC IS PLAYING. > JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. > > > Huh? Analog mag tape original recordings are crap. Especially the > older ones before metal came along. Horrible S/N ratio. Thats why > Dolby went through such elaborate schemes to try to cut down on high > frequency noise, which sounds like hiss to us. High end digital is the > way to go, conventional CD's at lower bit stream rates cannot duplicate > this, but higher end audio DVD's and some CD formats are now beginning > to come out with the high bit stream rate reproduction, which is light > years ahead of any analog recording ever made. Digital straight from > the pre-amps. Quiet periods are where you can tell the difference > immediately. > > rg > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>WRONG WRONG WRONG. >> >>The vinyl being produced today is mostly reissues of the finest >>recordings, both musically and sonically, on very high quality thick >>virgin vinyl for the best possible sound quality. >> >>About 99 percent of these masters are ANALOG not digital because those > > >>are the best and these recordings are GREAT MUSIC not just boring >>demos no one wants to hear. The main reason they are economically >>viable is that the original LPS are rare and valuable in excellent or >>better condition so the $20-$30 for a good reissue seems like a >>bargain the discriminating music lover. >> >>JCO >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:06 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. >> >> >>On 25 Aug 2004 at 21:23, P�l Jensen wrote: >> >> >> >>>Gonz wrote: >>> >>>Is any record company making LPs anymore? >>> >>> >>>REPLY: >>> >>>Yes. It is a thriving business. But of course it is mostly high-end >>>users who are interested. Not mass market. Audiophile issues are >>>popular. >> >> >>And few recordings (mostly digital in origin) are available in vinyl, >>a lot of the Audiophile label recordings are esoteric and are designed > > >>primarily to >>display the capabilities of ones system when having your audiophile >>friends over for a listening session. :-) >> >>It's akin to handing out your visiting photo pals loupes and lens test > > >>chart images shot on 4x5 sheet film. Very impressive but boring as bat > > >>sh*t. >> >> >>Rob Studdert >>HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >>Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >>UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ >>Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >> >> >> > > >
