Vinyl Promoters Still Flogging The Same Old False Claims

[Arny Krueger]

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-6443696-1.html?tag=nl.e404

"Real, live sound has infinite resolution, but digitalized music contains a
finite number of samples. For CDs, it's 44,100 samples per second. That
might like an adequate number of samples to reconstruct the sound of a piano
or a guitar, but when you stop and consider that the distinctive sound of
every instrument and the human voice is produced by a fundamental frequency
and a complex series of higher-frequency harmonics, you might see that's
where digital falls down on the job. The number of samples available to
faithfully reproduce the shimmer of a cymbal or the sweetness of a violin
are too few. That accounts for digital's harshness compared to sample-free
analog, which can capture music's harmonics with ease."

Of course nothing in the real world has infinite resolution because noise is
endemic. So the author (It seems a regular reviewer at one of the ragazines
in the Stereophile family - Home Theater Magazine) uses the common golden
ear publication technique of offering a false premise that some
poorly-educated persons might find intuitively satisfying and credible. In
fact, the LP format has at least 10 times less resolution than the CD
format.

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-6443696-1.html?tag=nl.e404
>
> "Real, live sound has infinite resolution, but digitalized music contains a
> finite number of samples. For CDs, it's 44,100 samples per second. That
> might like an adequate number of samples to reconstruct the sound of a piano
> or a guitar, but when you stop and consider that the distinctive sound of
> every instrument and the human voice is produced by a fundamental frequency
> and a complex series of higher-frequency harmonics, you might see that's
> where digital falls down on the job. The number of samples available to
> faithfully reproduce the shimmer of a cymbal or the sweetness of a violin
> are too few. That accounts for digital's harshness compared to sample-free
> analog, which can capture music's harmonics with ease."


This has been an ongoing debate in the field of photography for some
time.

As you know, photographic film has a finite amount of detail, roughly
analogous to pixels, it can display, set by the grain structure of the
silver compounds in use. In effect, all photography is in a sense
digital since at the finest level each such molecule or crystal is one
of either two materials which is either "black" or "white". (Color film
uses three such layers, each one of the additive or subtractive primary
colors depending on whether or not it is negative or positive film.)

Ultimately, is digital a special case of analog or vice versa?

Digital photography is unquestionably cost-effective and convenient,
and is capable of excellent quality, although its dynamic range and
ulltimate resolution in sensors suited for small and medium format use
are not yet the equal of film. Nor is there any long term archival
storage media (excluding punched metal or Mylar tape, whose density
makes it unsuited for digital audio or images) proven adequate for even
one human lifetime. Or less.

Consider the following project, had it been done in digital:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932183736

If there had been digital then would any of today's drives handle it?
I know of a family whose oldest son was an erstwhile novelist, and when
he died young they got his work product of many years-on DECtape from a
VAX (probably Microvax or VAXstation) system he purchased for his own
use in the 1980s, and some other things he did on an Amiga system. The
macines were long gone, of course. They wound up throwing them out, not
because there was no way to recover the data, but because the cost and
bother weren't in their judgment justified based on their assessment of
his talent (which was far lower than mine: I think he could have been
quite successful had he went to New York and plugged his work.)
Consider all the bands who recorded music on ADAT VHS-tape machines in
the 90s, years from now when all the ADATs are finally dead. Yes
recovery may be possible with intense lab techniques, but without
knowing what's actually on the tape will it be worth the effort?

Film only neds to be held up to the light: analog tape is almost as
simple to verify.

