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
