OT now: Chubby Checker
Cass
It is not true at all.
Because your son-in-law is dumb enough to think that vinyl recordings are a
more faithful reproduction of the music than that same music recorded and
played back from a cd, does not make it so.
CDs by their very nature in how they are made (ones and zeroes) are orders
of magnitude better than some needle detecting hills and valleys on a medium
of vinyl.
Cass
"Hughbd1" <ha...@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:3D57EAA5...@highstream.net...
> Will Sill wrote:
> >
> > Cheyanne <char...@olypen.com> recently wrote these words:
> >
> > >Oh, but the records have a much richer, clearer tone than Cd"s. At
> > >least I think so. I still love records:)
> >
> > If you believe that, you have a fairly serious hearing loss.
> >
> > Will Sill KD3XR
> > "I get tired of explaining the obvious to the oblivious" [bill horne]
>
> Actually it's true Will. Son in law is a rabid fan of vinyl. He goes to
> all the estate sales and grabs up the good ones. He has spent big bucks
> on equipment to listen to them and is knowledgeable enough to know there
> is a big difference. The fidelity is better with the analog signal on
> the platter. A big part of the electronics is removing the pops and
> snaps from the records without disturbing the music. I guess it has to
> do with the "sharper" sound of digital.
> Hugh
Vigilance Committee
Cass wrote:
>
> HughBd1:
>
> It is not true at all.
>
> Because your son-in-law is dumb enough to think that vinyl recordings are a
> more faithful reproduction of the music than that same music recorded and
> played back from a cd, does not make it so.
>
> CDs by their very nature in how they are made (ones and zeroes) are orders
> of magnitude better than some needle detecting hills and valleys on a medium
> of vinyl.
>
> Cass
So why are music lovers searching for old Telefunkens and Grundigs with
turntables and tube type amplifiers?
Must be a nostalgia thing, right? What music lover would regress from
CDs to vinyl records if he truly appreciated the sound quality and CDs
are better?
LZ
Hughbd1
>
> Cass wrote:
> >
> > HughBd1:
> >
> > It is not true at all.
> >
> > Because your son-in-law is dumb enough to think that vinyl recordings are a
> > more faithful reproduction of the music than that same music recorded and
> > played back from a cd, does not make it so.
> >
> > CDs by their very nature in how they are made (ones and zeroes) are orders
> > of magnitude better than some needle detecting hills and valleys on a medium
> > of vinyl.
> >
> > Cass
>
> So why are music lovers searching for old Telefunkens and Grundigs with
> turntables and tube type amplifiers?
>
> Must be a nostalgia thing, right? What music lover would regress from
> CDs to vinyl records if he truly appreciated the sound quality and CDs
> are better?
> LZ
Sshhh. Wouldn't want Cass to know more than we do LZ.
Hugh
Fred in AZค
>So why are music lovers searching for old Telefunkens and Grundigs with
>turntables and tube type amplifiers?
>
>Must be a nostalgia thing, right? What music lover would regress from
>CDs to vinyl records if he truly appreciated the sound quality and CDs
>are better?
>LZ
LZ..........take a look at some of the "affectionario's" articles in the
high-end magazines...........there's a hell of an argument over the sound
produced.........the analog vs. digital debate..........there are plenty out
there that will argue that you don't hear the real thing with digital.....
Go to Ebay.......if ya have any of that old stereo gear sitting
around.........it'll go for alot more than you paid for it
new.........especially reel to reel recorders.......just unbelievable what
folks are paying...........saw a Sony TC355 reel to reel, circa 69', that went
for over $700.00........if ya have any Marantz or Macintosh (sp) stuff sitting
around......you're sitting on a gold-mine!!
I still have all of my old stuff.......JBL L100's, etc.
Fred in AZ
Cass
When I first read your post below, I let my imagination run away with me for
a moment and tried to guess and visualize how many sheep-like regulars here
groaned and guffawed when they first read it, too. Because they would
readily see what a beautful segue you provided me to show the sheeple that
they are sheele and thereby start another round of posts. You see, they are
afraid of me and don't want to be reminded of their defects.
Heck, I am just energized phosphors on a screen and certainly nothing to be
afraid of - for the normal person- that is.
You see, you post is a perfect example, repeat: PERFECT example of what I
have been talking about and illustrates just how far the 'sheeple' principle
permeates those that like to follow and will buy into almost anything.
LZ, it is not a 'nostalgia' thing. Surely, you have heard of the placebo
effect whereby folks are prescribed and taken a prescription medication that
is made of sugar and fillers and does absolutely nothing towards whatever
malady that imagine that they have.
Placeboes have long been used in medicine because so much of what ails folk,
is psychosomatic.
