Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Radium
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

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."
  #2   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."


Two letters: B.S.
--
% 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

  #3   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."


Two letters: B.S.
--
% 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

  #4   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Radium wrote:

What the @%#$ is this website talking about?


They are unintentionally confusing people by being plain too dumb to
specify what they actually write about because they assume it obvious.

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp


Telephone line sound quality, within the specs for digital sound for
that use they appear imo to be correct, but they have omitted to specify
the restricted applicability.

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."


CC to webmaster, because they are confusing and misleading by not
specifying what they write about. There is plenty stuff that quoted out
of context would be urban myths, or plain nonsensen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********


  #5   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Radium wrote:

What the @%#$ is this website talking about?


They are unintentionally confusing people by being plain too dumb to
specify what they actually write about because they assume it obvious.

http://telecom.hellodirect.com/docs/...l.1.051501.asp


Telephone line sound quality, within the specs for digital sound for
that use they appear imo to be correct, but they have omitted to specify
the restricted applicability.

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."


CC to webmaster, because they are confusing and misleading by not
specifying what they write about. There is plenty stuff that quoted out
of context would be urban myths, or plain nonsensen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********




  #6   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Randy Yates wrote:

"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."


Two letters: B.S.


No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.

% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul



Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

  #7   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Randy Yates wrote:

"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."


Two letters: B.S.


No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.

% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul



Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

  #8   Report Post  
Jerry G.
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

The phone has to match to the service you have. Most homes are using analog
lines.

As for a cordless phone, many of the new home models use digital encoding
between the handset and the base, but still use an analog phone line to
connect to the base. Therefore, the base unit interfaces with an analog I/O
for the phone line. Only special models can interface with a digital phone
line. The handset is not relevant here, because the internal workings of
the base deal with the handset, not the phone line.

As for sound quality, the analog is richer sounding especially when the
data-bit bandwidth is low, as used for telephones. The difference is not
very great considering that the phones are limited to about 5 kHz bandwidth,
and in many areas the lines are still limited to 2.7 kHz bandwidth. You are
having a conversation here, not an opera program, so why be so concerned for
the fidelity of the sound, as long as it is not objectionable.

As for the security of your conversation, if you have a cordless phone that
uses digital communications between the base and handset, this is the best.
It would be very hard, and expensive for someone with a scanner to decode a
digital phone. These phones generally use a proprietary encryption with
spread spectrum. The listener with his scanner will only hear digital noise
signals.

--

In music systems, they use a much wider data-bit bandwidth and there is a
lot of money put in to the technology for encoding and decoding of the
signal to maintain the original quality as much as possible. The sound of
the digital system when decoded is said by some people to not be the same as
the original analog. There are endless arguments for and against, that
there will never have any true resolve. As for the processing of analog
signals, the THD and other signal defects tends to go higher each time the
signal passes through some processing. This in part, may make the sound be
better sounding to some people for some reason. Many articles and books have
been written on this endless subject.



--

Greetings,

Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
=========================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
=========================================


"Radium" wrote in message
om...
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."


  #9   Report Post  
Jerry G.
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

The phone has to match to the service you have. Most homes are using analog
lines.

As for a cordless phone, many of the new home models use digital encoding
between the handset and the base, but still use an analog phone line to
connect to the base. Therefore, the base unit interfaces with an analog I/O
for the phone line. Only special models can interface with a digital phone
line. The handset is not relevant here, because the internal workings of
the base deal with the handset, not the phone line.

As for sound quality, the analog is richer sounding especially when the
data-bit bandwidth is low, as used for telephones. The difference is not
very great considering that the phones are limited to about 5 kHz bandwidth,
and in many areas the lines are still limited to 2.7 kHz bandwidth. You are
having a conversation here, not an opera program, so why be so concerned for
the fidelity of the sound, as long as it is not objectionable.

As for the security of your conversation, if you have a cordless phone that
uses digital communications between the base and handset, this is the best.
It would be very hard, and expensive for someone with a scanner to decode a
digital phone. These phones generally use a proprietary encryption with
spread spectrum. The listener with his scanner will only hear digital noise
signals.

