[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Durability...cd's as a backup device are much better then dvd's a read an extensive review for the government of using cd's or dvd's as a backup medium and the conclusion was that cd's deteriate much less then dvd's...some even say dvd's only hold for 5 years!

That all depends on the quality of the CD stock you use and the quality of the DVD stock. I work for an archive and we use Taiyo Yudin DVD blanks for backups. They have an error rate of less than 1 in 300 and are rated to last for at least 20 years.

See ya
Steve

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That all depends on the quality of the CD stock you use and the quality of the DVD stock. I work for an archive and we use Taiyo Yudin DVD blanks for backups. They have an error rate of less than 1 in 300 and are rated to last for at least 20 years. See ya Steve

Do you know what their CD's are rated for? From what I have read they are always at the top of the list in terms of quality...100 years maybe? I know some of the government archives are on 100 year guaranteed gold discs here in Canada.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simply put: at 44.1 khz sampling rate it is not so perfect...looking at the graph at 192 khz sampling rate the sine wave is perfect...hence it sounds much, much better.

You realize that the frequencies in that chart are nearly double the highest frequency that any musical instrument can produce? There isn't a heck of a lot of music between 16 and 21kHz. The frequencies that really matter are between 30Hz and 10kHz. It's not all about numbers... it's about sound.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you know what their CD's are rated for? From what I have read they are always at the top of the list in terms of quality...100 years maybe? I know some of the government archives are on 100 year guaranteed gold discs here in Canada.

I've heard a lot of figures stated, but I don't know that anyone can really project further than 20 years or so. If they can last that long, it will probably be better to transfer them to a newer format of storage anyway.

But if you want true archival permanence, no format is more stable than the shellac 78. I have records that are 100 years old and sound like they were pressed yesterday.

See ya
Steve

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've heard a lot of figures stated, but I don't know that anyone can really project further than 20 years or so. If they can last that long, it will probably be better to transfer them to a newer format of storage anyway. But if you want true archival permanence, no format is more stable than the shellac 78. I have records that are 100 years old and sound like they were pressed yesterday. See ya Steve

The National Archives of Canada have a lot of 78's but in terms of data...they are burning to archival grade gold CD's and DVD's at the moment. I assume that since they are in digital formats that once something bigger and better comes out they will continually rearchive, condensing everything into smaller and smaller packages. This of course has the added advantage of many copies hidden away around Canada and the world, ensuring the longevity of the data.

 

[Born2bwire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simply put: at 44.1 khz sampling rate it is not so perfect...looking at the graph at 192 khz sampling rate the sine wave is perfect...hence it sounds much, much better... Now the big question: why don't they move on and make all players and cd's 192khz?! Or make a new cd 192khz standard...

I haven't gone through this whole thread, but I believe the picture shown is just the digital time domain samples. The output still needs to go through the interpolation filter as Zanth was talking about (though he was referring to it as a reconstruction filter). As he said, for a straight sine wave it should be spot on, though I've never looked at how the transient would behave. Wouldn't be too hard to do if someone wants to with Matlab. It would really just end up being dependent upon the type of DAC used and the DAC's digital and analog interpolation filter.

 

[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells :
What you should say about my facts is that they disturb you, and you refuse to face their reality, and thus you will continue to deny they are real and will criticize me for pointing out the truth.

Most people do that much of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would watch the Messiah complex Art, could get you into trouble, plus it makes you sound a lot like Andrea

Art: The only fact presented on this forum, about percentage of the live musical data that is sampled in digital recording, is five per cent as reportd by Hirsch. Hirsch reported this was decided on by Sony and Philips, in agreeing to work together to develop the CD, as experiments show that a 5 percent sample of musical data in analog to digatal conversion could make most people think they were listening to the whole sampled universe.

The discussions that attempt to disprove this fact are irrelevant opinion.

Peole say impossible, not viable, or can't be so - but offer no contrary evidence (just irrelevant or unfounded opinion).


If it takes a Messiah complex to perceive reality and separate fact from emotionally based opinion then I certainly do hope I have one.

Go ahead and kill the messenger all you like - I can take it - saying I have a Messiah complex is easy to take. Call me worse - my wife does all the time.

Show me the contradictory data that tells me analog to digital conversion sampling is greater than 5 percent of the live music data. analog master tape,

No one ever did following the Hirsch article in Stereo Review. I looked in every issue for over a year expecting at least one letter to the editor saying Hirsch was wrong - never happened and I never found any contrary evidence to the 5 per cent sample assertion.

So, perhaps you think I remembered incorrectly? Now there is a comforting rationalization to allow you to hold onto your false beliefs. Not true though. The Hirsch article made a profound and lasting impression on me. My report of it will do the same to you - you will remember it for a long time.

So, perhaps you think Hirsch was wrong? No one (here or elsewhere) has ever contradicted him with fact. It is an empirical statement, and not an opinion or a deduction from a theory.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tend to agree, I have done quite a few lp-cd copies in the last few years and the resulting cd's sound not much different if any at all from the lp. Certainly they are better than cassette tape copies. Although I wouldn't say the cd's are indistinguishable from lp's because I haven't spent the time to test them. Mainly I don't want to keep running the lp's because of wear issues, so I stick to the cd copy.

I don't think the CD copies are indistinguishable at all. They often sound better than the commercial CD's being slightly warmer sounding but they still sound one dimensional in a way that the "live" records don't.

They also tend to reduce the realistic timbre of the record somehow and make it sound more "sampled" which of course it is. This is far less noticable at higher sampling rates (32bit /192Khz).

I also used to make cassette copies of my records. I just don't have time these days unfortunately but a recording of a record on my Nakamichi cassette deck sounds much better than any CD copy.

 

[JaZZ]

It doesn't really matter if it's Julian Hirsch or drarthurwells who's considered the Messiah. -- In any event the sole fact that one of them has (or hasn't) ever mentioned the number of 5% for describing the information content left after digitalization (which sampling rate and bit depth, BTW?) of an analog signal is a poor argumentation chain.

Take digital vs. analog photography as analogy. With a given picture format, beyond a certain resolution (= number of megapixels, bit depth) a further increase of resolution doesn't make sense -- considering the limited resolution of the human eye. So a digitalized picture can perfectly reproduce an analog original. Even more perfectly than an analog camera system with a result depending on film properties and (chemical/optical) processing.
.

 

[Emon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif They also tend to reduce the realistic timbre of the record somehow and make it sound more "sampled" which of course it is. This is far less noticable at higher sampling rates (32bit /192Khz).

Prove it.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Analog is a sample too, just different, analog is not a perfect copy of the original, Analog tape has physical limits and LP playback has physical limitations that limit the information that can be extracted from it due to the decceleration/acceleration of the stylus and so on.

Analogue is not a "sample". This analogy of yours is innacurate and pretty misleading as we already noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Continuous is not the same as infinite and anyway it had been proven that LP playback is composed of discrete chunks of information due to the physical limits of playback, both LP and CD are simulacra of the signal, they are just different ways of doing it.

Analogue playback is NOT composed of discrete chunks it's one contast waveform running the duration of the media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please back this up with some physics - and I dont count what Julian Hirsch opined , Hirsch never backed this up, nor did he ever quantify how many bits LP or analog tape could extract. If you work out the numbers using FR, DR and SNR then digital tape is vastly superior to analog tape on pure data capture grounds.

Analogue (open reel) tape has a far greater frequency range than any digital tape. Digital tape isn't really used much anymore. The standard was 16bit 48khz which is noticably slightly superior to CD but nonetheless far inferior to a Revox running at 15IPS. Hard disc recording at 32/192 is the only thing approaching analogue tape in freqeuncy response.
Digital generally has better channel separation by about 20-30dbs but the noisefloor is not constant like open reel and varies with the signal strength.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Analogue playback is NOT composed of discrete chunks, it's one constant [!?] waveform running the duration of the media.

Constant waveform does in no way mean (more) accurate waveform.
.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Prove it.

Don't know of any quantifiable measurement for timbre? semantically I am describing subjective perceptions along the lines of "does an oboe sound like an oboe, does it sound like it's made of wood...etc."

As an aside there are algorhythms in many modern synthsisers for "analogue modelling" which try to recreate in 4 dimensions ( ie in space and time ) how the sound of an instrument interacts with the listener. For instance how does a wooden stick hitting a metal snare in a 20x20ft room with wooden walls and concrete floor sound compared to the same room dimensions with a wooden floor and concrete walls?
There are even research projects at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris into "metaphysical modelling" eg what sound does a glass stick hitting a concrete snare in a 20x20 room with walls made of water and a silk floor make?

Compare this to 1 mic (or 20) plugged into a desk recording the same snare at 16bit 44k, breaking it down into little packets of binary data and then putting the data back together again....and the latter seems inconsequential

Going back to our algorhythmic room though, just because we can come up with the mathmatics to recreate such a thing doesn't mean that it will fool a listener into thinking they are hearing a live drummer.

Why? because we lack the understanding of what is involved in such a process. As yet.

So there is no empirical proof beyond direct experience of a sound being produced or reproduced as there is no complete theorum which completely describes this. As yet.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Constant waveform does in no way mean (more) accurate waveform.

Do we perceive sounds discreetly? or do we hear a constant cacophony and interpret it as being composed of individual elements?

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is a given fact is that cheap record players sound better then cheap cdplayers.

I think you have to define "cheap" here. A $59 CD player will blow the pants off of a $59 turntable/cartridge combo.

A well put together $300 vinyl system can, IMO, sound better than a $300 CD player, as can vinyl systems at every price point above that. But at VERY low prices, CD wins in a landslide, which is why it was so easy for CD to take over. Crappy turntables were what most people had, and they stunk.