linuxaudio.org

On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 10:38 -0600, Brent Busby wrote:

quoted text
> 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

quoted text
> > 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@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user