Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
There were good all-digital recordings from the onset.
Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. You should certainly remember the recording of Holst's band music. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck writes: That's true, but it's not the same thing as being perfect. I won't disagree that digital represented a significant improvement over analog, but the idea that early digital equipment was therefore necessarily perfect is an invalid conclusion. In fact, it's simple intellectual foolishness. This sounds suspect to me. In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. ....Yes! Once everything is converted to numbers! DUH! THAT is the issue. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. I can't believe that someone is actually saying this. I made simultaneous recordings with the Nakamich version of the PCM-F1 and the dbx 700. The recordings did not sound the same (the Sony was harder and brighter-sounding), so they could not have both been perfect. When I first started listening to CDs, I did notice that they sounded harder and brighter ... just like live music. It didn't seem like a defect to me. WS finds wall and bangs head against it. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Arny Krueger writes:
There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
That's true, but it's not the same thing as being perfect. I won't disagree that digital represented a significant improvement over analog, but the idea that early digital equipment was therefore necessarily perfect is an invalid conclusion. In fact, it's simple intellectual foolishness. This sounds suspect to me. In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. It's all ones and zeroes, and whether the ones and zeroes are blurry or sharp is irrelevant, since perfection is the result either way. That's the whole advantage of digital. I made simultaneous recordings with the Nakamich version of the PCM-F1 and the dbx 700. The recordings did not sound the same (the Sony was harder and brighter-sounding), so they could not have both been perfect. When I first started listening to CDs, I did notice that they sounded harder and brighter ... just like live music. It didn't seem like a defect to me. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
William Sommerwerck writes: That's true, but it's not the same thing as being perfect. I won't disagree that digital represented a significant improvement over analog, but the idea that early digital equipment was therefore necessarily perfect is an invalid conclusion. In fact, it's simple intellectual foolishness. This sounds suspect to me. In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. It's all ones and zeroes, and whether the ones and zeroes are blurry or sharp is irrelevant, since perfection is the result either way. That's the whole advantage of digital. Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On 1/30/2012 3:49 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. Yes, but there are no native digital audio transducers. Air has to move something. And assuming a conventional path with A/D and D/A converters, the accuracy of converting to or from numbers is what you're concerned with. It's getting pretty good, and probably better than any analog transducer, but it's not perfect. When I first started listening to CDs, I did notice that they sounded harder and brighter ... just like live music. It didn't seem like a defect to me. The first thing I noticed about CDs was that there was no surface noise. While I don't let the occasional tick bother me, none was really an ear opener. Since I don't know what it sounded like in the control or mastering room, I really can't say anything about the accuracy. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message news Arny Krueger writes: There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. Read about them and more at: http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Arny Krueger wrote:
There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? Some of the first classical music I ever bought in *any* format. A Marine buddy got me started listening to it, reinforced by friends who played it while we played role-playing games and while wargaming on the sand table. Telarc put out some damned fine material. My first was Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture," second was Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory." Yeah, I was into the recorded firearms. ;^) My gaming buddies got me into Wagner. That had me going to some Telarc and a lot of Deutsche Grammophon, who put out some pretty danged good digital conversions of analog recordings. ---Jeff |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. It's all ones and zeroes, and whether the ones and zeroes are blurry or sharp is irrelevant, since perfection is the result either way. That's the whole advantage of digital. Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Only if you actually bothered to specify the problem conversion step being the sonic/mechanical/electrical one, rather than the electrical A-D/D-A one. The latter is pretty easy these days. Trevor. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message news Arny Krueger writes: There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. I've still got dozens of them. Their 1812 Overture was my first CD. Enjoyed the Eric Kunzel "Pop Symphonic" stuff too. Trevor. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Trevor wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message news Arny Krueger writes: There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. I've still got dozens of them. Their 1812 Overture was my first CD. Enjoyed the Eric Kunzel "Pop Symphonic" stuff too. Trevor. Yeah, I forgot about the Eric Kunzel one. I have that one, too. Back then I wasn't all that into classical music, other than experimenting with some of the stuff that was somewhat familiar to me from movies and such, but it kind of grew on me. Then when I started on the path to my music degree, I found that I was getting to truly enjoy it. I'm still primarily a rock/blues listener, but I'll listen to just about any genre at this point because of that experience. And I'm still a huge Richard Wagner fan--enough to make him the subject of a few term papers. Let me correct that--I'm a huge fan of his *music* but his personal life was not one I'm interested in emulating. It looked, ummmmmmm... Painful. ---Jeff |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Harder than dragging a bouncing rock through medium-hard plastic, all on resonant mechanical equipment ? geoff |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message ... There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. I've still got dozens of them. Their 1812 Overture was my first CD. Enjoyed the Eric Kunzel "Pop Symphonic" stuff too. Yeah, I forgot about the Eric Kunzel one. I have that one, too. ONE? I have seven, and I'm sure there were probably more. Trevor. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Jan 30, 9:51*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"PStamler" wrote in message ... No, it's still hard. But some smart designers have succeeded in doing it well even though it's hard. So they make it look easy -- but it's still hard. Well nearly everything is hard using that logic, BUT since the hard work has been done, and off the shelf harware is more than good enough now, it is no longer a problem USERS need to worry about. (beyond avoiding whatever crap may still be available) Trevor. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Trevor" wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. It's all ones and zeroes, and whether the ones and zeroes are blurry or sharp is irrelevant, since perfection is the result either way. That's the whole advantage of digital. Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Only if you actually bothered to specify the problem conversion step being the sonic/mechanical/electrical one, rather than the electrical A-D/D-A one. The latter is pretty easy these days. And that is the point. The best minds in the industry decided in the 60s and 70s that vinyl LP technology was pretty much at its zenith, and could not be materially improved at any cost. Any number of alternative technologies were tried, including several flavors of FM coding, but none were adequate. Analog media and media contact-based playback had to go. By the time the CD came out, its key technologies had already been proven over several years in the form of the Laserdisc. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck writes: ...Yes! Once everything is converted to numbers! DUH! THAT is the issue. A conversion can only be so good. Precisely. It's possible to transmit digital information "perfectly", but that has nothing whatever to do with whether the conversion was itself perfect. Don't you understand? |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Scott Dorsey writes: Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Hard, perhaps, but not impossible. Since the accuracy of digital is finite, there will be some possible analog system that can fully exploit whatever accuracy it provides. Beyond that, no improvement in the conversion is possible. But you claimed that digital conversion is or can be perfect. Read what you wrote! |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... For any waveform, no matter how complex, there is a single, optimal conversion to a given implementation of the digital domain. Once you achieve that optimal conversion, no further improvement in the conversion is necessary or possible. And your proof that such conversion is possible, is...? |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message ... "Scott wrote in message ... In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. It's all ones and zeroes, and whether the ones and zeroes are blurry or sharp is irrelevant, since perfection is the result either way. That's the whole advantage of digital. Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Only if you actually bothered to specify the problem conversion step being the sonic/mechanical/electrical one, rather than the electrical A-D/D-A one. The latter is pretty easy these days. And that is the point. The best minds in the industry decided in the 60s and 70s that vinyl LP technology was pretty much at its zenith, and could not be materially improved at any cost. But vinyl varied. Radically. Turntables/cartriges/stylii varied. When I stopped getting Stereo Review ( in 1979) , these things were all still in some state of R&D - or at least new products were being sold. there were dedicated retail outlets for the technology even in smallish towns. But reading you say this - I realize I had been exposed to something like propaganda for digital media since the mid '70s. And now the propaganda seems like they* wish they could put the genie back in the bottle. *it's rather a different "they" now. Any number of alternative technologies were tried, including several flavors of FM coding, but none were adequate. Analog media and media contact-based playback had to go. By the time the CD came out, its key technologies had already been proven over several years in the form of the Laserdisc. And they still got it wrong in cases... -- Les Cargill |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
...Yes! Once everything is converted to numbers! DUH! THAT is the issue. A conversion can only be so good. There is an ideal conversion to digital, beyond which the conversion cannot be improved. It's not like pure analog, where you can tweak infinitely. For any given analog waveform, there is an optimal conversion to digital. Once a converter achieves that optimal conversion, no further improvement is possible. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Scott Dorsey writes:
Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Hard, perhaps, but not impossible. Since the accuracy of digital is finite, there will be some possible analog system that can fully exploit whatever accuracy it provides. Beyond that, no improvement in the conversion is possible. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Arny Krueger writes:
By the time the CD came out, its key technologies had already been proven over several years in the form of the Laserdisc. The advantages of CDs were known long before there was any way to manufacture them, And the advantages of digital recording in general have been understood for a hundred years. It was just the engineering part that had to catch up. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mike Rivers writes:
Yes, but there are no native digital audio transducers. Air has to move something. And assuming a conventional path with A/D and D/A converters, the accuracy of converting to or from numbers is what you're concerned with. It's getting pretty good, and probably better than any analog transducer, but it's not perfect. It can indeed be perfect, because it need only match the resolution of the digital domain. For any waveform, no matter how complex, there is a single, optimal conversion to a given implementation of the digital domain. Once you achieve that optimal conversion, no further improvement in the conversion is necessary or possible. And it is possible to achieve that optimal conversion in the real world. So beyond a certain point, converters work perfectly, and nothing better will ever be possible or needed. The first thing I noticed about CDs was that there was no surface noise. While I don't let the occasional tick bother me, none was really an ear opener. Since I don't know what it sounded like in the control or mastering room, I really can't say anything about the accuracy. I recall my first experiences with CD, listening to a recording that had no background noise. On a few early occasions I cranked up the volume on the assumption that it was set too low, only to be blasted by the music when it actually started. Unlike LPs, you could not guess at an appropriate volume setting based on background noise, so sometimes you were surprised. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ... "Scott wrote in message ... In the digital domain, practical perfection is extremely easy to achieve. Once everything is converted to numbers, you are no longer subject to the tolerances and unpredictability of imperfect analog circuits. If the conversion to digital is clean, perfection is trivial from that point on. It's all ones and zeroes, and whether the ones and zeroes are blurry or sharp is irrelevant, since perfection is the result either way. That's the whole advantage of digital. Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Only if you actually bothered to specify the problem conversion step being the sonic/mechanical/electrical one, rather than the electrical A-D/D-A one. The latter is pretty easy these days. And that is the point. The best minds in the industry decided in the 60s and 70s that vinyl LP technology was pretty much at its zenith, and could not be materially improved at any cost. But vinyl varied. Radically. Turntables/cartriges/stylii varied. When I stopped getting Stereo Review ( in 1979) , these things were all still in some state of R&D - or at least new products were being sold. there were dedicated retail outlets for the technology even in smallish towns. People are still doing technical measurements of LP playback gear, Miller Audio Research for one. Their tests don't show much improvement over how things were 30 years ago. But reading you say this - I realize I had been exposed to something like propaganda for digital media since the mid '70s. And now the propaganda seems like they* wish they could put the genie back in the bottle. ???????????????? *it's rather a different "they" now. Any number of alternative technologies were tried, including several flavors of FM coding, but none were adequate. Analog media and media contact-based playback had to go. By the time the CD came out, its key technologies had already been proven over several years in the form of the Laserdisc. And they still got it wrong in cases... IME, the first completely foolproof technology is still being developed... ;-) |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
geoff wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Harder than dragging a bouncing rock through medium-hard plastic, all on resonant mechanical equipment ? Probably not, but remember that by the time the CD came out, there had been a century's worth of development in getting that bouncing rock to work right. That's a very hard thing to do also. Electromechanical transducers always are. All things considered, digital stuff has come a long way since the eighties. A lot of work has gone into making it sound good, probably even more than went into the century's worth of record development. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Scott Dorsey writes: Right. The problem is that conversion step. That turns out to be really pretty hard. Hard, perhaps, but not impossible. Since the accuracy of digital is finite, there will be some possible analog system that can fully exploit whatever accuracy it provides. Beyond that, no improvement in the conversion is possible. Right. But in the eighties we were having trouble just getting a 100 Hz square wave through the system without massive overshoot. Things are better now. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Trevor wrote:
"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message ... There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? I do, although I can't remember specific titles now. I've still got dozens of them. Their 1812 Overture was my first CD. Enjoyed the Eric Kunzel "Pop Symphonic" stuff too. Yeah, I forgot about the Eric Kunzel one. I have that one, too. ONE? I have seven, and I'm sure there were probably more. Trevor. Oh, I'm sure. I said "one" because that was the only one of his in my collection. My bad. ---Jeff |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
Precisely. It's possible to transmit digital information "perfectly", but that has nothing whatever to do with whether the conversion was itself perfect. What is important to retain is that, in the digital realm, one cannot tweak things forever. Once a conversion is optimal, no improvement is possible, and no further tweaking makes any difference. This is in sharp contrast to the analog world, where one can tweak and tweak and always approach perfection a little more closely. The irony is that analog systems can be perfect in theory, but never in practice, whereas digital systems can never be perfect, even in theory, but they often make it possible to approach perfection more closely than analog systems do because analog portions of a system are vulnerable to physical constraints, whereas digital components are not. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
