|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: You misunderstood what I said... posted by Teresa on September 10, 2012 at 18:40:37:
I never disputed that the specifications of the Ampex were 30-15kHz +-2dB. All analog specs are conservative compared to digital ones, as analog rolls-off at 6dB per octave, whereas digital drops like a ton of bricks. Thus a CD player that is flat to 20kHz is -100dB or more by 22kHz. Whereas you can clearly see by the graph the music is -40dB at 10kHz, -42dB at 15kHz, -54dB at 20kHz, -74dB at 30kHz, -90dB at 40kHz.
What you said was, "They are very conservative specs".
And I gave you the link showing that they weren't.
For you to say, "All analog specs are conservative compared to digital ones..." does nothing but to reinforce the fact you don't understand digital audio. Or analog audio, for that matter.
Now if we were to bring the level of the 10kHz signal up to 0dB, that would make -2dB at 15kHz, -14dB at 20kHz, -34dB at 30kHz, -50dB at 40kHz.
The point I was making is that unlike digital, analog has a slow roll-off and even tape decks with limited flat frequency response have ultrasonic
Digital filtering can have fast or slow rolloff. Depends on the filter and the number of poles. Can you explain the difference between a IIR and an FIR digital filter?
Better yet, can you describe how an analog filter works? R-C, R-L or some other simple implementation? If you can't, and lot's of people can't, you shouldn't be lecturing about digital filtering, either.
One cannot translate analog S/N ratio into digital bits since the analog waveform is continuous and thus has more detail than digital but it is noisier, no disputes that. No its MORE, MUCH MORE than 16/44.1kHz, it has ultrasonic response because of analog's slow roll-off versus digital's brickwall filtering which causes it to drop like a ton of bricks. A 24/96 copy of this Monk LP still does not sonically equal the original LP played on a decent turntable.
Oh, so only with analog can things be heard below the noise floor? Seriously? Do you know what dither is? And why it's useful?
There is no way on this green earth that an Ampex 351 has more than about 9 bits of dynamic range. But just for the sake of argument, let's say we can hear hear 15 dB down into the noise. That would make your vaunted Ampex 351 have about 11.5 bits...
Not good enough for you? How about we kid ourselves and say we can hear 30dB down into the noise? Does that make you feel better? That would mean about 14 bits.
"Analog's attraction lies in its ultra-high resolution capability, Spitz explains. Direct Stream Digital (DSD), the high-resolution digital disc format Sony used for its audiophile SACD format, is capable of 2.884,000 transitions per track per second, but a high-quality mastering tape contains approximately 80 million transitions per track second. "And that's just for 1/4-inch two-track tape running at 15 IPS," says Spitz. "The resolution goes up substantially with wider tracks and higher (tape) speeds."
My favorite recorder is the Grimm DSD ADC.
Trying to hang your technical hat on a piece in Variety is a major fail. It's the equivalent of citing "US" magazine when talking about cardiac valve replacement.
Can DSD be a good recording format? Sure, with noise shaping, especially with the 5.6 MHz encoders. But DSD is not a valid music production format. You simply can't do anything with a DSD file that you've recorded but to play it back. Don't believe it? Tell me how you make a gain change with a DSD file.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: You misunderstood what I said... - perceptiveengineering 09/10/1219:36:13 09/10/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