Do a search on studies that show how many folks that visit doctors are
actually not sick at all. The percentage compared to those that are sick,
is huge, on the side of folk's thinking themselves into sickness.
Folks that think vinyl is better than cd recordings, probably really do feel
that way. You see, the willingness of many folks to be sheeple and
therefore, believe everything that a large group says, is almost limitless.
I would venture to say that these same folks that sing praises about vinyl,
would think that gold-plated speaker wire renders a purer sound and
gold-plated connectors will not distort the sound as much as tin-platings.
Yes, there have been huge arguments about how the electrons, ions and
protons in an extremely light flashing of gold, yields purer sounds. It is
hogwash or should we say sheepwash?
Gold oftentimes will provide a connection that resists corrosion although,
it is not foolproof.
LZ, on the streets of New York city, you will find numerous operators of the
shell-game and they are there because they catch suckers all the time and
find it most profitable that otherwise, somewhat intelligent people are just
so sure that they can beat the game that they provide a tidy income for the
operator/perpetrator while he laughs going to the bank.
Your friend,
Cass
"Vigilance Committee" <lin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3D5820C3...@att.net...
Vigilance Committee
No room in the motorhome. I gave it all to the kids when we split up
the farm. They aren't interested in selling.
LZ
Vigilance Committee
Cass wrote:
>
> LZ,
>
> When I first read your post below, I let my imagination run away with me for
> a moment and tried to guess and visualize how many sheep-like regulars here
> groaned and guffawed when they first read it, too. Because they would
> readily see what a beautful segue you provided me to show the sheeple that
> they are sheele and thereby start another round of posts. You see, they are
> afraid of me and don't want to be reminded of their defects.
>
> Heck, I am just energized phosphors on a screen and certainly nothing to be
> afraid of - for the normal person- that is.
>
> You see, you post is a perfect example, repeat: PERFECT example of what I
> have been talking about and illustrates just how far the 'sheeple' principle
> permeates those that like to follow and will buy into almost anything.
>
Saaaayyyyyy! Want to get into a REAL moneymaker? Chinchillas! Yup.
Those babies breed like, well, errrr, ummmm, rabbits and the sky is the
limit. The generation that got suckered into them the first time is
long gone in the cemetery or too senile to invest now.
It's a whole new opportunity to hornswoggle the Yuppies who want to
retire early and live in the woods. I will sell you a breeding pair for
a paltry $500 and you will soon have thousands of the little buggers
hopping each other for fun and profit.
I don't want to kill the market too soon, so mum is the word. Just send
me the cash in filthy 20 dollar bills and I will UPS the cute little
varmints.
Your pal,
LZ
Wendell Dohrmann
> So why are music lovers searching for old Telefunkens and Grundigs with
> turntables and tube type amplifiers?
>
They want to listen to music ------ not the trash that is recorded today!!!
Cass
Which reminds me, I wonder how many ginsu knives are rattling around in the
'you-know-whats' rec. vehicles?
I didn't mean that as a cutting remark.
Cass
"Vigilance Committee" <lin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3D586B4E...@att.net...
Stan Patterson
> HughBd1:
>
> It is not true at all.
>
> Because your son-in-law is dumb enough to think that vinyl recordings are a
> more faithful reproduction of the music than that same music recorded and
> played back from a cd, does not make it so.
>
> CDs by their very nature in how they are made (ones and zeroes) are orders
> of magnitude better than some needle detecting hills and valleys on a medium
> of vinyl.
>
Horse hockey. Since you're probably too brain damaged to follow
precise, technical, arguments let's keep it simple with this:
While digital recordings ( the ones and zeroes) are more durable,
i.e., can be played over and over again without degradation of the
original "sound", they are a sampling of an analog signal. This
sampling is just that, a capture of a portion of the analog signal,
which is then translated into the ones and zeros. The accuracy of the
digital reproduction depends on the frequency of sampling. Current
digital technology does not capture accurately and reproduce the full
analog signal. To someone like me, with a tin ear, there is no
difference; I'm fully satisfied with current digital reproductions.
Heck, one of those little Bose wave radios is HiFi to me. Mileage
varies with other folks who can actually hear.
A simple, everyday example of digital vs. analog is the cell phone.
Compare calls that are digital with those that are analog...night and
day difference...the analog is far superior in sound quality. Why do
we have digital then...well, I'm sure you can figure it out, Cass,
since you are a functioning moron...or is that cretin? It's so hard to
tell sometimes.
