wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
MINe 109 wrote:
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
Letsee how many times do we have to explain this to
Jenn? I'm in a generous mood today - I'll cast my
pearls in front of the the swine one more time! ;-)
(1) The CD format is capable of sonically perfect
reproduction of any known audio signal.
Below 20kHz.
(2) However, there are no known audio signals that
perfectly represent live music.
Gotcha.
(3) Even though the CD format reproduces *any* audio
signal audibly
I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity
without an ulterior motive. I know less than little
about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is
perfect at reproducing the digital master.
Digital copies are generally completely perfect.
Is the digital
master better at capturing the live sound than
the analogue master?
Yes.
Evidence etc. please.
*any* relevant unbiased objective or subjective measure.
For example, analog masters are generally 15 ips
magnetic tape. A first generation copy of 15 ips
magnetic tape can be detected in an ABX test. The copy
can be reliably distingushed from the source for even
just one generation of copying.
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm
The essence of creating a master is copying some analog
or digital source onto the mastering media, whether
analog tape or digital media.
An analog source can be digitized and converted back to
an analog signal that copies the source, and the source
will be indistinguishable from the copy.
IOW a good ADC driving a good DAC will produce a signal
that is audibly indistinguishable from the ADC's input
signal. The copy and the source can't be distinguished
from each other. This can extend over a goodly number of
generations:
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm
A digital source can be copied exactly, so the copy and
the source are indistinguishable.
Arny, I truly appreciate your prompt answer and I do not
intend to carp. But I do not think
that we're talking about the same thing.
My fault no doubt- not explaining myself adequately.
I do not doubt that you can get near perfect digital
COPIES from any manufactured source.
Or at home using recordable digital media.
(If you don't understand what I mean by "manufactured"
I'm sorry- can not think of a better synonym right now.
Just try to be with me- believe me discussion is more
interesting and helpful that way)
For instance I can burn near-perfect ( to my ears) copies
of music disks on my computer. That's digital enough for
me. I need no convincing.
In general, these copies are not near-perfect in terms of digital data. As a
rule if made with resonable care, they are functionally perfect.
What I want to know is : is there any evidence that LIVE
music is captured better by digital than analogue master?
Yes.
Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not)
think so.
This is a very self-serving belief for them to hold onto. AFAIK its not
based on bias-controlled listening tests, and its unlikely that they, like
say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper
listening test to confirm their beliefs.
And they are both producing DIGITAL components.
(very,very high end digital components) So they have no
axe to grind..
They do have an axe to grind. They assert that their equipment is as good if
not better than any other equipment of similar kind that exists, but that
even so their equipment could sound better. That allows them to shortly come
out with "improved" products while maintaining the appearance of credibility
in the market place.
This particular logical trick is at or near the core of the most of the high
end audio industry. That's one of the problems with admitting that a
particular piece of gear is sonically transparent - its sound quality cannot
be improved for fun and profit.