On the superiority of vinyl
Jan 30, 2007 at 7:27 PM Post #526 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by Born2bwire /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The frequency response of LPs is generally not as wide as CD's, I can't remember the source but I recall that LPs probably did not go above around 16KHz until around the 70's and 80's. And even then you have to deal with the degredation of the cuts from each play. The RIAA even suggests that it is acceptable to go down to 20KHz after a single play. On top of that is the inherent low-frequency rumble that can obscure the very low end.


This has been discussed earlier in this thread. For instance Quadraphonic LP's in the 70's needed a frequency range upto 45Khz, so the format per se is perfectly capable of reproducing a wider frequency range than CD.

Rumble and other mechanically induced distortions are a (mal)function of the playback equipment rather than the format and this has been constantly refined for 50+ years even since the demise of vinyl as a mainstream media. Discs can now be read by a laser with zero rumble if desired although a good conventional turntable can manage -88db which is not far off CD specs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77
Of course the corollary to this is to ask, so how much does the Analog tape recording or LP discard ?

.........

But event at this hotly contested 5% it does not mean that an analog recording captures any more data than a digital one. Given Digital tape's vast superiority in Dynamic range and SNR over 0 - 20k it is hard to see how it could.



Maybe you missed that last link I posted so here it is in full...

Tim de Paravicini and his 1-inch stereo recorder

By George Shilling

In the music industry, there are two types of people: those who cannot wait for every new software update and aspire to own every piece cutting edge technology, and those who prefer the tried and trusted, only accepting 'new' when it has really proved itself as 'better'. Tim de Paravicini most definitely falls into the latter category. But he is no Luddite: he believes in the steady improvement of recording and playback technologies. "With an analogue system, you can go on and on improving, just like the motor car industry. Cars today are better in most respects than their 50s and 60s counterparts. New models are a logical development of their predecessors." This, de Paravicini believes, is not the case with digital music technology. He blames virulent marketing: "Because music is such a continuous event, it is difficult to do with digital, because the brain is very sensitive to glitches and minute errors in the high frequency range. If you scratch CDs they won't play, unlike vinyl. When they demonstrated the robustness of CD on Tomorrows World in 1981 they wiped strawberry jam on, but it was a con - they put it on the opposite side to the data. The major CD promoters destroyed heaps of vinyl in order to advance the CD with its larger profit margin. Vinyl disc has the instant access of hard-disk recording, and I've got vinyl pressed in the 50's that is still acceptably quiet. Whatsmore, a modern cassette machine damn nearly gives a DAT machine a good run for its money. Standards should be carefully thought about and implemented". He is also well-known for his preference of valve technology: "In the early days of recording, valves were expensive, therefore designs tended to feature less of them. This discipline led to cleaner signal paths. When cheap transistor technology came along, this simplicity went out of the window."

Following the introduction of the new Zonal 999 tape (previewed in the August SS) and approving comments from de Paravicini, a demonstration of his top-flight 1-inch analogue stereo recorder using the new tape was arranged. Present were Adam Francis, Consultant for Professional Audio to Zonal and Sam Hann, Zonal's Sales Director. The setting was Dave Gilmour's Astoria Studio (courtesy of studio manager Phil Taylor), appropriate not only for its wonderfully accurate monitoring, but also the huge amount of EAR/de Paravicini equipment, including eight compressors and a de Paravicini-modified mix buss on the Neve VR Legend desk.

Description

The 1-inch format mastering machine is built using a Studer C37 as a donor. This workhorse ¼" machine was popular with broadcasters in previous years. Redundant machines are therefore readily available, stripped and rebuilt "to the last nut and bolt" to de Paravicini's demanding specifications. This is not just a transport modification: all electronics are rebuilt to the highest standards. de Paravicini has also rebuilt C37s as ½" machines due to customer demand. But since 1986, de Paravicini's entire 1-inch machine output comprises a mere eight machines. This looks likely to change, with three mastering houses in the US acquiring machines within a year, giving more people confidence to use the format. Famous users include Bill Bottrell (for work with Sheryl Crow and Michael Jackson). More recently Aerosmith mastered their double-live album to 1-inch. Producer Jack Douglas, on auditioning the format, reportedly exclaimed, "It sounds huge, man!" Perhaps unsurprisingly, competitors have sprung up in the USA pinching the format idea. de Paravicini dismisses their machines' electronics as inferior to his, although their use of alternative 'donor' machines interests him. "If starting from scratch now I would use a more modern transport", he says. Indeed, there is a possibility of a future collaboration with these 'upstart' competitors who will rebuild Ampex ATR transports while de Paravicini takes care of the electronics.

