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
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.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 

They also missed the boat on putting the CD into a cartridge.  Instead it is handled and scratched.  Same with the DVD and Blu-Ray.  Poorly engineered.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

fleschler
1,938 posts
 
LPs were a compromise development as well.  78s could have killed the sound quality of LPs (note the high end pressings at 45 rpm) but marketing/listening considerations won out.   Edison invented a 6 minute 10" and a 10 minute 12" 78 rpm record in 1910 and made about 300 sides.  Marston Records has released some of these recordings. 

Using current recording, mastering and pressing technology. 78 rpm records on vinyl could sound utterly magnificent with shorter playing times as the only constraint (minimal RIAA correction with more stereo bass under 50 Hz with the appropriately larger stylus size).  

No one is considering this.

However, I share my love for the LP and CDs despite their shortcomings.  I do not like MP3s because they are missing too much information.   I do like well recorded 78s for their dynamics and tone quality (after eq corrected).  I've heard 15 ips master tapes in studios and they sounded outstanding.  The LP playback chain has probably hit it's limit in technology. The CD playback chain probably has not. whereby further technology improvement can render it more analog-like (humans have analog hearing so more analog like is a positive premise for reproduction of music).  My own recordings using RR tape have been fantastic even at 7.5 ips 1/4" 2 track while everyone also appreciates my 2 track 16/44 digital recordings.  
More to discover