2. digital
  3. 140819-117192

A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzRvSWPZQYk

There will still be some flat earthers who refuse to believe it....
Those should watch the video a second or third time :-)
128x128cakyol
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,943 posts
 
richopp
Science to the rescue. Forget your ears, listen to the CODEC ...
The best quality digital doesn't go through a codec.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,943 posts
 
rcronk
I too was insulted being told what I can and cannot hear.
There's no need to be insulted. There are posters who've acknowledged here that their goal is to mock and humiliate. There's no reason to take those people seriously.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 

If we all had master tapes of the music we like and professional reel-to-reel decks, then analog would be king.  It's actually a lot cheaper and more convenient to do really good digital.  Every bit as good.  The master tapes are used to create the digital tracks after all.

I'm talking about Ethernet renderer with really low jitter driven by good software: Linn Kinsky/Minimserver/BubbleUPnP, using good cabling.

Those still trying to get the ultimate SQ from USB or a transport need not apply.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

audioengr
3,282 posts
 

The best quality digital doesn't go through a codec.

There is always a CODEC in the playback software.

Steve N.

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,943 posts
 
audioengr

There is always a CODEC in the playback software.

If you consider a DAC a codec, I guess that’s true.


More to discover