Amazon hawking obsolete TVs at top dollar prices?

Alan wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
Alan wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.


You are both full of bull. Analog and Digital techniques have problems. No
system is perfect. It is pretty clear that for most people, the advantages
of digital are far more useful than those of analog.

It is pointless to debate which is better or worse without a context of the
application, priorities, and desires of the user.

Leonard

In article ,
UCLAN wrote:

Alan wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
source. Timing jitter and other A-to-D and D-to-A errors relative to the
analog source (if the source was analog, and not digital) are still
likely. I'm not getting into a discussion of how all electronic digital
signals are really made of many analog signals superimposed...

Steve

--
steve at w0x0f dot com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

Not at *any* sampling rate, if the waveform has higher-frequency
components. But there are limits to human hearing, and above certain
frequencies, the errors won't be heard. There is no sharp cutoff
frequency, on human hearing, though. As the frequency gets higher,
you gradually need more and more power in the signal to notice it.
If you've got the equipment (I imagine the speakers would be really,
really expensive to handle these outrageously high frequencies),
try testing if anyone can tell the difference between a sampling
rate of 44*M*Hz vs. 44*G*Hz.

Hearing differs between individuals, and even for an individual
with the passage of time. This is one reason why "teenager repellant"
high-pitched noisemakers do bother many teenagers and don't bother
most adults.

On the other hand, the choice of sampling rate is an economic
compromise, especially on consumer equipment, and it wouldn't
surprise me much if *some* people can detect a missing 50kHz
component. I tend to agree, though, that a lot of it is distortion
introduced by analog amps that people have learned to like and
expect.

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...

Alan wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

You are both full of bull. Analog and Digital techniques have problems.
No system is perfect. It is pretty clear that for most people, the
advantages of digital are far more useful than those of analog.

Please quote back where I made *any* comment about analog being perfect.
I only stated that Alan's comment "...With digital, the copies can be
exact" was bull. Digital copies of digital? Yes. Digital copies of
analog? No.

Steve Fenwick wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
source.

Reading the entire thread, I don't think so.

In article UCLAN writes:
Steve Fenwick wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
source.

Reading the entire thread, I don't think so.

Read the paragraph again. It was discussing copying a recording
("When you copy the recording with analog... With digital, the copies
can be exact.")

You don't need to read the entire thread. You simply need to read what
I wrote. Copying a digital source can be exact.


Alan

In article UCLAN writes:
Alan wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

I was talking about producing copies of the digital recording. Copying
a tape adds more hiss, flutter, and all of the flaws of tape recording.
Pressing vinyl is never perfect.

As for duplicating the analog waveform, no recording system gets it
perfectly. However, digital systems can be engineered to copy to a
desired level of accuracy, and to maintain that accuracy through the
entire process to final conversion to analog for presentation.

16 bit linear audio produces a bit over 96 dB signal/noise in the
digital process. This exceeds the peak of professional magnetic tape
recording by about 16 dB in typical broadband applications. Neither
analog or digital is perfect, but it is fairly straightforward for
digital to be better than analog.

Note, the sampling rates are not the prime issue, either. They
simply determine the upper frequency limit, and the complexity of
the filters needed. The s/n is a result of the resolution of the
samples.


Alan

On Dec 27, 6:48*pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
wrote:

*** I think analog is being considered as more "accurate" because
the entire
sound is captured on the vinyl or tape, even with whatever noise
may be
present.

With digital, the sampling rate used does not capture _all_ of the
sound, so
there is always some amount of sound not being captured when
compared to the
analog recording, even at sampling rates as high as 44.1 kHz or 48
kHz.

It's like calculus - for every epsilon there is a delta...

Up the bit level and sample rate to whatever you can afford. 24 bits
at 192KHz WILL capture EVERYTHING fit to capture and do it far better
than analog.

Think about harmonics and overtones of various orders, there's always part
of the sound missing with a digital sample of the sound,
interpolation has
to be used to calculate the points in between, and that may or may
not
recreate the same sound as the analog recording.

I remember a long time ago some young pup commented on how bad the
1KHz squarewave looked coming off a test CD. What he was seeng was
exactly what the theory predicted it would look like given a 22KH
system bandwidth. I asked him if he ever saw a square wave from an LP
and he said no. I told him it wouldn't even be recognizable.

That said, I don't miss clicking and popping inherent to playing
vinyl when
the record and needle are not absolutely free of dust or dirt of
any kind,
nor do I miss the tape hiss inherent to analog tape. I'm also not
sure that
a digital-to-audio converter is that much inferior to a tube amp,
when
playing material that has been digitally mastered from the start
instead of
mastered using analog equipment.

Does anybody even use analog mastering for anything besides a niche
market? A big problem with analog is you need to align to every tape
if you want it best. The guys who can do that are expensive. The ones
that aren't as good sometimes make it worse. With digital, turn it on
and start recording to a hard disc and skip that pesky tape. My 4th
grader can get excellent results. I surely don't miss analog
recordings, RIP.

G²

Alan wrote:
In writes:
Steve Fenwick wrote:

When you copy the recording with analog, further distortions are added.
More of the sound is lost. With digital, the copies can be exact.

Oh, bull. Your "1's" and "0's" may closely duplicate the analog waveform,
but it won't duplicate it *perfectly.* Not at sampling rates used in
consumer gear.

Uh, I suspect he means that the digital duplicate of a digital source
can be exact, at least as far as reproducing the 0s and 1s of the
source.

Reading the entire thread, I don't think so.

Read the paragraph again. It was discussing copying a recording
("When you copy the recording with analog... With digital, the copies
can be exact.")

You don't need to read the entire thread. You simply need to read what
I wrote. Copying a digital source can be exact.


Alan

An analog recording NEVER EVER exactly matches the source.

A digital recording that comes from outside your equipment will be
pretty darn close, but not truly exact: notice that all digital
transmissions have "error correction" of one kind or another built into
it. This is because transmissions get blasted from one source or
another killing some bits. Some errors cannot be corrected, while others
can.

In other words, any recording will have "errors". Whether or not you are
bothered by it depends on you and the type of error.