[A6] A vs D?

[UnderTow]

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Dave Scrimenti wrote:

> It does improve a digital sound to program randomness in to it. But since we
> don't really understand all the variables, it doesn't quite live up to the
> real thing. And it takes a lot more work. Harmonic content refers to the
> type not the number of harmonics. Overdriving analog tape or a tube amp
> sounds great. But even a couple of clips on a digital recording sound
> terrible. This is because of the different kinds of harmonics (noise) that
> are produced. As was pointed out in another note, digital isn't continuous.

This doesn't mean much as a digital signal should never be clipped. That
is a human error and is beyond the scope of the media. That would be like
complaining about the sound of hitting tape 30dB too loud.

> 44,000 seems like a lot, but we can still hear the difference with higher
> sampling rates.

True but most of the difference has to do with the quality of the
anti-aliasing filters. Good converters with oversampling and good filters
sounds quite good. Try converting through a Cranesong HEAD or something
like that. I can live with that sound. :) (Although I am not sure
about living without the kidney I would need to sell to afford it ;).

> There will come a point when we can't hear the difference,
> but we're not there yet.

How about DSD running at 2.8 Mhz sampling rate? I think we are there. Its
just too epxensive at the moment.

> Florescent lights seem continuous, but they're not.

Ah but these lights do NOT seem continuous to me. And I know alot of
people that feel the same way.

> That's why people get tired quicker with them. You're not consciously aware
> of it, but you're physically reacting to every one of those on-off switches.

*nod*

I do think we have reached the point were humans can't tell the difference
(even if the rest of the system is good enough which usualy isn't the
case). It just has to become affordable and ubiquitous.

UnderTow