On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 10:38 -0600, Brent Busby wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Thomas Vecchione wrote: > > > Your McDonalds analogy would be a better analogy if applied to lossy > > compression, and MP3 in particular, rather than Digital vs Analog. A > > more suitable analogy for digital vs analog is going to the fine > > restaurant, having an amazing meal, and then being able to reproduce > > the exact same meal every time(Digital), whereas a chef might make > > small changes to the recipe(Analog). > > Actually I think the thing with analog is that while it's not sonically > accurate, the inaccuracies are often musical and pleasant (though that > may be more true to older people who are used to the sound of tubes and > tape than younger people who are used to MP3's and digital aliasing > artifacts). A lot of the warmth that people associate with an analog > signal is harmonics that were not even in the original signal to begin > with -- but few can argue that they sound good! That's the whole point > of tube compressors and preamps...not to sound accurate, but to sound > even better than accurate. > > After a lifetime of listening to tape saturation and harmonics from tube > coloration, accuracy is so...boring. Correct, accuracy isn't wanted, but it's possible with analog gear too. > > The Shannon-Nyquist theorem was absolutely the primary inspiration > > behind the choice of sample rates of CD. The theorem states that you > > can reproduce exactly any frequency that you sample at over twice the > > frequency. So when 44.1 was chosen, it allows for any frequency up to > > just above 22kHz to be reproduced exactly. The limits of the average > > undamaged human hearing is 20kHz, and the average limit for typical > > adult hearing is probably closer to the 18k range if the ears were > > well taken care of. For most people that listened to loud music, etc. > > that limit is probably much lower. > > The really nice part about that (especially for people like me who > actually have damaged their hearing in some frequency zones due to > unwise loud playing of the ride cymbal bell and such things as that) is > that fortunately, most of the frequencies that really make people groove > aren't up in the >10kHz range anyway. People really respond to bass and > mids, even upper midrange, but if you give people too much high treble, > unless it's really smooth, it can be described by so many fairly > negative adjectives: metallic, harsh, cold, tinny, abrasive, clangy. > Most people like warm recordings. Those near ultrasonic frequencies > usually just aren't that big a part of the music. 12 KHz, 14 KHz etc. are needed for transparentness, to add room to the sound. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
