Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Hi,
In message , Radium writes What the @%#$ is this website talking about? http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp They say: "analog can deliver better sound quality than digital" The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality. Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Hi,
In message , Radium writes What the @%#$ is this website talking about? http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp They say: "analog can deliver better sound quality than digital" The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality. Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Randy Yates wrote:
I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post. [omitted] Thanks, interesting. % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Randy Yates wrote:
I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post. [omitted] Thanks, interesting. % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Glenn Booth wrote:
[...] Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, Glenn, Try a relatively new Sony Ericsson T230. They have the best receiver sensitivity we've had in years (SEMC is my day job). And they're dirt cheap. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Glenn Booth wrote:
[...] Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, Glenn, Try a relatively new Sony Ericsson T230. They have the best receiver sensitivity we've had in years (SEMC is my day job). And they're dirt cheap. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On 7 Nov 2003 19:37:46 -0800, (Radium) wrote: snip "Analog's sound quality is still superior-as some users with dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area" "An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually enough range." For entertainment audio, a bit of even-order distortion, as provided by valve circuits, and modern circuitry emulating such, can sound nice. As audio reproduction, digital or otherwise, is a very imperfect science, choosing "what sounds good" is sensible, as you can't have "what sounds accurate". For cordless 'phones, bull**** :-) News drift? Naaaa..... Way back when, I did an audio preamp that had a two path setup, one through "normal" 0.005% distortion electronics, the other through a BBD (delay line). That path had higher noise and ~0.05% (maybe 0.1%? I forget) distortion, almost entirely 2nd harmonic. A number of audio press reviews were very complimentary about the sound quality, and preferred the sound from the higher distortion and noise floor path. As the noise floor was "good enough" in both cases (well below source material), I could only put it down to the even order distortion. I was quite surprised that such a low level could influence the result, but this was from several reviewers. Regards Ian |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On 7 Nov 2003 19:37:46 -0800, (Radium) wrote: snip "Analog's sound quality is still superior-as some users with dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area" "An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually enough range." For entertainment audio, a bit of even-order distortion, as provided by valve circuits, and modern circuitry emulating such, can sound nice. As audio reproduction, digital or otherwise, is a very imperfect science, choosing "what sounds good" is sensible, as you can't have "what sounds accurate". For cordless 'phones, bull**** :-) News drift? Naaaa..... Way back when, I did an audio preamp that had a two path setup, one through "normal" 0.005% distortion electronics, the other through a BBD (delay line). That path had higher noise and ~0.05% (maybe 0.1%? I forget) distortion, almost entirely 2nd harmonic. A number of audio press reviews were very complimentary about the sound quality, and preferred the sound from the higher distortion and noise floor path. As the noise floor was "good enough" in both cases (well below source material), I could only put it down to the even order distortion. I was quite surprised that such a low level could influence the result, but this was from several reviewers. Regards Ian |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Glenn Booth wrote in message ...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality. Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms. GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM? |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Glenn Booth wrote in message ...
The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality. Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms. GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM? |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Hi,
In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality. Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms. GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM? GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that expensive international fibre. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Hi,
In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? As to sound quality, I've had 10 or more cordless or mobile phones over the years, and they all had way bigger problems than the sound quality. Even today, getting a reliable GSM connection is a problem, and I'm only twenty miles from London, wedged between two major motorway routes - one of the "100% coverage" areas, they tell me, and our Panasonic DECT phone seems to enjoy listening to the neighbours' baby alarms. GSM is a form of compression. Compression and decompression require processing power. Why can't they just use 8 Khz, 8-bit, mono PCM? GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that expensive international fibre. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote: Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? I'm just guessing, but what you're probably hearing is silence suppression, which tends to sound a lot like a half-duplex connection. All part of the provider trying to cram as many calls into the available spectrum as possible. The typical digital cell call takes around 8Kbps (due to lossy compression) vs. 64Kbps in a POTS connection. That's a big savings to justify the lousy sound quality. Joe |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote: Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? I'm just guessing, but what you're probably hearing is silence suppression, which tends to sound a lot like a half-duplex connection. All part of the provider trying to cram as many calls into the available spectrum as possible. The typical digital cell call takes around 8Kbps (due to lossy compression) vs. 64Kbps in a POTS connection. That's a big savings to justify the lousy sound quality. Joe |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
8-bit, 8 KHz, and mono = 8x8x1 = 64 kbps
As you said, this would be impractical due to bandwidth limits. How about 7 KHz, 1-bit, mono PCM Glenn Booth wrote in message ... GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that expensive international fibre. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
8-bit, 8 KHz, and mono = 8x8x1 = 64 kbps