--

In music systems, they use a much wider data-bit bandwidth and there is a
lot of money put in to the technology for encoding and decoding of the
signal to maintain the original quality as much as possible. The sound of
the digital system when decoded is said by some people to not be the same as
the original analog. There are endless arguments for and against, that
there will never have any true resolve. As for the processing of analog
signals, the THD and other signal defects tends to go higher each time the
signal passes through some processing. This in part, may make the sound be
better sounding to some people for some reason. Many articles and books have
been written on this endless subject.



--

Greetings,

Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
=========================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
=========================================


"Radium" wrote in message
om...
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."


  #10   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

"Thomas Tornblom" wrote ...
The problem is probably the low bit rate of GSM.


A lot of it sounds like poor handling of the dynamic range
in the mic preamp circuitry. Same with cheap analog (wired)
phones.




  #11   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

"Thomas Tornblom" wrote ...
The problem is probably the low bit rate of GSM.


A lot of it sounds like poor handling of the dynamic range
in the mic preamp circuitry. Same with cheap analog (wired)
phones.


  #12   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Peter Larsen wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."




Two letters: B.S.



No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.


B.S. usually contains a bit of truth somewhere - it is the package taken
as a whole that lacks veracity.
--
% 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

  #13   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Peter Larsen wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."




Two letters: B.S.



No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.


B.S. usually contains a bit of truth somewhere - it is the package taken
as a whole that lacks veracity.
--
% 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

  #14   Report Post  
Nilsouille2003
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Analog can be "better" (in one way) than digital for one good reason.
When those guys say the sound is richer with analog, there are
correct. It is not a matter of subjectivity, it is a technological
fact. Whether you can make the difference is another matter.
Digital encoding is trying to approximate a signal by a finite
quantity of numbers.
Basically the way to encode the music is to get only the most
significant frequencies and leave the remaining ones. If you want a
perfect description (encoding), you need the intensity of all the
frequencies, hence an infinite quanity of numbers. The more values you
keep, the more accurate your encoding is, but it takes more memory to
store.
Some people do think that analog sounds richer, and I don't see any
reason not to believe that they can make the difference.
  #15   Report Post  
Nilsouille2003
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Analog can be "better" (in one way) than digital for one good reason.
When those guys say the sound is richer with analog, there are
correct. It is not a matter of subjectivity, it is a technological
fact. Whether you can make the difference is another matter.
Digital encoding is trying to approximate a signal by a finite
quantity of numbers.
Basically the way to encode the music is to get only the most
significant frequencies and leave the remaining ones. If you want a
perfect description (encoding), you need the intensity of all the
frequencies, hence an infinite quanity of numbers. The more values you
keep, the more accurate your encoding is, but it takes more memory to
store.
Some people do think that analog sounds richer, and I don't see any
reason not to believe that they can make the difference.


  #16   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Peter Larsen wrote:

Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."




Two letters: B.S.



No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.


Peter,

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

There are three digital standards in the U.S.: GSM, TDMA, and CDMA.
Each one utilizes multiple voice CODECs (coder/decoder) depending
on various parameters. For example, GSM uses FR (full-rate), HR (half-rate),
EFR (enhanced full-rate), and, recently (like within the year) AMR (adaptive
multi-rate)

Embedded in AMR are eight rates from 4.75 kbps to 12.2 kbps
(see http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archiv.../26071-400.zip).
These codecs are newer and thus provide a higher voice quality per kbps than
the existing EFR codecs. Additionally, they adapt based on the channel
conditions to trade off channel coding rate (the forward error correction
which prevents errors) and voice coding rate.

Additionally, to state that an analog phone "usually [provides] enough
range" is like saying that mixing bowls usually hold enough flour when
making a good cake. It is of some importance, but there are so many other
parameters that such a statement is almost silly. Cellular system tradeoffs
such as cell design, frequency reuse, battery life (which is almost directly
correlated with transmit power), and capacity all impact SIR (signal-to-
interference ratio) which also impacts voice quality. If the voice quality
of GSM in a certain area suffers, blame the carrier who laid out the system,
not the technology.