Hughbd1
Thank you Stan. <grin>
Hugh
Will Sill
>> While digital recordings ( the ones and zeroes) are more durable,
>> i.e., can be played over and over again without degradation of the
>> original "sound", they are a sampling of an analog signal. This
>> sampling is just that, a capture of a portion of the analog signal,
>> which is then translated into the ones and zeros. The accuracy of the
>> digital reproduction depends on the frequency of sampling. Current
>> digital technology does not capture accurately and reproduce the full
>> analog signal.
This is all quite correct on a theoretical/technical basis, but it
fails to adequately consider the two major limitations of the vinyl
record:
1) Media wear - a very serious problem only hinted at above; and
2) Transducer (pickup cartridge) imperfections. It is simply a fact
that although the best are very good indeed, they cannot
simultaneously respond with equal faithfulness to high, intermediate &
low frequencies - and necessarily produce a non-linear output.
While magnetic, optical and digital technologies also have limitations
affecting the fidelity of the final output, the Real World is that
none of us can hear well enough to KNOW the difference between the
best of these systems. As Stan says:
>> To someone like me, with a tin ear, there is no
>> difference; I'm fully satisfied with current digital reproductions.
>> Heck, one of those little Bose wave radios is HiFi to me. Mileage
>> varies with other folks who can actually hear.
Few can _actually_ hear the difference, principally because the normal
human ear simply does not and cannot hear all the overtones. Perhaps
more important in the real world, speakers are not that good. Years
ago I bought (for Big $$$) a pair of AR's finest, ballyhooed in the
audio press as The Best. I soon discovered that (lab tests to the
contrary notwithstanding) they really did not sound that great to me.
I sold them and got speakers I *liked*.
Bottom line: The "technology" is secondary to what sounds right to
the listener.
IMO
"Most people are about as happy as they make up their
minds to be." [A. Lincoln]
Will KD3XR
Cass
The sampling rate in high-end analog to digital converters, is extremely
high and the resolution of these converters is extremely high as well.
Naturally, there are lower sampling a/d converters but they aren't used to
take an analog signal (music) and convert the voltage variations into
digital bytes or words, however you wish to represent the result.
Anyone who really believes that vinyl is superior to compact discs probably
still believes that the world is flat.
I think that I stated my position without insulting you, didn't I? Can you
not engage in a technical discussion without personal attacks? I can do
that, too, if you wish but it hardly is conducive to a friendly group.
Cass
"Stan Patterson" <stanpat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:818077d2.02081...@posting.google.com...
Cass
modern-day analog to digital converters far surpasses the resolution needed
to accurately and faithfully reproduce an analog waveform in the musical
range.
FFT or fast Fourier Transform which is a computer algorithm for representing
data points of a waveform by using a weighted sum of sines and cosines will
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the ability of current analog to
digital converters will exceed what is necessary for reproducing the audible
spectrum.
You make a good point about the limitations of turntable cartridges. Also,
the noise, hisses and pops with a vinyl record are there from the beginning
and only get worse with each playing.
Cass
"Will Sill" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:sleilus5jigr17v4u...@4ax.com...
Ron Crowley
<casseg...@galaxycorp.com> wrote:
>Stan,
>
>The sampling rate in high-end analog to digital converters, is extremely
>high and the resolution of these converters is extremely high as well.
>
>Naturally, there are lower sampling a/d converters but they aren't used to
>take an analog signal (music) and convert the voltage variations into
>digital bytes or words, however you wish to represent the result.
>
>Anyone who really believes that vinyl is superior to compact discs probably
>still believes that the world is flat.
>
>I think that I stated my position without insulting you, didn't I? Can you
>not engage in a technical discussion without personal attacks? I can do
>that, too, if you wish but it hardly is conducive to a friendly group.
>
>Cass
>
Cassia,
An a/d converter cannot reproduce any sound that is not present on the
storage device. Since Chubby Checker was originally recorded on
platters, that is as good as it will ever be. The originals must be
played on an analog device in order to produce a digital replica.
Reproductions can be digitally enhanced to make them sound different
(different does not necessarily mean better) than the original and
things like scratches and hum removed, but for a true reproduction,
the original platters have it all.
No insult, just a disagreement from a guy that will not purchase a
cell phone, has a collection of 45's, and knows the world is round.
Ron
Cass
You must not be keeping up with the thread. I was never talking about
Chubby Checker's recordings.
I was talking about how a/d converters can reproduce what music is fed to
them much better than a vinyl recording can playback the original input.
No insult with this question to you, either: Do you know what and how a/d
converters are/work? Are you familiar with the specifications them?
Why would you not purchase a cellphone?
Are you saying that you find your 45 rpm records better than compact discs
in fidelity? Do you have a cd player?
Cass
"Ron Crowley" <crowley2*NOSPAM*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:t3mklu0ncosv6d8up...@4ax.com...