In Use

Tim sets his own standards when it comes to line-up. Despite using high level tape, he sets 0VU at 200NWb/m. "I use 999 for the cohesiveness of the sound, because with the low noise floor of the 1-inch, the headroom is relatively irrelevant. It gives a safety margin during live recording and reduces print-through." I was initially concerned about hiss we could hear, but this was soon traced to our input source rather than coming from the 1-inch tape, which was very quiet. de Paravicini typically recommends over-biasing by nearly 1dB less than is conventionally recommended, giving improved HF distortion figures.

We listened to a range of source material, switching between input and off-tape monitoring. The sound was undeniably huge and vibrant. One all-digital recording seemed subtly enhanced off the 1-inch tape, and superb dynamics and frequency definition were witnessed by all present.

Design Philosophy: 1-inch

So how much does the machine cost? de Paravicini: "In the order of £9,000 ready to go. If you spent a gazillion dollars on it I could do better still, but the only thing that will equal this sonically would be a 24 bit 400kHz true linear digital system: both systems will then satisfy the hearing mechanism." de Paravicini points out that he wrote in 1982 of the need for 400kHz 24 bit and yet today the big players are still discussing 96kHz and perhaps 192kHz as possible formats. He points out that with the rapidly falling prices of digital storage media, multiplying to a 384kHz sampling rate is not unreasonable and absolutely ideal. Until that happens, however, there may well be a market for machines such as these. Current de Paravicini-modified C37s run at 15 and 30 IPS. However, one future improvement he proposes is the seemingly oddball change to 18 IPS, which he is proposing in an AES white paper. "I have agreement with all the owners of my 1-inch machines," he says. Apart from possibly frightening potential purchasers, this has yet to be implemented due to the notional compatibility with other 1-inch formats for emergency editing or playback. Presently, de Paravicini recommends 15IPS with bass response down to 7Hz within 3dB for minimum phase distortion in 40-100Hz region, important, he says, for rhythmic elements. de Paravicini is a great believer in the importance of frequencies above and below the conventional 20Hz-20kHz range. He points out that one can sense the standing wave of a large cathedral which is below 5Hz. The brain knows this as our body senses sound through other parts of the body than the ears. "This traditional notion of the hearing stopping below 20Hz is absolutely rubbish. We detect sound down to the resonant frequency of the body, about 3Hz", argues de Paravicini. Deaf people certainly seem to "hear" through the body. "Likewise, the high frequency notion of 20kHz is also rubbish. In essence, we detect audio up to about 45kHz. We can't say we hear it as a tone, but we are certain that something is going on. My method of demonstrating this was several years doing work on ultrasonic bath cleaners. Everybody in the room suffered the after-effects of tinnitus. You are aware of this excruciating feeling going on. My speakers go up to 40kHz. If I put a 20kHz tone from an oscillator through them, most people in the room are in discomfort. With a 24kHz tone the younger people in the room are in discomfort and discerning it quite obviously. So traditional myths have to be thrown out the window. I wanted a tape machine that roughly embodies what the hearing mechanism is about: 15IPS enables a range of 7Hz to roughly 40kHz within 3dB with a good running time. At 30IPS it goes from 14Hz up to 80kHz theoretical, 60kHz in practice, but performance at 15IPS is already better than most digital systems and perfectly adequate for human hearing." His proposed 18IPS standard degrades the bass by a negligible amount but gives 45-50k top end and is arguably the best compromise. I asked Tim about the improvement over ½-inch. Surprisingly, he explained the difference in terminology more commonly related to digital equipment: "The number of magnetic particles on the tape with ½-inch is roughly equivalent to 23-24 bit while 1-inch is 24-25 bit. This is necessary as the ear can discern distortions as much as 80dB down. Also, modulation noise is lower than ½-inch, with better bottom end solidity." Although emphasising the importance of large playback heads for extended bass response, de Paravicini accuses major multitrack manufacturers of the crime of "cost-unbalanced engineering". He maintains that corners are often cut with playback electronics. "Many 1950's recordings have response up to 40kHz - recording these frequencies is relatively easy compared to playing them back." de Paravicini has designed playback equipment for Mobile Fidelity to enable remastering to the highest standards. Poor playback electronics overload the high frequencies and cause what he refers to (onomatopoeically) as "spitching", with LF and HF artefacts. "When mic noise is the noisiest thing then that's fine - mics inherently have at least 6dB more noise than human ear. But in most cases the mic is not the weakest link - it is more likely the mic amp, console or monitoring."

