"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
: ...
:
: : ? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts from a good
: : digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some bad recordings
haven't
: been
: : made!
: :
: : --
: : -SSS
: : "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison
(1788)
:
: good example of Science - Sullivan Style - :
: sweeping generalisations and narrow bandpass of knowledge
: now could we have some quantification for that 'science veneer',
: to finish it off, mr Sullivan ?
:
: garbage collector routine
: running..
: R.
:
: I didn't know you were a *garbologist*, Ruud.
:
: My claim wasn't sweeping -- it was qualified with the words
: 'audible' and 'good'. If you wish to learn the technical details
: of what would constitute 'good' digital transfer -- one that would
: not be expected to produce audible artifacts -- I suggest you
: read Nika Aldrich's book, 'Digital Audio Explained for the Audio
: Engineer'. It treats the topic thoroughly, starting from
: the basics of acoustics and the physiology of hearing, up through
: the development of DSD.
:
:
I order to expect, one has to know.
for instance, i'd suspect you not to expect
your blood composition to be influenced by sunspot activity
tiz so, though

or, say, the _type of nervecell_ terminating determining the
structural processing hardware that is developed in a brain region
(if we could emulate that, miraculous advances in artificial hearing
and vision await

As mentioned before, until a true multidisciplinary approach is taken,
all the 'blameless, good, etc' claims are suspect.

Rudy