The technical explanation for the poor sound of some CDs may be
deficient, but their concerns are not, Arny. That you can't perceive
this is why you are a dork, Arny, and are the frequent target of abuse.
You may be a Asperger's Syndrome person or something.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-6443696-1.html?tag=nl.e404
>>
>> "Real, live sound has infinite resolution, but
>> digitalized music contains a finite number of samples.
>> For CDs, it's 44,100 samples per second. That might like
>> an adequate number of samples to reconstruct the sound
>> of a piano or a guitar, but when you stop and consider
>> that the distinctive sound of every instrument and the
>> human voice is produced by a fundamental frequency and a
>> complex series of higher-frequency harmonics, you might
>> see that's where digital falls down on the job. The
>> number of samples available to faithfully reproduce the
>> shimmer of a cymbal or the sweetness of a violin are too
>> few. That accounts for digital's harshness compared to
>> sample-free analog, which can capture music's harmonics
>> with ease."
>
>
> This has been an ongoing debate in the field of
> photography for some time.
>
> As you know, photographic film has a finite amount of
> detail, roughly analogous to pixels, it can display, set
> by the grain structure of the silver compounds in use. In
> effect, all photography is in a sense digital since at
> the finest level each such molecule or crystal is one of
> either two materials which is either "black" or "white".
> (Color film uses three such layers, each one of the
> additive or subtractive primary colors depending on
> whether or not it is negative or positive film.)

Sounds about right - photography 101 as I learned it.

> Ultimately, is digital a special case of analog or vice
> versa?

Doesn't matter.

> Digital photography is unquestionably cost-effective and
> convenient, and is capable of excellent quality, although
> its dynamic range and ulltimate resolution in sensors
> suited for small and medium format use are not yet the
> equal of film. Nor is there any long term archival
> storage media (excluding punched metal or Mylar tape,
> whose density makes it unsuited for digital audio or
> images) proven adequate for even one human lifetime. Or
> less.

At this point the audio relevance of this post is in tatters.

The dynamic range and resolution (two views of the same thing) of modern
digital vastly (minimum 10 times) exceeds that of analog storage media. From
an archival standpoint again good digital is generally more robust than
analog, particularly under household conditions.


> Consider the following project, had it been done in
> digital:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932183736

> If there had been digital then would any of today's
> drives handle it? I know of a family whose oldest son was
> an erstwhile novelist, and when he died young they got
> his work product of many years-on DECtape from a VAX
> (probably Microvax or VAXstation) system he purchased for
> his own use in the 1980s, and some other things he did on
> an Amiga system. The macines were long gone, of course.
> They wound up throwing them out, not because there was no
> way to recover the data, but because the cost and bother
> weren't in their judgment justified based on their
> assessment of his talent (which was far lower than mine:
> I think he could have been quite successful had he went
> to New York and plugged his work.)

So what?

> Consider all the bands
> who recorded music on ADAT VHS-tape machines in the 90s,
> years from now when all the ADATs are finally dead. Yes
> recovery may be possible with intense lab techniques, but
> without knowing what's actually on the tape will it be
> worth the effort?

So what?

The audio CD format is now over 20 years old. My 23 year old CDs are in a
lot better shape than most of my LP collection was after just a few years.

> Film only neds to be held up to the light: analog tape is
> almost as simple to verify.

Analog tapes by the tens of thousands if not millions are subject to a
problem called "sticky shed". They can be recovered a few times but only
temporarily.

> The technical explanation for the poor sound of some CDs
> may be deficient, but their concerns are not, Arny.

Having concerns is not the same as a provable demonstrable problem.

> That you can't perceive this is why you are a dork, Arny, and
> are the frequent target of abuse. You may be a Asperger's
> Syndrome person or something.

Prerequisite subjectivist personal attack noted and filed where it belongs -
where the sun shines not!

LOL!

;-)

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig"

<<snip>>

> >
> > As you know, photographic film has a finite amount of
> > detail,

<<snip>>

> Sounds about right - photography 101 as I learned it.
>
> > Ultimately, is digital a special case of analog or vice
> > versa?
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> > Digital photography is unquestionably cost-effective and
> > convenient, and is capable of excellent quality, although
> > its dynamic range and ulltimate resolution in sensors
> > suited for small and medium format use are not yet the
> > equal of film. Nor is there any long term archival
> > storage media (excluding punched metal or Mylar tape,
> > whose density makes it unsuited for digital audio or
> > images) proven adequate for even one human lifetime. Or
> > less.
>
> At this point the audio relevance of this post is in tatters.
>
<<snip>>