Thus, to make the simple statement that "an analog phone will give you
the richest sound quality" is, in general, not correct. Not even close.
--
% 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

  #17   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Peter Larsen wrote:

Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."




Two letters: B.S.



No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.


Peter,

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

There are three digital standards in the U.S.: GSM, TDMA, and CDMA.
Each one utilizes multiple voice CODECs (coder/decoder) depending
on various parameters. For example, GSM uses FR (full-rate), HR (half-rate),
EFR (enhanced full-rate), and, recently (like within the year) AMR (adaptive
multi-rate)

Embedded in AMR are eight rates from 4.75 kbps to 12.2 kbps
(see http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archiv.../26071-400.zip).
These codecs are newer and thus provide a higher voice quality per kbps than
the existing EFR codecs. Additionally, they adapt based on the channel
conditions to trade off channel coding rate (the forward error correction
which prevents errors) and voice coding rate.

Additionally, to state that an analog phone "usually [provides] enough
range" is like saying that mixing bowls usually hold enough flour when
making a good cake. It is of some importance, but there are so many other
parameters that such a statement is almost silly. Cellular system tradeoffs
such as cell design, frequency reuse, battery life (which is almost directly
correlated with transmit power), and capacity all impact SIR (signal-to-
interference ratio) which also impacts voice quality. If the voice quality
of GSM in a certain area suffers, blame the carrier who laid out the system,
not the technology.

Thus, to make the simple statement that "an analog phone will give you
the richest sound quality" is, in general, not correct. Not even close.
--
% 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

  #18   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On 8 Nov 2003 10:03:49 -0800, (Nilsouille2003)
wrote:

Analog can be "better" (in one way) than digital for one good reason.
When those guys say the sound is richer with analog, there are
correct. It is not a matter of subjectivity, it is a technological
fact.


Bull**** - see below.

Whether you can make the difference is another matter.
Digital encoding is trying to approximate a signal by a finite
quantity of numbers.
Basically the way to encode the music is to get only the most
significant frequencies and leave the remaining ones. If you want a
perfect description (encoding), you need the intensity of all the
frequencies, hence an infinite quanity of numbers. The more values you
keep, the more accurate your encoding is, but it takes more memory to
store.


Please learn about the technology before making nonsense statements.
To *perfectly* encode an analogue signal of given bandwidth and
dynamic range, all you need is to sample at slightly more than twice
the bandwidth, and encode enough bits to resolve the maximum dynamic
range. For telephony, a sampling rate of 12k samples/sec at 8 bits is
more than adequate - and very far from 'infinite', being about 1/12 of
the standard 'Red Book' CD information density.

In addition to this, digital telephony uses lossy compression, but
that's a whole other can of worms, and doesn't seem to worry people
using MP3 players.

Some people do think that analog sounds richer, and I don't see any
reason not to believe that they can make the difference.


It can certainly sound *different*, but 'richer' is a meaningless
description.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #19   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On 8 Nov 2003 10:03:49 -0800, (Nilsouille2003)
wrote:

Analog can be "better" (in one way) than digital for one good reason.
When those guys say the sound is richer with analog, there are
correct. It is not a matter of subjectivity, it is a technological
fact.


Bull**** - see below.

Whether you can make the difference is another matter.
Digital encoding is trying to approximate a signal by a finite
quantity of numbers.
Basically the way to encode the music is to get only the most
significant frequencies and leave the remaining ones. If you want a
perfect description (encoding), you need the intensity of all the
frequencies, hence an infinite quanity of numbers. The more values you
keep, the more accurate your encoding is, but it takes more memory to
store.


Please learn about the technology before making nonsense statements.
To *perfectly* encode an analogue signal of given bandwidth and
dynamic range, all you need is to sample at slightly more than twice
the bandwidth, and encode enough bits to resolve the maximum dynamic
range. For telephony, a sampling rate of 12k samples/sec at 8 bits is
more than adequate - and very far from 'infinite', being about 1/12 of
the standard 'Red Book' CD information density.