Zonal 999

Naturally, the best tape possible is important to the success of the 1" analogue format. de Paravicini is particularly impressed with Zonal 999's packing, which improves HF phase and quality. This tape holds together well with no deposit on the heads visible during our tests. de Paravicini points to historic shedding problems of other tape manufacturers. And this tape is much more fluid and pleasant to handle than a certain competitor's product. Rather alarmingly, de Paravicini suddenly grasped and crumpled a foot or so of tape with his hands, to demonstrate another advantage of the 1-inch format. It is twice as difficult to stretch compared to ½-inch. To coin a phrase: "If you even touch DAT tape you're up the swannee without a creek!" Interestingly, Zonal does not make any digital tape. Sam Hann explains: "We decided that with our experience, we are so committed to analogue we will probably stay to the bitter end - if there ever comes one. Anybody can produce digital, there is no art to it. Analogue, there is actually an art to it. You can vary the performance of the tape by using different oxide. What you've got to get right is the actual formulation. If you don't get the formulation right you are likely to have shedding, flaking, etc. That's the art of making tape. Digital is a different ball game altogether. And with analogue, you can do so much with it. This is why I am inviting Tim to help us. If he were to make a suggestion there are ways of tweaking it, with digital you can't." Hann says that the only customer who makes suggestions for specifications are the BBC, so perhaps with de Paravicini's increasingly accepted standing in the industry he is now in a position to influence future tape formulations. de Paravicini welcomed the invitation, immediately musing on metal formulations, and promised to give the matter some thought.

 
Jan 30, 2007 at 8:06 PM Post #527 of 847
When i look at the graph of this sample of sampling frequency...i see there is quite clear a gap between the sinewave and the taken samples...however at 24/192 the sample is perfect...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nal.svg/567px-

So, this implies that there is a hole between the original sinewave and the samples taken...e.g. somehting is missing that is in the original compared to the samples.

I cannot find however a figure that clearly states it's only 1/20 of the original.
 
Jan 30, 2007 at 8:11 PM Post #528 of 847
When i look at the graph of this sample of sampling frequency...i see there is quite clear gaps between the sinewave and the taken samples...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nal.svg/567px-

So, this implies that there is a hole between the original sinewave and the samples taken...e.g. somehting is missing that is in the original compared to the samples.

I cannot find however a figure that clearly states it's only 1/20 of the original.

This is a list of commonly used samplerates today:
8,000 Hz - telephone, adequate for human speech
11,025 Hz and 22,050 Hz - quarter and half the sampling rate of audio CDs (44,100 Hz, see below), used for lower-quality PCM and MPEG audio
32,000 Hz - miniDV digital video camcorder, DAT (LP mode), Germany's Digitales Satellitenradio (German)
44,056 Hz - PCM adaptor using NTSC video tapes (245 lines by 3 samples by 59.94 frames per second), sometimes misused to play back audio streams sampled at 44,100 Hz (and vice versa)
44,100 Hz - audio CD, also most commonly used with MPEG-1 audio (VCD, SVCD, MP3), adopted from the PCM adaptor using PAL video tapes (294 lines by 3 samples by 50 frames per second)
47,250 Hz - world's first commercial PCM sound recorder by Nippon Columbia (Denon)
48,000 Hz - digital sound used for miniDV, digital TV, DVD, DAT, films and professional audio
50,000 Hz - first commercial digital audio recorders from the late 70's from 3M and Soundstream
50,400 Hz - sampling rate used by the Mitsubishi X-80 digital audio recorder
96,000 or 192,000 Hz - DVD-Audio, some LPCM DVD tracks, BD-ROM (Blu-ray Disc) audio tracks, and HD-DVD (High-Definition DVD) audio tracks
2.8224 MHz - SACD, 1-bit sigma-delta modulation process known as Direct Stream Digital, co-developed by Sony and Philips

According to this list, sacd is far supperior then anything else...also dvd-audio. Proble is, is sacd aslo played back in the player at the same samplerate...
 
