AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
Why just highbit digital signals, Cal?

Isn't it true that increasing the bitrate doesn't necessarily
increase
precision, particularly if the increased bitrate comes from
increased
sample rate and the signal being digitized is band-limted?

If the data were synchronous that would be so, but by definition
analog is async. Bicycle spokes and popsicle sticks and all that.

So you never heard of antialaising, eh Cal?

Thats what bicycle spokes and popsicle sticks and all that is -
aliasing. Since you've brought it up as an objection to digital,
you've again exposed how poorly-informed you are, Cal.

SACD and DVD-A have never impressed me as much as a few
occasions
of
listening to either first rate vinyl or 1/2" 30 ips tape on a well
set up Ampex.

So Cal, how old are you anyway? Offhand I would say that only an
octogenarian would fail to hear the way that vinyl trashes the audio
off a good high speed analog tape.

Younger than you, Arny.

Good analog tape is the gold standard, is it, Arny?

It is for vinyl that was made from it, which was my point.

Well, yes.

Well no its not the gold standard for the here-and-now or even the
past 20 or more years. Analog tape isn't sonically transparent for
even just one generation. 44/16 digital can be sonically transparent
for lots of generations.

But really good vinyl comes moderately close.

Like I suggested before, what's broke about your hearing? Good vinyl
doesn't even come close to good analog tape. It's ever further from
good digital.

Maybe we should be arguing
for analog optical-sprocketless film on Ampex transports with
photocells instead of mag heads.

Maybe you should try to get back on topic, Cal.

But like turbine cars and Marilyn
singing anything Lennon-McCartney wrote, it wasn't to be and can't
now.

This trip through irrelevance-land was brought to you by Cal the
Luddite. Tune in next week for his next insult to your intelligence
and common sense.