In addition to this, digital telephony uses lossy compression, but
that's a whole other can of worms, and doesn't seem to worry people
using MP3 players.

Some people do think that analog sounds richer, and I don't see any
reason not to believe that they can make the difference.


It can certainly sound *different*, but 'richer' is a meaningless
description.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #24   Report Post  
Sawfish
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:06:05 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."




Two letters: B.S.



No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.


Peter,

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

There are three digital standards in the U.S.: GSM, TDMA, and CDMA.
Each one utilizes multiple voice CODECs (coder/decoder) depending
on various parameters. For example, GSM uses FR (full-rate), HR (half-rate),
EFR (enhanced full-rate), and, recently (like within the year) AMR (adaptive
multi-rate)


Y'all realize that the "an analog phone...." quote referred to
cordless phones, right?

Joe

  #25   Report Post  
Sawfish
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:06:05 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

Randy Yates wrote:


"An analog phone will give you the richest sound quality and usually
enough range."




Two letters: B.S.



No, with all respect for my "old" 2110, considering its sound quality it
is perfectly correct in _that_ context.


Peter,

I should have also noted the following in my adjacent post.

There are three digital standards in the U.S.: GSM, TDMA, and CDMA.
Each one utilizes multiple voice CODECs (coder/decoder) depending
on various parameters. For example, GSM uses FR (full-rate), HR (half-rate),
EFR (enhanced full-rate), and, recently (like within the year) AMR (adaptive
multi-rate)


Y'all realize that the "an analog phone...." quote referred to
cordless phones, right?

Joe



  #26   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Sawfish wrote:

Y'all realize that the "an analog phone...." quote referred to
cordless phones, right?


Joe Sawfish,

Whoa' - no I didn't. I guess I read the "select" quotes from
Radium's post without checking out the entire text of the
website. My mistake. I recant my criticism of this statement (at
least for the reasons I stated).
--
% 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

  #27   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

Sawfish wrote:

Y'all realize that the "an analog phone...." quote referred to
cordless phones, right?


Joe Sawfish,

Whoa' - no I didn't. I guess I read the "select" quotes from
Radium's post without checking out the entire text of the
website. My mistake. I recant my criticism of this statement (at
least for the reasons I stated).
--
% 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

  #34   Report Post  
Laurence Payne
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On 7 Nov 2003 19:37:46 -0800, (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."


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**** :-)
  #35   Report Post  
Laurence Payne
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On 7 Nov 2003 19:37:46 -0800, (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."


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**** :-)


  #38   Report Post  
Sawfish
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:23:35 -0000, "Ian"
wrote:

The central office 8kHz sample rate signals do use non-linear coding
to get compression, see A-law or u-law (Greek letter 'mu') coding
(pun intended ;-).

Regards
Ian


I had never considered the A-law/u-law coding to be a compression
algorithm, but that is indeed what it is. Thanks for the correction.

Joe

  #39   Report Post  
Sawfish
 
Posts: n/a
Default How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:23:35 -0000, "Ian"
wrote:

The central office 8kHz sample rate signals do use non-linear coding
to get compression, see A-law or u-law (Greek letter 'mu') coding
(pun intended ;-).

Regards
Ian


I had never considered the A-law/u-law coding to be a compression
algorithm, but that is indeed what it is. Thanks for the correction.

Joe

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comparing quality on vinyl with Digital thomh High End Audio 51 August 5th 04 12:56 AM
apogee ad1000 analog to digital for auction Daryan Lenz Pro Audio 0 April 3rd 04 01:11 AM
Vinyl today - analog or digital - does anyone know? PLM High End Audio 5 April 2nd 04 01:29 AM
Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish) transducr Pro Audio 22 October 30th 03 05:59 PM
Clipping Distortion: Digital and Analog Barton Bosch Tech 8 August 24th 03 10:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"