> > That you can't perceive this is why you are a dork, Arny,

QED.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-6443696-1.html?tag=nl.e404
>>>
>>> "Real, live sound has infinite resolution, but
>>> digitalized music contains a finite number of samples.
>>> For CDs, it's 44,100 samples per second. That might like
>>> an adequate number of samples to reconstruct the sound
>>> of a piano or a guitar, but when you stop and consider
>>> that the distinctive sound of every instrument and the
>>> human voice is produced by a fundamental frequency and a
>>> complex series of higher-frequency harmonics, you might
>>> see that's where digital falls down on the job. The
>>> number of samples available to faithfully reproduce the
>>> shimmer of a cymbal or the sweetness of a violin are too
>>> few. That accounts for digital's harshness compared to
>>> sample-free analog, which can capture music's harmonics
>>> with ease."
>>
>>
>> This has been an ongoing debate in the field of
>> photography for some time.
>>
>> As you know, photographic film has a finite amount of
>> detail, roughly analogous to pixels, it can display, set
>> by the grain structure of the silver compounds in use. In
>> effect, all photography is in a sense digital since at
>> the finest level each such molecule or crystal is one of
>> either two materials which is either "black" or "white".
>> (Color film uses three such layers, each one of the
>> additive or subtractive primary colors depending on
>> whether or not it is negative or positive film.)
>
> Sounds about right - photography 101 as I learned it.
>
>> Ultimately, is digital a special case of analog or vice
>> versa?
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
>> Digital photography is unquestionably cost-effective and
>> convenient, and is capable of excellent quality, although
>> its dynamic range and ulltimate resolution in sensors
>> suited for small and medium format use are not yet the
>> equal of film. Nor is there any long term archival
>> storage media (excluding punched metal or Mylar tape,
>> whose density makes it unsuited for digital audio or
>> images) proven adequate for even one human lifetime. Or
>> less.
>
> At this point the audio relevance of this post is in tatters.
>
> The dynamic range and resolution (two views of the same thing) of modern
> digital vastly (minimum 10 times) exceeds that of analog storage media.
> From an archival standpoint again good digital is generally more robust
> than analog, particularly under household conditions.
>
>
>> Consider the following project, had it been done in
>> digital:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932183736
>
>> If there had been digital then would any of today's
>> drives handle it? I know of a family whose oldest son was
>> an erstwhile novelist, and when he died young they got
>> his work product of many years-on DECtape from a VAX
>> (probably Microvax or VAXstation) system he purchased for
>> his own use in the 1980s, and some other things he did on
>> an Amiga system. The macines were long gone, of course.
>> They wound up throwing them out, not because there was no
>> way to recover the data, but because the cost and bother
>> weren't in their judgment justified based on their
>> assessment of his talent (which was far lower than mine:
>> I think he could have been quite successful had he went
>> to New York and plugged his work.)
>
> So what?
>
>> Consider all the bands
>> who recorded music on ADAT VHS-tape machines in the 90s,
>> years from now when all the ADATs are finally dead. Yes
>> recovery may be possible with intense lab techniques, but
>> without knowing what's actually on the tape will it be
>> worth the effort?
>
> So what?
>
> The audio CD format is now over 20 years old. My 23 year old CDs are in a
> lot better shape than most of my LP collection was after just a few years.
>
>> Film only neds to be held up to the light: analog tape is
>> almost as simple to verify.
>
> Analog tapes by the tens of thousands if not millions are subject to a
> problem called "sticky shed". They can be recovered a few times but only
> temporarily.
>
>> The technical explanation for the poor sound of some CDs
>> may be deficient, but their concerns are not, Arny.
>
> Having concerns is not the same as a provable demonstrable problem.
>
>> That you can't perceive this is why you are a dork, Arny, and
>> are the frequent target of abuse. You may be a Asperger's
>> Syndrome person or something.
>
> Prerequisite subjectivist personal attack noted and filed where it
> belongs - where the sun shines not!
>
> LOL!
>
It is a personal attack. It presents an opportunity for you. Break the
endless loop. Try to find some sun in your disposition, and let it roll off
your back. Eventually, this may be a better place for it. But you have to be
patient.