But you claimed that digital conversion is or can be perfect. Seen from the digital side, that's true. Seen from the analog side, it's never true (not even in theory). A given waveform has one optimal digital representation, which is "perfect," because it cannot be improved upon in the digital realm. That representation will never be perfect from an analog standpoint, because you cannot represent an infinite number of points on a curve with a finite series of numbers. What this boils down to is that, once you've developed an ADC that produces the optimal digital representation of a waveform, any further development of the ADC is a waste of time, because the digital representation can never get better. So if you have a $50 ADC that produces this optimal digital representation, building a $5000 ADC accomplishes nothing. Which in turn means that it's entirely possible that some modern ADCs are now "perfect" from a digital standpoint, because they produce optimal digital representations of their input waveforms. Which means that arguing further about conversions serves no purpose--they are as good as they will ever be. If you want to go further, you need a more detailed digital representation (more samples with greater bit depth), and then you can build a fancier ADC to create the necessary numbers. I don't know if perfect ADCs for 16 bits and 44,100 Hz exist, but it's certainly quite plausible to think that they do. In which case, there's nothing more to be done for CD-quality sound. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Scott Dorsey writes:
Right. But in the eighties we were having trouble just getting a 100 Hz square wave through the system without massive overshoot. Things are better now. So are they better, or perfect? Are there ADCs now that can produce an optimal digitization of a majority of waveforms actually encountered in real-world audio recording? If not, then there's more work to be done on the analog side of the ADCs. If so, then the only future improvement would be in increasing sample rates and bit depths, and the current digital representations are as good as they will ever get. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
And your proof that such conversion is possible, is...? I consider it self-evident. A digital data stream is an approximation of the waveform it represents. There will always be one--and only one--optimal digital representation of that waveform. Once this representation is obtained, nothing more can be improved. That is the nature of digital systems, and it's one of the characteristics that I notice that people with analog backgrouns have trouble with. My background is digital, so I know the digital limitations very well, whereas I'm much weaker with the ramifications of analog representations. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes: Right. But in the eighties we were having trouble just getting a 100 Hz square wave through the system without massive overshoot. Things are better now. So are they better, or perfect? Are there ADCs now that can produce an optimal digitization of a majority of waveforms actually encountered in real-world audio recording? This is the hard question to answer, indeed. But... the Weiss converters sound a little different than the Prism converters which definitely sound different than the Grimm. So... if one of them is indeed perfect, the question is which one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck writes: And your proof that such conversion is possible, is...? I consider it self-evident. A digital data stream is an approximation of the waveform it represents. There will always be one--and only one--optimal digital representation of that waveform. Once this representation is obtained, nothing more can be improved. You are looking at this from an extremely narrow point of view. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck writes: You are looking at this from an extremely narrow point of view. No, I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who understands and has used digital systems all his life. Most people in the audio and video worlds know analog, not digital, since analog preceded digital and is still the most important part of any system that interfaces with the physical world. But sometimes their misunderstanding of the digital domain can work against them. All right... Explain the difference between digital and analog. I've asked the members of this group to do this several times, and none has ever gotten it correct. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: All right... Explain the difference between digital and analog. I've asked the members of this group to do this several times, and none has ever gotten it correct. Rut roh, Raggy. Yes. Yes, you have. Mxsmanic, you need to pack a lunch--we could be here a while. I'm filling the popcorn popper right now... ;^) I am not going to get into a discussion. I simply want to see whether or not he understands. Nothing more. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Scott Dorsey writes:
This is the hard question to answer, indeed. Yes, but it's a fascinating question. But... the Weiss converters sound a little different than the Prism converters which definitely sound different than the Grimm. So... if one of them is indeed perfect, the question is which one. Yes. Or perhaps none of them is yet able to do a perfect conversion. I don't know. I suppose you could examine the results by hand and calculate whether or not the numbers coming out are indeed the best representation of the signal going in. But is that really worth it? |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
You are looking at this from an extremely narrow point of view. No, I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who understands and has used digital systems all his life. Most people in the audio and video worlds know analog, not digital, since analog preceded digital and is still the most important part of any system that interfaces with the physical world. But sometimes their misunderstanding of the digital domain can work against them. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck wrote:
All right... Explain the difference between digital and analog. I've asked the members of this group to do this several times, and none has ever gotten it correct. Rut roh, Raggy. Yes. Yes, you have. Mxsmanic, you need to pack a lunch--we could be here a while. I'm filling the popcorn popper right now... ;^) ---Jeff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lever Switch or Key Switch suppliers (UK) | Vacuum Tubes | |||
AB switch with XLR I/O? | Pro Audio | |||
Looking for this switch (Midas Venice solo switch) | Pro Audio | |||
A/B switch | Tech | |||
Kill Switch | Car Audio |