Klarinet Archive - Posting 000541.txt from 1997/11

From: Jrykorten@-----.com
Subj: Re: CD sound...
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:26:52 -0500

In a message dated 97-11-13 00:26:34 EST, you write:

<<
Jerry,
If a triangle's what you're seeing off the end of your CD player then
it's time to get it fixed. Even though the CD is recorded at
44 Khz/channel (so that 22Khz is it's maximum recordable frequency)
it goes through a resonably sophisticated digital->analog conversion.
At 10Khz there's no statistically significant difference in the
output waveform from digital recordings.
>>

Exactly, it is not physically possible to know any more about the waveform at
44KHz than it is a triangle. A statistical algorithm can predict what the
waveform should be.
But I like my music real!

<<
I used digital technology 18 years ago that was approximately equal
to todays technology to record machine vibration in anti-submarine
warfare equipment. We did an enormous amout of statistical work,
comparing digital to analog recording techniques. In the range of
<10Hz to 18Khz digital technology won out by a considerable margin
in accuracy and repeatability of recording. We used transducers that
were epoxyed onto the equipment, so we could repeat the test using
many different types of recording medium.
>>

It seems you weren't recording something as complex as an orchestra...

<<
Above 18Khz the difference was less discernable on a scope or frequency
analyzer. Below 10 Hz the analog didn't record at all (and we
had the best analog equipment your money could buy at the time).
>>

If frequency response cannot describe the sound of an amplifier, then I don't
know why a frequency analyzer would tell me anything either.

<<
The digital recordings we made were at (I think) 44 Khz - in any case
they were less than 48Khz for other reasons.

Ping jockeys (sonar technicians) preferred the digital recordings to
analog recordings of contacts. They swore that they could hear more
detail in the digital recordings, and during testing this was
indicated (there were a greater number of correct matches to ship
types when using the digital recordings).
>>

Probably less noise. This is always the advantage of digital over analog. The
problem is the sound becomes like those flourescent paintings on black
velvet.
Some people like it, cause they buy it!

<<
Whether or not you (or I) _prefer_ digital over analog recordings
is a completely different matter. I grew up with a Dynaco ST120,
Dynaco pre-amp, a great turntable (whose name I forget) along with
a Stanton mag pickup and AR-1a speakers. I still get teary-eyed
thinking about them ...
>>

All high end audio (practically) is now back to tubes. Transistors, like
CD's, were a
marketing hype that caused us all to part with lots of money for no good
reason.

<<
On a slightly different tangent - I _do_ like DDA LPs (Digitally
recorded and mastered but converted to vinyl) better than the
DDD CDs of the same piece. I _think_ I can hear a difference, but
then again the RIAA equalization from the cartridge and difference
in sound level (I don't think I can manually match the sound levels
quite right) may be making all the difference ...
- --
Mark Charette, Webmaster - http://www.sneezy.org/clarinet
Web/Personal - charette@-----.org
Business - charette@-----.com
>>

As I understand things, the pro equipment that records form master digital
medium
to LP has a better sample rate, so the LP of a DDA would be able to represent
that
extra bandwidth.

Jerry Korten
NYC