On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:51:52 +0000 Chris Cannam <cannam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28 December 2012 14:50, Chris Bannister <cbannister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On paper, an analogue signal is an exact > > reproduction whereas a digital signal is, by its very nature, an > > approximation of the original, even if it is very close. > > This is closer to the opposite of the truth (counterintuitive as it > may seem). But I think there have been two or three good expositions > about this from Monty and others already in this thread. Hmmm. Being a bit nit-picky here, that depends on your starting point and your terms of reference. If you are making a real sound recording, at the point where the signal is digitised the analog signal simply has to be 'superior'. I use quotes, because having a bandwidth into hundreds of kHz, and unmeasurable distortion is not necessarily useful. The only possible exception I can think of is if you have a device that directly turns sound pressure waves into a digital representation. However, even there you are in theory throwing some of the information away. What happens later down the processing chain is, of course, another matter. An electronically generated sound is likely to be far cleaner and more predictable if it remains entirely in the digital domain until final conversion to actual sound waves. But in terms of music, is that precision a desirable thing? Well that's my 2d :) -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
