Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
(Nilsouille2003) wrote in
om: If you want a perfect description (encoding), you need the intensity of all the frequencies, hence an infinite quanity of numbers. This statement is so amazingly wrong -- you are more than 50 years out of date in your knowledge. Try reading Shannon's paper that shows (and proves) exactly what is required to perfectly represent any signal (analog or digital): http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/s...hannon1948.pdf |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:00:05 GMT, Sawfish wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: 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. Digital telephony when referring to the central office switch (what every POTS line connects to) uses a sample rate of 8 KHz, and doesn't use any compression. Digital cell phones do use compression, which accounts for the crappy voice quality (and a total hosing of Musak). The original post was referring to cordless handsets - which does of course include cell phones. Lossy compression is often sonically transparent, it all depends on how much you need to lower the bitrate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:00:05 GMT, Sawfish wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: 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. Digital telephony when referring to the central office switch (what every POTS line connects to) uses a sample rate of 8 KHz, and doesn't use any compression. Digital cell phones do use compression, which accounts for the crappy voice quality (and a total hosing of Musak). The original post was referring to cordless handsets - which does of course include cell phones. Lossy compression is often sonically transparent, it all depends on how much you need to lower the bitrate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
"Sawfish" wrote in message news On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: 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. Digital telephony when referring to the central office switch (what every POTS line connects to) uses a sample rate of 8 KHz, and doesn't use any compression. Digital cell phones do use compression, which accounts for the crappy voice quality (and a total hosing of Musak). Joe 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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
"Sawfish" wrote in message news On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: 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. Digital telephony when referring to the central office switch (what every POTS line connects to) uses a sample rate of 8 KHz, and doesn't use any compression. Digital cell phones do use compression, which accounts for the crappy voice quality (and a total hosing of Musak). Joe 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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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**** :-) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
If lossy compression is okay for music it would be ideal for speech.
In all cases digital is of better quality, can carry on much longer distances, and is much more protective of the user's privacy than analog. (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: 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. The original post was referring to cordless handsets - which does of course include cell phones. Lossy compression is often sonically transparent, it all depends on how much you need to lower the bitrate. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
If lossy compression is okay for music it would be ideal for speech.
In all cases digital is of better quality, can carry on much longer distances, and is much more protective of the user's privacy than analog. (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:39:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: 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. The original post was referring to cordless handsets - which does of course include cell phones. Lossy compression is often sonically transparent, it all depends on how much you need to lower the bitrate. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
How can analog quality possibly be better than digital?
|
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 |