Jan 30, 2007 at 8:16 PM Post #529 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif
44,100 samples per second. times 20, equal 888,200 - given Hirsch reported a 1/20 sample size from the whole analog signal.


I rather thought you would say that. This is going round in circles, show the 1/20 statement, i.e back up your assertion with chapter and verse.

Quote:

Now Nyquist says the small sample can reproduce the frequencies of the whole. Perfect reproduction? I don't think so.


This is a bold claim, to be more knowledgeable about digital sampling and theory than Mr Nyquist , can you back this bold claim up with suitable model or theory or even controlled listening experiments ?.

Nyquist's assertions can be assessed both in mathematical terms and by listening experiments, the addition of a 16 bit AD/DA chain has been shown to have no audible effect on an analog signal. I will happily cite chapter and verse on this if you wish.

So far you have provided an anecdote that nobody in the rest of the world can validate, I have been posting this question on all the rec.audio newsgroups and nobody has ever heard of this 1/20 figure. I have searched high and low and found no references to this or to the experiments you speak about.
 
Jan 30, 2007 at 10:11 PM Post #530 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I rather thought you would say that. This is going round in circles, show the 1/20 statement, i.e back up your assertion with chapter and verse.



This is a bold claim, to be more knowledgeable about digital sampling and theory than Mr Nyquist , can you back this bold claim up with suitable model or theory or even controlled listening experiments ?.

Nyquist's assertions can be assessed both in mathematical terms and by listening experiments, the addition of a 16 bit AD/DA chain has been shown to have no audible effect on an analog signal. I will happily cite chapter and verse on this if you wish.

So far you have provided an anecdote that nobody in the rest of the world can validate, I have been posting this question on all the rec.audio newsgroups and nobody has ever heard of this 1/20 figure. I have searched high and low and found no references to this or to the experiments you speak about.



If there was a model, i am sure we would at least find one article about it on the web...or on wikipedia or other reference sites about audio...
 
Jan 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM Post #531 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif
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.



How would you even test something like that? To even make a comparison, it seems you'd have to quantize the data and then compare a CD to that. Quantize because otherwise you'd lack a finite set to represent. However, because of this, I'm not even sure how you could measure something like this even in theory. A non-quantized domain of information is just that; non-quantized, and the process of even quantizing it would presumably be considered lossy, though in a manner different from 'loss' you get from a so-called 'analog' domain recording. As such, it seems to me that one is left with either comparing the CD to something irreducibly lossy, or comparing it to something we can't actually do (e.g. record it without quantization). Maybe what is meant is it is 5% of all that could be quantized and reproduced given current technology, but that isn't a particularly dismaying figure to me. I'm getting a sense that this is considered abhorred in audiophilia, perhaps because 5% sounds like 'too little' data to retain, but this doesn't particularly alarm me from the perspective of psychoacoustics.
 
Jan 30, 2007 at 11:21 PM Post #532 of 847
As this 5% question has been vexxing me I did the following. I went to my Univ Library (drexel) got a letter for an external Penn reader, signed up at Penn and went to their journal holdings.

They have Stereo Review from 1958 - 1995. I started at Jan 1972 and looked through any ref to digital tech and all articles by Julian Hirsch. I completed up to the end of Jun 1981. It was a fascinating experience in virtual (audio) time travel.

At no point did this 5% thing ever surface. In fact Hirsch says remarkably little about digital in this time "Speaker testing in the digital age" being an exception. As at this point (Jun 1981) CD(ish) has already been around as a demo medium for a few years (though the standards are still not established, the last ref (late 1980) was to a 44.05 (yes 44.05) khz system. Most studios using digital are using soundstream which is a 50K system and 14 bits is the proposed standard. CD is just over a year away (Sony CDP101) October 1982. If Hirsch is going to say anything about this he had better do so soon.

