Re: about jitter... (digital does NOT mean perfect)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:20 +0100
Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01-12-07 06:12, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:15:55 +0100
> > Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 30-11-07 17:55, Paolo Saggese wrote:
> >>
> >>> This may seem (and should be) an obvious statement... was it not for
> >>> the massive marketing hype trying (and often succeeding) to convince 
> >>> everyone of the contrary. 8-)
> >>>
> >>> OK, we ended up quite OT... sorry.
> >> Hey, don't apologise, I'm enjoying these messages. I do absolutely need to 
> >> comment on that last bit there though as all the hype I'm _ever_ hearing is 
> >> quite the other way around -- how old analogue is so obviously better then 
> >> anything coined in the last 30 years that not agreeing with such means your 
> >> hearing just has to be markedly inferior.
> >>
> >> Accusing the digital side of hype is just a bit too much to take for someone 
> >> who's had to suffer the vast amount of rabid nonsense some people without 
> >> even a _beginning_ of clue about either digital or analogue technology will 
> >> gladly spew while waving the bill from their audio equipment in the air.
> >>
> >> As in, bad environment to make _that_ particular argument I'm afraid ;-)
> 
> > I don't know.
> > 
> > However much I love analog world, there are facts I can't deny.
> > 
> > Say, Janis Joplins' "Pearl" (1970 ?) sounds much worse that Judy Collins'
> > "Judy sings Dylan" (1997).
> > 
> > Likewise, "Judy sings Dylan" sounds better than her "Judith"
> > (1975) - non-HDCD edition.
> > 
> > Likewise, "Rolling Stones" "No Security" (1997) sounds much better than
> > their "Let it bleed" (1969).
> > 
> > I'm saying that analog quality can be much poorer than digital one.
> 
> I believe you may have misparsed me -- I absolutely agree. While I still 
> sometimes enjoy a well recorded LP for example I'll generally take digital 
> over analogue any day in fact. "Slow dynamics" is my favourite gripe with 
> analogue.
> 
> Regular CDs are not the be all end all (and certainly many recent ones with 
> their ridicously high average dBFS and compressed range) but analogue 
> technology tends to have approximately 10000 different points of failure on 
> average against 10 for digital. The laws of chance then dictate how many 
> times I will consider digital better...
> 
> Rene.
> 
> 

Just to make things clear - my comparison was CDs versus CDs - not versus
LPs.

Anyway, recordings of the seventies are analog in their source, while
1997 recordings are digital.

And in the above examples digital recordings sound better; no jitter
elimination will make the above recordings of the seventies to sound
like the above digital ones.

Regards,
  Sergei.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
Alsa-user mailing list
Alsa-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user

[Index of Archives]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux