 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
149.142.103.56
In Reply to: This is my belief also posted by jbangelfish on July 18, 2006 at 15:35:15:
>> I see no way that a laser is able to read or reproduce a signal nearly as well as a mechanical contact point (stylus).Clue: low mass. Incidentally, laser does not necessarily equate to digital, as laser disc video and the ELP laser turntable illustrate.
>> My ears agree with my brain.
And with your eyes.
>> Furthermore, if you look at a digital signal, it is all squared off and missing loads of info.
Poppycock. Get familiar with Nyquist-Shannon.
>> Why would anyone want to do this to an otherwise nearly perfect (analog) signal only to convert it back to analog anyway?
Lossless copying. Convenience. Reproducibility. Things like that.
Follow Ups:
Do you actually believe that shit?
Bill
Copying anything to Digital requires conversion from a musical waveform to a mathematical equalization in the Base 2 system (1’s and 0’s) and it is only an approximation. Then it has to be covered back to Analog so it can be heard with human ears.I consider copying anything to Digital as a crime against music, pure and simple.
Analog is music, Digital is mathematics and I prefer music,
Teresa
> Copying anything to Digital requires conversion from a musical waveform to a
> mathematical equalization in the Base 2 system (1’s and 0’s) and it is only an approximation.
> Then it has to be covered back to Analog so it can be heard with human ears.All stereo systems and record players are "only" approximations. Digital provides a more accurate approximation than vinyl. A digital copy of an original master will sound more like the original master than a vinyl copy.
Better luck next time,
John Elison
analog uses waveform ALWAYS.
digital cuts any waveform into samples. Now do you know what 'sample' means?analog copies/reproduces waveforms whereas digital samples/approximates those waveforms.
What's the matter with you?
This is logic 101 that you refuse to get.
You say if tubies like distortion then they should admit that. If you like synthetic music then you should admit that.
I'll go first: I like tube distortion and analog waveforms. I like digitized and syntheticly reproduced analog waveforms to a lesser extent ... out of neccessity.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
Analog gets one the closest to the sound of the original master tape or microphone feed.Analog is music, Digital is mathematics, I prefer music!
Happy listening,
Teresa
I knew you'd be in this mess somewhere.
Bill
Then connect "accurate" with "reproduction" and you'll discover that digital provides a more accurate reproduction than does vinyl.
I asked what it means to you. You and your wacky friend never answer any questions. You just spout some crap, quote some crap and state all as facts. I don't really give a rats ass. I'm done with this. If you can't appreciate vinyl for what it is, you should probably not hang out here so much. This is the vinyl forum, for a reason. Most of us, I believe, appreciate vinyl more than we appreciate cd because it is friendlier to our ears and the most accurate recording media that we have ready access to.
Bill
> > Please define accurateNot until you or Teresa understand and address Nyquist-Shannon. Otherwise, it's like trying to explain evolution to a Pentacostal creationist.
And analog is the best at capturing how actualy REAL ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS sound in a REAL ACOUSTICAL SPACE .I don't care how things are supposed to work, they either work or they do not work. Low resolution Digital does not work for me. I find 24 Bit 96kHz and 192kHz PCM able to capture many of analogs attributes but not all of them.
Analog still reins supreme!
Analog is music, Digital is mathematics, I prefer music!Happy listening,
Teresa
This argument based on Nyquist-Shannon Theory as applied to a completely artificial construct (digital-domain) that few even begin to know about or understand borders on shear lunacy!
"In practice, neither of the two statements of the sampling theorem described above can be completely satisfied, and neither can the reconstruction formula be precisely implemented. The reconstruction process which involves the sinc-functions can be described as ideal. It cannot be realized in practice since it implies that each sample contributes to the reconstructed signal at almost all time points. Instead some type of approximations of the sinc-functions which are truncated to limited intervals have to be used. The error which corresponds to the sinc-function approximation is referred to as interpolation error. Furthermore, in practice the sampled signal can never be exactly bandlimited. This means that even if an ideal reconstruction could be made, the reconstructed signal would not be exactly the sampled signal."Dave
You have correctly identified the primary problem in any reproduction medium as one of implementation. Several other people in this thread have done so as well. Nyquist-Shannon, however, still disproves the ridiculous notion of digital music having "holes".So beyond the information theoretics, perhaps we can start talking about empirical measures of accuracy such as distortion, signal-to-noise ratios, etc.
has limited relevance, really. Not no relevance, but recognizing the limits of the relevance is important I think. Comparing signal to noise ratios might make very impressive numbers and it is easy to equate that with "superiority", but what was the signal to noise ratio at the last concert YOU went to?Dave
The signal to noise ratio at the last concert I went to as certainly lower than on the latest record by that band. But that's beside the point here. The point is, if we would record that concert, would analog or digital technology reproduce that recording better? Both technologies as they exist today involve losses.Of course, you might be implying that you don't care about a few errors as long as the music is great. In which case I would be inclined to agree with you.
.
.
-----------------
I'm not the one claiming superiority for either medium.
My full-spectrum frequency modulated optical analog disc a is theoretically superior medium. But even it couldn't possibly be PERFECT!Until a medium stores and renders a recording as naturally as a record utilizing proper playback, it will remain the #1 choice of critical listeners.
so quit suggesting that your motives are higher science. Or anything else really. You are no more qualified than anyone else here to pass judgement on the way it *really* is, and your opinion is no more accurate or valid than anyone else's.Dave
I don't really care what the theory states. Music is for listening and my ears tell me otherwise. I consider the cd to be a flawed media and it is highly unlikely that I will ever change my mind.
It has nothing to do with a preference, my being stubborn, nostalgia or any other ridiculous accusations. It only has to do with what I have heard comparing vinyl to cd. I don't really care what Fremer or anyone else has said. When they agree with me (and Fremer does) of course, I'm more likely to listen but in the final analysis, it comes down to what I think for myself from my own experiences and what I've heard with my own ears.
Bill
before I bought that awful Sony CDP-101, I listened to Audiophile Cassettes I had a collection of over 100 including many MFSLs, In Sync Labs, Advent Process CR/70's, Sound Ideas, etc. most recorded in real time on either Chrome or Metal tape.I sold my Nakamichi and all my cassettes to get the $900.00 for the CDP-101, which I pre-ordered, as I believed Sony's Perfect Sound Forever ads. I was one of the first persons in the USA to have CD and it was the worst mistake I ever made in my life. I didn't want to restart my Cassette Collection and buy a new Nakamichi as there were not enough Classical Audiophile Cassettes and Audiophile Cassettes were expensive up $17.99 each. I thought about going back to Reel to Reel as Barclay-Crocker's prices was better 6.95 - 10.95 but I collected NOTHING for over one year.
Reading the Absolute Sound I decided to give LPs another chance and it was the best decision I ever made.
So LPs were really only discovered by me about 18 years ago because CDs sucked so badly and my other options: Audiophile Cassette and Reel to Reel were sinking fast.
I have owned all formats except for Elcassette and I can say that the only thing that can beat LP sonically is a well made Reel to Reel tape.
Happy listening,
Teresa
...that measures audio gear with instruments to determine how good it sounds?
to "Are you one of these guys" etc.
. . . who can't make a coherent argument for or against a technological medium?
Hard to argue with someone who answers questions with questions.
> > Do you actually believe that shit?Do you fondle your mom with the fingers that typed this?
I'm old, my mother is dead. Yer sick. I love music. Piss off.
Bill
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