Art: I issue this kind request to you, I have, despite a great deal of effort been unable to find your citation, when I get the time I will do 1981 - 1983, now I would kindly ask that you go forth and find this - If he said it (in print) then it must exist somewhere. Good Luck.
 
Jan 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM Post #533 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Tim de Paravicini and his 1-inch stereo recorder

........


Presently, de Paravicini recommends 15IPS with bass response down to 7Hz within 3dB

15IPS enables a range of 7Hz to roughly 40kHz within 3dB with a good running time.

At 30IPS it goes from 14Hz up to 80kHz theoretical, 60kHz in practice

The number of magnetic particles on the tape with ½-inch is roughly equivalent to 23-24 bit while 1-inch is 24-25 bit.




That is impressive, digital tape itself can go down to 3hz and CD can certainly reproduce 4hz so they are about the same at the low end. The high freq extension is impressive though.

How does TDP assess this bit equivalency for tape as the analog recording is essentially different from digital recording ? The Tape recording surface is made up of magnetic particles whether it is used for analog or digital and the resolution depends on the record head as much as the tape. A good tape head wont put more particles on the tape and a higher quality tape wont improve the physical limits of the tape head.

I guess that is the crux of it finding a common way to assess the technical performance of two different systems.
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 12:18 AM Post #534 of 847
Am I the only one who detects the irony of an audiophile using a quote from Julian Hirsch? After all, he's the guy who said that all amps that rate the same sound exactly the same. He was universally hated by audiophile equipment manufacturers for rating their stuff as overpriced and ordinary.

Did someone just pull this quote out of context from a Google search?

See ya
Steve
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 1:50 AM Post #535 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif
de Paravicini points out that he wrote in 1982 of the need for 400kHz 24 bit and yet today the big players are still discussing 96kHz and perhaps 192kHz as possible formats. He points out that with the rapidly falling prices of digital storage media, multiplying to a 384kHz sampling rate is not unreasonable and absolutely ideal.


Just for your info, I don't know if you can *record* in 24/384, but you can *hear* 24bits/384khz with these:

Harman Kardon HD-970
CAMBRIDGE AZUR 840C

'found this on the net lately
cool.gif
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 2:21 AM Post #536 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Déchaîné /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just for your info, I don't know if you can *record* in 24/384, but you can *hear* 24bits/384khz with these:

Harman Kardon HD-970
CAMBRIDGE AZUR 840C

'found this on the net lately
cool.gif



I bet they can...they use 64 bit recording technology in some studio's..so recording equipment is far better then the reproduction equipment. The problem is that they still have to compress to 16 bit/44.1 for cd.
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 2:27 AM Post #537 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How would you even test something like that? To even make a comparison, it seems you'd have to quantize the data and then compare a CD to that. Quantize because otherwise you'd lack a finite set to represent. However, because of this, I'm not even sure how you could measure something like this even in theory. A non-quantized domain of information is just that; non-quantized, and the process of even quantizing it would presumably be considered lossy, though in a manner different from 'loss' you get from a so-called 'analog' domain recording. As such, it seems to me that one is left with either comparing the CD to something irreducibly lossy, or comparing it to something we can't actually do (e.g. record it without quantization). Maybe what is meant is it is 5% of all that could be quantized and reproduced given current technology, but that isn't a particularly dismaying figure to me. I'm getting a sense that this is considered abhorred in audiophilia, perhaps because 5% sounds like 'too little' data to retain, but this doesn't particularly alarm me from the perspective of psychoacoustics.


If you look at the sample graphs then it is hard to understand it would be just 5%...while 24/192 gets it all(perfect sinewave), the 16/44.1 khz cd's are less good but no way near 5% of the orignal sinewave, it's much more.
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 2:53 AM Post #538 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I bet they can...they use 64 bit recording technology in some studio's..so recording equipment is far better then the reproduction equipment. The problem is that they still have to compress to 16 bit/44.1 for cd.


High bitrate audio sounds exactly the same as redbook. The advantage to recording at high bitrates is increased resolution at low volume levels. This allows more flexibility in bringing up low volume sound in the mixing stage. Once the final mix is complete, it's bounced down to redbook with no audible loss.

It's all about sound, not numbers.

