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
stl
7 posts
 
To our Canadian friend...
From a proud U.S. citizen.

You think that’s bad? You should see what goes on in U.S. between the many different cultures that make-up this great land.
______________________________________________________
To stay on topic,
What sounds good? What sounds best?
What’s the best way to reproduce music?
It’s all a matter of opinion and we’re all entitled to our opinions.
______________________________________________________

I bid you a fond farewell from the most dangerous city in the U.S.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
And then there was MP3, which was a hijacked technology that removed 90% of the information afforded by 16/44 and yet most people couldn't even tell the difference, let alone care. Convenience mattered. Transfer over the internet mattered. Free music mattered. In the end did it damage the music industry? Vinyl is on the rise, albeit a very small fraction of the total sales. CDs will make a comeback too.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
Digital waveforms are continuous, but with a lot of spurious information in the highest frequencies.... and due to the way they are made, they may have artifacts which in particular, create a kind of annoying treble.

Nonsense. If there is anything fatiguing about digital, it is due to jitter, poor digital filtering or software artifacts.  All of these can be eliminated with the right digital interfaces, playback software and a quality DAC with minimized effects of digital filtering.  You have just listened to the wrong equipment.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

audioengr
3,282 posts
 
How did Sony management in the early 80s judge or determine who can hear what? Did they have a bevy of audiophiles on staff? I suspect it’s more likely the Redbook CD committee decided on 16/44 based on technical considerations and constraints only.

Sony and the IEC missed the boat on the importance of jitter however.  It turned-out to be much more important than they thought.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I’m not surprised. They missed the boat on scattered background laser light. They missed the boat on deciding to use polycarbonate for the clear layer as it’s transparency is only 92%. They missed the boat on making sure the physical CDs were completely round. They missed the boat that CDs are susceptible to static electric charge and magnetic fields. They also missed the boat that the spring system supporting the laser is susceptible to seismic vibration. But all things considered, CDs worked and they were convenient. 😛 They weren’t audiophiles, they were a technical standards committee.
More to discover