On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:09:59AM -0800, Dave Cross wrote:
[...]
> Seems pretty obvious to me that if you're going to record an analogue
> phenomena (like music) then you need an analogue medium to record it on,
> otherwise you are going to lose definition.
For well-designed digital kit, the sample rate is just an upper limit on the
frequency response, and the resolution in bits sets a maximum SNR (which is
what, 22kHz and 96dB?). Provided this is better than the analogue
electronics that surrounds it, I'm happy.
> Of course, the background noise on any vinyl disk tends to override the
> more accurate aural reproduction.
Also the quality of the stylus and preamp. My only record deck was a
Dansette many years ago, and I don't recall the sound quality being up to
much... Sure, there's better around, but you don't let them loose on a 9yo
kid.
> [currently transfering 300+ albums to minidisc]
I'd be copying them to CD-R myself, preferably good quality blanks like HHK,
not the sort you get down the Tottenham Court Road.
The effects of perceptive coding aren't something that can really be
measured unlike uncompressed digital bitstreams. If an untrained grubby ear
like mine can hear the artifacts, it's not good enough. It's OK for heavily
(analogue) compressed audio like most pop though - the artifacts only seem
to be percievable in quiet passages (when I measured, it was in a bit about
40dB down from the rest.)
