david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Please do not confuse your level of scientific understanding with mine, that you consider any digital source anywhere near complete transparency speaks volumes to your inexperience.
Does analogue ultimately beat digital?
- Thread starter Hero Removals Brighton
- Start date
tuga
Legal Alien
Perhaps it's just a case of misplaced expectations.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
Is there a confusion between measured transparency and audible transparency? I don't believe they are the same thing, and I know which one matters to me.
tuga
Legal Alien
When was the last time you watched a VHS cassete, or even a SuperBeta? On a CRT screen.
tuga
Legal Alien
There is no such thing as audible transparency. Just personal preference.
The only possible fidelity is to the recorded signal.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Tuga , I can only draw conclusions regarding your level of understanding based on the sophistication of your responses, I therefore reserve my right not to argue with idiots.
There is no measured transparency, only audible.
Something to keep in mind that's inherent to digital sampling, is that the higher the frequency, the less information is retained about the shape of the wave. Yes, you can sample a 22.05 kHz wave with a sample rate of 44.1k, but the only information that you're sampling is the amplitude of the peak and trough of the wave. There's no other information retained to tell you if it was a sine wave, a square wave, a saw wave, etc. At very high frequencies, all of that has to come from reconstruction filters. Reconstruction filters have gotten fairly good at guessing what those wave shapes should be, by interpolating from surrounding data, but it's still a guess, whereas the original information is just there in an analogue source, and no guesses or assumptions have to be made about wave shapes.
Sorry no. Sampling and reconstruction do not work like this.
tpetsch
...The rhythm has Control
And De ionized water is pure but you shouldn't drink it..
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
It always amuses me how the word "transparency" is misused and misunderstood. It is a visual term, and a coloured medium such as glass can be transparent. In audio it is used to suggest uncoloured, which is not what it means.
And fidelity (not what we were discussing) can only be to the original music. The recording is the start of the infidelity, unless of course, you prefer measurements over hearing. Which obviously many do.
No it isn't. It it used to suggest that the equipment is letting a lot of information through, which a perfectly correct use of he word.
Unlike vinyl digital can reproduce signal more faithfully. Do not get too hung up on dictionary definitions.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
Oh yes it is. You must have missed that.
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
have you ever compared a 6-eye kind of blue or 2-eye vs a columbia reissue versions from the late 70’s?
the difference is shocking.
chris@panteg
pfm Member
Didn't really want to get into this debate but what about the limiting compression with so much digital these days?
And that includes a lot of so called hi-res streaming, you only have to look at the DRC database to see the shocking extent of it with so many great old albums as well as new stuff.
The The infected is one example, brickwalled to hell it's unlistenable except on a car stereo .
And that includes a lot of so called hi-res streaming, you only have to look at the DRC database to see the shocking extent of it with so many great old albums as well as new stuff.
The The infected is one example, brickwalled to hell it's unlistenable except on a car stereo .
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
Not sure which "side" of the discussion you are on here*, but I note that much of the music we listen to doesn't exist in the natural world.
*I am probably doing you a disservice, for which I apologise in advance.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
It's a term for repesenting the available 'space' in terms of a 2d 'area' whose width is the frequency range and whose hight is the available signal to noise ratio. Useful when dealing with systems like RIAA LP or other example like FM radio where you can cover a wider range at some frequencies than others.
The point of pre/de-emphasis as per LP and FM is to optimise the "communicated information's" use of that 'space'. Hence handy when considering LP versus plain Audio CD. (Which also has an option to EQ to fit which is rarely used.)
John Phillips
pfm Member
I think this is consistent with my view that once you have a good enough system, debating analogue vs digital is much less important than debating the quality of sources.