Musician's Thread

[Rustum]

This is like a politics or religion discussion; it's very difficult to persuade either way. I have a regular argument with a friend re vinyl and digital reproduction.

[Jacques]

This is like a politics or religion discussion; it's very difficult to persuade either way. I have a regular argument with a friend re vinyl and digital reproduction.

A trick I've just thought of (after much rum, so perhaps to be discounted): as digital technology advances (as well as storage capacity, etc.), it will be entirely possible for digital to mimic vinyl (analog). But analog can not mimic digital. QED.

[Rustum]

That a rummy, next level move.

[Ziltoid the Omniscient]

Analog has infinite points on a waveform, digital will always have to chop it up in steps, I don't know...

[Jacques]

Analog has infinite points on a waveform, digital will always have to chop it up in steps, I don't know...

Zeno's paradox comes to mind - infinite points count for little if they can't be perceived.

[bRUCE]

But digital can offer editorial assistance - analogue depends mostly on the artist's talents.

[Jason]

Digital audio is definitely Pulse Coded Modulation, which by its very nature is the regular sampling of an analog signal.
Digital audio offers the flawless and faithful reproduction of audio signals, within limits.

Both systems have their merits and demerits. It is an argument that can never be won in favour of either system.

I do believe analog recording is now obsolete, and with systems sampling at 96kHz, using 24 bits of resolution, there is very very small room for nyquist error.

The general public doesn't complain either. Most are happy purchasing MP3 tracks encoded at 128kbps, which gives me listener fatigue rapidly and sounds, quite frankly, shit! I don't accept any music encoded at less than 320kbps in MP3.

Many excellent sounding records, were made using 8-bit sampling, on synths like the Fairlight CMI. So much so that great trouble is taken to accurately emulate the CMI in today's synths.