opaqueice;338669 Wrote: > I follow you, I'm not sure I agree, but even if that's true, so what? > Digital is far superior to analogue in many ways that have nothing to > do with audio quality per se (like reproduction, storage, ability to > transcode, etc.). So if analogue could equal digital in SQ, it would > still be pretty useless. And since digital appears to be good enough, > even if analogue had better resolution in some sense, it would -still- > be useless.
You're missing something here: transcoding is something you don't -need- with analog, it's just to deal with nasty digital stuff like sample-rates. There are no samples in analog, you get it all not just "some" samples ;-) With reproduction I think you mean producing media+content for distribution to consumers? That is only a problem because the right analog media is not available... remember that before digital there were no CD's, DVD's etc. but that didn't stop them from inventing those media. Same for storage: media is the culprit, not the analog techniques. Yes, digital 16/44 is good enough, but I think that every audiophile that would visit a good studio and compare 16/44 with their best analog (if they still have that) would be surprised. I don't dare to state that it would sound better but I would bet on it! opaqueice;338669 Wrote: > That's just not true. Part of what Shannon showed is that noisy > analogue channels with limited bandwidth have a calculable - and finite > - information content, -just like digital-. A digital stream that > exceeds the capacity of some analogue channel can carry more > information per unit time, and hence can be a more accurate > representation of a physical sound. Noise in an analog channel doesn't limit it's capacity but it will mask part of it's content. Also, noise in the analog domain during digital recording is 1:1 represented in the digital domain (mic's, cables, amps etc. are all still there!) What you don't have is the tape-hiss & flutter but that was very very low although I don't have the dB figures at hand. When the digital converts back into analog in your DAC, it enters those same noisy analog channels again. Conclusion: with digital you still have analog-domain noise except not that of the inferior analog media. Yes, bandwidth limit obviously limits it's content. Do you know that the studio-recorders they used -before- CD's were invented went all the way up to 100 kHz? That's 5x the 16/44 you listen to now! opaqueice;338669 Wrote: > There is absolutely nothing inherent in digital that makes it less > accurate than analogue. Both are approximations, just as Darren said. Oh, I don't think that there are many people around that had an education in electronics and agree to that. Samples are inherent to digital representation of an analog signal and samples are what they are: samples, not the whole thing, no matter how many samples per time-unit you take (although one can reconstruct the original analog signal near perfect when you have enough samples). Analog doesn't have samples, analog is everything there is, the source-material. It's only when you start comparing the media you see digital winning because it's sooo easy to defeat vinyl or CC. Analog techniques evolved too: everything before the studio's ADC and after your DAC is analog and it's way better than it was 20 years ago. We need to make it better because limitations in the analog domain will always limit our listening experience. opaqueice;338669 Wrote: > My all-time favorite was a cask strength Caol Isla (Gordon and > MacPhail's, maybe?) I bought once in London. Sadly it's long gone, but > I currently have around 15 bottles - so I lose :-). Probably my > all-around everyday favorite is Talisker, but I love both Bowmore and > Lagavulin as well. Yes, I have the Caol... hard to find isn't it? I even have the 21 yr Springbank.... I tried the 12 yr Bowmore (I think it was 12 yr but might've been 15 yr) and it was nothing compared to the 18 yr old. So if you never had that: get it! My wife's favorite is the 15 yr Glenn Farclas. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
