[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drminky as analogue is in effect an infinite sampling rate (only limited by the capablility of the tape).

I am afraid it is not. If it were, we would have a system capable of reproducing infinitely high frequencies. AFAIK (here we go again), no system - analog or digital - is capable of doing that.

Aren't analog signals continuous, i.e. not sampled at all? In that case we could say that an analog system's bandwith is equivalent of a certain sample rate, no? But infinite it is not.


Regards,

L.

 

[Ferbose]

Nothing has infinite resolution.
To get infinite resolution on analog recording, recording devices have to respond infinitely fast and storage device needs infinite space.
I read analog recording has frequency response up to 50 kHz. This is very sufficient because harmonics of natural instruments don't go that high and human hearing also does not go that high. Now 192 KHz and DSD can reach even beyond 50 kHz.
DrMinky has brought up an important point. Analog processes in audio often has distortions that measure high but sound natural. Digital processes often generate distortions that measure low but sound detrimental.

 

[Publius]

Put another way: if you think that analog tape sounds unquestionably better than digital, why does 3.25 ips tape sound better than 44.1khz digital?

 

[aeriyn]

Oiy.

"Better" is such an utterly subjective word that it's not even funny. You guys need to really stop trying to one-up each other, put your headphones on and listen to some music, either analog or digital.

This is like Apple fanboys vs. iRiver fanboys. Sheesh. Chill out.

For the record I find that analog master recordings pressed to CD sound better than digital recordings pressed to CD. Note, this is how I feel. It does not mean that it is better. It does not mean that digital is worthless, or analog is worthless.

They are both different means to the same end; just like a tube amp and a solid-state amp are means to amplifying an audio signal, so is analog and digital recording methods. They're going to be different, but one is not better than the other.

 

[Rotareneg]

Bah, wax cylinders (1 meg WMV) are far better than your pathetic vinyl "records."

 

[gloco]

Beyond me why so many are getting upset, most albums you buy nowadays are recorded on a pc then mastered on pro tools. I think the sound of an album largely depends on how it's mastered, source matters based on tastes only, imho. I think digital can be great if it's done right.

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco Beyond me why so many are getting upset, most albums you buy nowadays are recorded on a pc then mastered on pro tools. I think the sound of an album largely depends on how it's mastered, source matters based on tastes only, imho. I think digital can be great if it's done right.

w0rd.

 

[Cthulhu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nak Man Anyway I wouldn't worry much about the techniques or media, it's the music that matters. Sadly good music also fades away with tapes and vinyl ... =)

Obviously you don't listen to rock or metal

If you do, hook yourself up with a copy of spiritual beggars' album "Ad Astra" and give that a spin!

However, I think you can get it on vinyl

 

[memepool]

CD is a sonically inferior medium to Vinyl or Tape. This is a scientific fact. Because the original Red Book standard assumes erroneously that sound is only audible to 20khz, there is a brickwall filter build into PCM at this frequency. Vinyl records and analogue tape have no such theoretical limitation and can reproduce music beyond this frequency.

This is not to say that digital is inferior to analogue, merely that when CD was invented the best standards of the day were not the best that is possible.

Technically CD is over. None of the major players in consumer electronics are making CD players now. DVD-A, SA-CD and the new Blue Ray standards far surpass anything that CD is capable of. Although DVD-A is still based on PCM so still has the same issues. But the fact that (in the UK at least) these new formats sold 1/2 as many units as Vinyl records illustrates that there is no realistic alternative to CD for the moment which is still selling better than ever.

The same market forces which determine that CD is a successful hi-fidelity carrier despite it's shortcomings also hold on the production side where protools makes life so much easier and cheaper than having to resort to cutting up bits of tape.

However just because tape is no longer the main editing media doesn't mean it can't be used for capture and mastering. Many people are now looking back on the DDD recordings and remasterings of the 1980s and 90's and realising that 16/44 wasn't as good as it was cracked to be.

So it's a shame that Ampex/Quantegy is going out of business but we still have Emtec/BASF and I am sure the Chinese will master tape production as they have mastered valve amps and DVD players.

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool CD is a sonically inferior medium to Vinyl or Tape. This is a scientific fact. Because the original Red Book standard assumes erroneously that sound is only audible to 20khz

AFAIK the audibility of ultrasonic content hasn't been proven.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool Because the original Red Book standard assumes erroneously that sound is only audible to 20khz, there is a brickwall filter build into PCM at this frequency. Vinyl records and analogue tape have no such theoretical limitation and can reproduce music beyond this frequency.

This fact alone of course does not constitute a "scientific fact" that "CD is a sonically inferior medium to Vinyl or Tape". If it did, designing good audio systems would be terribly easy. I think you are jumping to conclusions rather too hastily. There are many other factors at play.

This is getting tiresome...


Regards,

L.

 

[greenhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breez AFAIK the audibility of ultrasonic content hasn't been proven.

Neither was proven the link between the greenhouse gases emissions and the climate change. Or between smoking and lung cancer. Which does not mean these links does not exist.

A while ago it had not yet been proven that the Earth is round.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenhorn Neither was proven the link between the greenhouse gases emissions and the climate change. Or between smoking and lung cancer. Which does not mean these links does not exist. A while ago it had not yet been proven that the Earth is round.

A while ago it hadn't been proven that EM fields from headphones don't cause cancer. What's your point?

The one study I'm aware of (NHK) gives a reasonable picture that if there is a benefit to be had from hires, it is not obviously apparant or even remotely apparant to most of the listening population.

We've had this discussion many many times before. In particular, vinyl response hasn't been well verified beyond 20khz (although a Stereophile editor has apparantly ripped good ultrasonics off at least one album), and it's sort of expected to get attenuated every time you play it.

 

[greenhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius A while ago it hadn't been proven that EM fields from headphones don't cause cancer. What's your point? The one study I'm aware of (NHK) gives a reasonable picture that if there is a benefit to be had from hires, it is not obviously apparant or even remotely apparant to most of the listening population. We've had this discussion many many times before. In particular, vinyl response hasn't been well verified beyond 20khz (although a Stereophile editor has apparantly ripped good ultrasonics off at least one album), and it's sort of expected to get attenuated every time you play it.

My point was a general one: if something hasn't been proven (yet?) this does not mean that it does not exist.

 

[drminky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello This is getting tiresome... Regards, L.

Hey! At least we agree on something!

Lets all move on, shall we?