AudioAficionado.org

AudioAficionado.org (https://www.audioaficionado.org/index.php)
-   General Audio Discussion (https://www.audioaficionado.org/forumdisplay.php?f=54)
-   -   What The Matrix can teach us about “resolution” in digital audio (https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=19460)

o0OBillO0o 02-23-2013 10:47 AM

What The Matrix can teach us about “resolution” in digital audio
 
There are no "stair-steps" in digital audio ! Keanu Reeves will demonstrate...

Very interesting read.

Proceed to debate and air out that horse ;)


Update : 15April 15

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/29...robably-wrong/
Sent from my iPad using A.Aficionado

o0OBillO0o 02-23-2013 10:48 AM

Dan, can you fix the title "What The Matrix can teach us about “resolution” in digital audio"

Sent from my iPad using A.Aficionado

Masterlu 02-23-2013 11:00 AM

Done!

Still-One 02-23-2013 11:28 AM

That one should be a sticky. :banana:

jdandy 02-23-2013 12:05 PM

Bill.......Thanks for the very interesting read.

MyPal 02-23-2013 12:14 PM

Ok, I'll start....All digital sampling is lossy. It's a matter of temporal degree. The lower the sampling rate, the bigger the loss. :p

Rayooo 02-23-2013 01:03 PM

One of the coolest things and sometimes hardest to comprehend,(at least to me) is that in a properly designed digital system, where sample rate and depth are properly chosen based on absolute maximum rates of change in the system being measured, what is apparently missing information between all samples, is easily predictable and re-creatable, because Nature itself dictates what the missing information must be in said system... or something like that. :D

Fortunately, the shape of sine waves, and complex combinations of same, no matter what their maximum frequency may be, are absolutely definable and "creatable", strangely enough, the ones created with digital systems & filters, can be identical to the ones Nature might create..or the ones emanating from your favorite musical instrument(s)

Disclaimer: JMHO, YMMV.... Vinyl is perfect, Digital is junk, Nature is perfect, Vinyl stinks, digital is perfect, Rap stinks, Classical rules, Rock is dead. Yadda Yadda. :yes::no::yes::no:

rob.hughes 03-20-2013 08:52 PM

So I'll just throw out what's always been my problem with digital... When the sample rate is at 44.1, and therefore the highest frequency reproduced is 22.5 KHz, you do lose a lot of the upper harmonic information that, while we don't hear it directly, does produce beat notes further down in the frequency spectrum, and which we can hear. I think it's this missing information that always makes digital sound a bit less real to me.

That said, I've got digital and analog recordings that sound great, and others of each that sound lousy. It's as much about the engineering and production behind the recording as the technology used to record and play it. But my best analog stuff still sounds better than the best digital stuff. This is purely my fully subjective opinion.

And that said, I think the article comes at the problem from entirely the wrong direction, starts with the wrong set of assumptions about what makes listening to music enjoyable, and uses an appeal to authority as its anchor. But I do believe, if the 64kb ipod listening kids and streaming don't kill the high-end gear market, that digital will eventually give a more life-like playback of music than the current best analog gear. I just don't think we're quite there yet.

bzr 03-21-2013 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob.hughes (Post 464152)
So I'll just throw out what's always been my problem with digital... I just don't think we're quite there yet.

I beg to differ......:thumbsup:

Still-One 03-21-2013 08:34 AM

Everyone has their own perspective and many times it is colored by ones business relationships.

I love the interview of Mark Waldrep, President of AIX Records in the April 13 issue of The Absolute Sound.

"I've been advocating for a clear distinction between standard definition and high-definition audio for years. There continues to be a lot of confusion regarding what is and isn't an HD track. Analog tape is a standard definition format, plain and simple. The same holds for vinyl. Lovers of these formats have every right to enjoy the particular flavor of sound that they produce but that doesn't change the fundamental specifications. They are simply not HD audio any more than 8mm movies from the 1950's are HD video. When an author writes that a particular recording is almost as good as "analog" , it perpetuates the myth that analog is the ultimate goal. It is frustrating that labels, mastering engineers, and consumers are not given the opportunity to hear what artists and engineers/producers create in the studio. .........................Thankfully for audiophiles and music lovers, improvements in recording didn;t end with analog tape and vinyl despite the resurgence of those formats."

Amen


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©Copyright 2009-2023 AudioAficionado.org.Privately owned, All Rights Reserved.