As you said, this would be impractical due to bandwidth limits. How about 7 KHz, 1-bit, mono PCM Glenn Booth wrote in message ... GSM is more than just a form of compression, but I get your point. My guess is that PCM is inefficient in bandwidth terms. 8 kHz, 8 bit mono PCM would be 8 kbytes/sec one way (I think... I've been drinking). The service providers probably want to get our conversations into a lot less bandwidth than that, so that they can maximise their return on all that expensive international fibre. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote: Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic problem? All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider' conference 'phone at work.............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth
wrote: Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic problem? All the digital systems I've used seem to be like walkie-talkies; while one party speaks, the other party cannot be heard. It kills the nuance of a telephone conversation, because the provider is only giving me a half duplex connection. The provider is being stingy. Nothing to do with digital or analog. There are digital phone softwares that make use of Full-duplex soundcards. Net2Phone is one. All you need is a full-duplex audio card. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider' conference 'phone at work.............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Hi,
In message , Stewart Pinkerton writes On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth wrote: Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic problem? I might well have a psychosomatic problem, but not necessarily related to phones ;-) You are probably right about the DECT thing - ours is a very, very poor Onis unit (not recommended). I have a Panasonic that I've yet to hook up, so it may well change. The syndrome is definitely there on my (Nokia) GSM phone, though - I called my wife's phone (also Nokia) as a check and there is no sign of any signal from the receiving end while I'm talking. If we both talk at the same time, things turn strange, as though there is some switching going on. It's the same during calls to other people at work. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider' conference 'phone at work.............. Our voice over IP phones do this also, but I put down to them being first generation, and not very competent. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Hi,
In message , Stewart Pinkerton writes On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Glenn Booth wrote: Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. I use three Samsung DECT 'phones at home, and I have never noticed any such effect. The DECT system is full-duplex by nature. My Siemens GSM mobile doesn't show this effect either. Maybe you have a psychosomatic problem? I might well have a psychosomatic problem, but not necessarily related to phones ;-) You are probably right about the DECT thing - ours is a very, very poor Onis unit (not recommended). I have a Panasonic that I've yet to hook up, so it may well change. The syndrome is definitely there on my (Nokia) GSM phone, though - I called my wife's phone (also Nokia) as a check and there is no sign of any signal from the receiving end while I'm talking. If we both talk at the same time, things turn strange, as though there is some switching going on. It's the same during calls to other people at work. Sure, but I'm talking about GSM and DECT, not soundcards. I'm aware that this is due to the provider 'stealing' bandwidth from me, but it's much easier for them to do that with a digital system than it is with analogue. I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? I've never heard this effect with DECT or GSM, only on the 'spider' conference 'phone at work.............. Our voice over IP phones do this also, but I put down to them being first generation, and not very competent. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Glenn Booth wrote:
Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. The effect you speak of is most likely due to what is called the "nonlinear" or "residual" echo supressor which some manufacturers have on their mobiles. This function mutes the uplink audio when the downlink is talking so that the round-trip echo path is broken (and thus echo stopped) when the far-end (landline) talker speaking. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Glenn Booth wrote:
Hi, In message , Radium writes Glenn Booth wrote in message ... The rest of the thread has done this to death by know, but am I the only one that misses the single best feature of analogue phone systems - the ability for both parties to talk *at the same time* and be heard continuously. Digital is also capable of such. Obviously digital systems are capable of it, but the ones I have used (DECT, GSM) don't do it. There is a very obvious 'coming and going' of the other parties' voice while I am speaking. The effect you speak of is most likely due to what is called the "nonlinear" or "residual" echo supressor which some manufacturers have on their mobiles. This function mutes the uplink audio when the downlink is talking so that the round-trip echo path is broken (and thus echo stopped) when the far-end (landline) talker speaking. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
In article ,
Glenn Booth wrote: I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? Actually, the analog telephone system is not really analog any more. It is only analog between your telephone and the Central Office it is served by (Central Office being NA jargon, the terms may be different in Blighty). The signal is digitzed at the CO and the switching system used to connect calls is 100% digital. (Or at least it is in the US, though probably there was still analog switching equipment in rural and other small exchanges 10-20 years ago.) -- Tim |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
In article ,
Glenn Booth wrote: I've never encountered an analogue telephone system that operated half-duplex. Perhaps I just haven't used enough of them? Actually, the analog telephone system is not really analog any more. It is only analog between your telephone and the Central Office it is served by (Central Office being NA jargon, the terms may be different in Blighty). The signal is digitzed at the CO and the switching system used to connect calls is 100% digital. (Or at least it is in the US, though probably there was still analog switching equipment in rural and other small exchanges 10-20 years ago.) -- Tim |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
(Radium) writes:
What the @%#$ is this website talking about? http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp They say: "analog can deliver better sound quality than digital" Ever compare a the voice quality of an analog cell phone to that of a digital cell phone with both close to the tower? You may be surprised tha the result does not agree with "crystal clear digital" BS the cell phone makers would like you to believe. Ever tried one of those first generation AT&T digital answering machines? Woof. Have you considered the nonlinearities introduced in a low-cost analog-digital converter? Digital is not categorially better. Poorly implemented digital can in fact be far inferior to analog. After all...what we as humans perceive is very much analog, and in the purest state, avoiding a domain transformation will in fact give you the purest sound. But, as in many things, the devil's in the details. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Radium wrote: What the @%#$ is this website talking about? http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp They say: "analog can deliver better sound quality than digital" "Digital offers better clarity, but analog gives you richer quality." "The advantage to analog cordless products? Well, they're a bit cheaper. And the sound quality is richer." "Analog's sound quality is still superior—as some users with dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area" "An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually enough range." If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the bandwidth). The point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the other way around. Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue signal can get further degraded if it is transmitted or recorded, digital does not. Furthermore digital signals can be compressed so that they consume less bandwidth - at the expense of catastrophic break down at certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual deteriation for an analogue signal. As for richness and such things in terms of audio quality I am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see if people can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!) Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering is possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets face it - analogue has had it other than as a front end. Tom |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Radium wrote: What the @%#$ is this website talking about? http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp They say: "analog can deliver better sound quality than digital" "Digital offers better clarity, but analog gives you richer quality." "The advantage to analog cordless products? Well, they're a bit cheaper. And the sound quality is richer." "Analog's sound quality is still superior—as some users with dual-transmission phones will manually switch to analog for better sound when they're not concerned with a crowded coverage area" "An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually enough range." If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the bandwidth). The point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the other way around. Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue signal can get further degraded if it is transmitted or recorded, digital does not. Furthermore digital signals can be compressed so that they consume less bandwidth - at the expense of catastrophic break down at certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual deteriation for an analogue signal. As for richness and such things in terms of audio quality I am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see if people can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!) Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering is possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets face it - analogue has had it other than as a front end. Tom |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Tom writes:
If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the bandwidth). Caveat: add "Assuming an ideal digital to analog conversion." The point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the other way around. Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue signal can get further degraded if it is transmitted or recorded, digital does not. Ding! Furthermore digital signals can be compressed so that they consume less bandwidth - at the expense of catastrophic break down at certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual deteriation for an analogue signal. As for richness and such things in terms of audio quality I am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see if people can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!) Depending on bit rate and bit depth, I'm certain double blind results would yield more fruit than a double blind against gold plating. There is some really crappy digital out there in the world. Cell phones are the worst. Digital cordless phones (our original subject) are pretty good in my experience. Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering is possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets face it - analogue has had it other than as a front end. Economically, and for RF transmission, I quite agree. But don't anyone kid themselves--if you're talking cell phones, wireless providers haven't gone digital for voice quality reasons, that's for DAMNED sure. They've gone digital so they can crank the screws on the "calls that fit in our bandwidth" versus "voice quality our customers will accept" to maximize the capacity on a given set of FCC frequencies, and tower site equipment. More to the original point, digital is by NO means any guarantee of "better" versus analog, or vice versa. It's all in the implementation details. And don't forget that at the end of the day, the signal has to end up back in the analog domain if it's humans that are going to perceive it. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
Tom writes:
If you start with an analogue signal from say a mic + amplifier and sample it then according to Shannons sampling theorem the original spectrum should be recoverable provided it is first band limited and the sampling frequency is at least twice as high as the highest frequency of interest (the bandwidth). Caveat: add "Assuming an ideal digital to analog conversion." The point being that digital is as good as analogue and not the other way around. Where digital scores is that whereas an analogue signal can get further degraded if it is transmitted or recorded, digital does not. Ding! Furthermore digital signals can be compressed so that they consume less bandwidth - at the expense of catastrophic break down at certain low SNRs as opposed to a gradual deteriation for an analogue signal. As for richness and such things in terms of audio quality I am unsure if there has been any double blind tests to see if people can tell the difference. (like gold plated conenctors and such!) Depending on bit rate and bit depth, I'm certain double blind results would yield more fruit than a double blind against gold plating. There is some really crappy digital out there in the world. Cell phones are the worst. Digital cordless phones (our original subject) are pretty good in my experience. Another advantage of digital is in filtering, linear phase filtering is possible whereas in analogue this is only approximate. But lets face it - analogue has had it other than as a front end. Economically, and for RF transmission, I quite agree. But don't anyone kid themselves--if you're talking cell phones, wireless providers haven't gone digital for voice quality reasons, that's for DAMNED sure. They've gone digital so they can crank the screws on the "calls that fit in our bandwidth" versus "voice quality our customers will accept" to maximize the capacity on a given set of FCC frequencies, and tower site equipment. More to the original point, digital is by NO means any guarantee of "better" versus analog, or vice versa. It's all in the implementation details. And don't forget that at the end of the day, the signal has to end up back in the analog domain if it's humans that are going to perceive it. Best Regards, -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H \ / | http://www.toddh.net/ X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/ / \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Comparing quality on vinyl with Digital | High End Audio | |||
apogee ad1000 analog to digital for auction | Pro Audio | |||
Vinyl today - analog or digital - does anyone know? | High End Audio | |||
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish) | Pro Audio | |||
Clipping Distortion: Digital and Analog | Tech |