See ya
Steve
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 3:16 AM Post #539 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
When i look at the graph of this sample of sampling frequency...i see there is quite clear gaps between the sinewave and the taken samples...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nal.svg/567px-

So, this implies that there is a hole between the original sinewave and the samples taken...e.g. somehting is missing that is in the original compared to the samples.

I cannot find however a figure that clearly states it's only 1/20 of the original.

This is a list of commonly used samplerates today:
8,000 Hz - telephone, adequate for human speech
11,025 Hz and 22,050 Hz - quarter and half the sampling rate of audio CDs (44,100 Hz, see below), used for lower-quality PCM and MPEG audio
32,000 Hz - miniDV digital video camcorder, DAT (LP mode), Germany's Digitales Satellitenradio (German)
44,056 Hz - PCM adaptor using NTSC video tapes (245 lines by 3 samples by 59.94 frames per second), sometimes misused to play back audio streams sampled at 44,100 Hz (and vice versa)
44,100 Hz - audio CD, also most commonly used with MPEG-1 audio (VCD, SVCD, MP3), adopted from the PCM adaptor using PAL video tapes (294 lines by 3 samples by 50 frames per second)
47,250 Hz - world's first commercial PCM sound recorder by Nippon Columbia (Denon)
48,000 Hz - digital sound used for miniDV, digital TV, DVD, DAT, films and professional audio
50,000 Hz - first commercial digital audio recorders from the late 70's from 3M and Soundstream
50,400 Hz - sampling rate used by the Mitsubishi X-80 digital audio recorder
96,000 or 192,000 Hz - DVD-Audio, some LPCM DVD tracks, BD-ROM (Blu-ray Disc) audio tracks, and HD-DVD (High-Definition DVD) audio tracks
2.8224 MHz - SACD, 1-bit sigma-delta modulation process known as Direct Stream Digital, co-developed by Sony and Philips

According to this list, sacd is far supperior then anything else...also dvd-audio. Proble is, is sacd aslo played back in the player at the same samplerate...



That is not how digital audio is played back. The simplest DAC is a zero-order hold DAC, the output of this is the classic stairstep that you see in advertisements that generally laud higher sampling rates. However, after the analog output of the DAC, the output goes through an analog filter that will adjust the output such that you perfectly reproduce the analog waveform.

As long as you sample a bandlimited signal at it's Nyquist frequency or higher, you can perfectly reproduce it.

You do not get any gaps or missing sampling because the signal is bandlimited, meaning that the fastest transient is always going to be similar to 20 KHz (in regards to CD's, the audio for CD's is bandlimited from 20Hz - 20 KHz, while the sampling rate is for 21.05 KHz).

The way that real life systems stray from the ideal case is in the analog filter that follows the DAC. This analog filter is very complex and you cannot reproduce it exactly. However, what you can do is use different DAC's or even bring the some of the filter before the DAC onto the digital signal. In addition, we have unused bandwidth. For CD's, the region from 20 KHz to 21.05 KHz is unused, so this extra bandwidth allows us to relax the brickwall filter on the output as well. And finally oversampling further increases the unused bandwidth and allows us to further relax the constraints on the filter.

Finally, SACD is not PCM, it is sigma-delta and works on a different principle. Sony states that DSD can go upto 100 KHz I believe, but I don't know what the dynamic range is at that frequency because the dynamic range is dependent upon the frequency. However, contrary to some naive calculations that some people try to relate sigma-delta to PCM, the dynamic range should be better than redbook over the its frequency range.
 
Jan 31, 2007 at 4:27 AM Post #540 of 847
Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What you seem to fail to appreciate is that the size of the CD is a function of both playing time and sample size in digital sampling of live music recording.


Now you're just being intentionally difficult. Of course I realize that both the the playing time is a function of both the sample rate and the size of the phsyical medium. That's not the point I was making, and you know it. You claim that the size of the medium was determined first, and then the sample size was decided based on a desired 74 minute playing time. The articles that I cited to prove you wrong.

Quote:

Now tell me - do you believe that analog to digital conversion, in digital recording, samples the whole analog microphone pickup of live music recording?


Again, you are clearly just trying to be difficult, because I answered this question, and in fact, you quote my answer four lines below where you ask this question.

Quote:

What in the world has the Nyquist theorem got to do with this - the issue is the size of the sample


Go back and re-read the discussion of the Nyquist theorem. The sampling rate is directly relevant.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top