Chris Bryant
<<..>>
>
>Cassia,
>
>An a/d converter cannot reproduce any sound that is not present on the
>storage device. Since Chubby Checker was originally recorded on
>platters, that is as good as it will ever be. The originals must be
>played on an analog device in order to produce a digital replica.
>
>Reproductions can be digitally enhanced to make them sound different
>(different does not necessarily mean better) than the original and
>things like scratches and hum removed, but for a true reproduction,
>the original platters have it all.
>
>No insult, just a disagreement from a guy that will not purchase a
>cell phone, has a collection of 45's, and knows the world is round.
Not only that, but no matter what the sampling rate of a high
end CD player, a CD is produced with a 44.1K sample rate, at 16 bit
resolution. This gives a theoretical top limit of 22.5khz- which is
actually lower because of the idiosyncrasies of filters. The reason
players over sample at 88.2 (or higher), is that they can use a higher
frequency filter, with a more gradual slope- but the information they
are pulling off the cd is *still* 44.1/16 bit (which is the Red Book
standard).
CDs have a lot of advantages- low noise floor, error
correction, low cost (to produce- the low cost has *not* been passed
on to the consumer- which translates in to higher profits). But.. to
get the bandwidth available on a high quality vinyl "record" will take
the next generation CD- based on DVD specs, with a double or triple
sampling rate, and 24 bit words.
--
Chris Bryant
Bryant RV Services- http://www.bryantrv.com
Cass
Do you know how old the data is that you copied and pasted from that
website?
I didn't realize that we were playing 'copy and paste'.
Next time, in doing some research to try to one-up me, try to get current
data that is valid.
My assertion still holds true; vinyl recordings cannot compete with compact
disc recordings.
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cnallu81hm3h23ctf...@4ax.com...
Ron Crowley
<casseg...@galaxycorp.com> wrote:
>Ron,
>
>You must not be keeping up with the thread. I was never talking about
>Chubby Checker's recordings.
My mistake . . . Chubby is mentioned in the title.
>I was talking about how a/d converters can reproduce what music is fed to
>them much better than a vinyl recording can playback the original input.
The function of an a/d converter is not to reproduce music. To
reproduce music requires a complete system, the speakers generally
being the weakest link.
>No insult with this question to you, either: Do you know what and how a/d
>converters are/work? Are you familiar with the specifications them?
Yes, I am quite familiar with a/d converters. In a past life I was
employed as an analog circuit designer for MIT, although that
experience is with satellite telemetry and not with studio recordings.
>Why would you not purchase a cellphone?
People can still find me . . . not always a good thing :-) My wife
and I are ham radio operators. Ron, W1WBV and Pat, KB1FZM.
>Are you saying that you find your 45 rpm records better than compact discs
>in fidelity?
Not at all, just that the music recorded on them is as good as it will
ever be, since each conversion will result in a deterioration of the
quality.
> Do you have a cd player?
My wife has a collection of CD's.
Ron
Cass
It pays to ask questions like I just did. It helps eliminate
misunderstandings.
Yes, A/Ds are just part of what it takes.
One cannot hook an a/d to the output of an amp. and that is all there is to
it, as you know.
What frequencies did you use for your telemetry?
73.
Cass
"Ron Crowley" <crowley2*NOSPAM*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9osllucm1f8v8olsu...@4ax.com...
Ron Crowley
<casseg...@galaxycorp.com> wrote:
>Ok, Ron.
>
>It pays to ask questions like I just did. It helps eliminate
>misunderstandings.
>
>Yes, A/Ds are just part of what it takes.
>
>One cannot hook an a/d to the output of an amp. and that is all there is to
>it, as you know.
>
>What frequencies did you use for your telemetry?
Cass
I was involved with a wide range of signals, from the very long
wavelength hydrophone subsonics to the very short pulse width EMF wave
from a nuclear explosion.
As far as other frequencies such as sampling and transmitter
frequencies, etc, they would be classified secret.
Ron
>
>73.
>
>Cass
Cass
Chris Bryant
to this, when Cass wrote:
>Chris,
>
>Do you know how old the data is that you copied and pasted from that
>website?
>
>I didn't realize that we were playing 'copy and paste'.
I have no idea what you are talking about- this came out of my
head- "common knowledge", as they say.
>
>Next time, in doing some research to try to one-up me, try to get current
>data that is valid.
Excuse me, but the Red Book is still the standard to which CDs
are encoded- even though the standard was set in the 80's. If and when
a new standard is adopted, digital music reproduction has the
possibility to surpass vinyl fidelity.
>
>My assertion still holds true; vinyl recordings cannot compete with compact
>disc recordings.
Oh- I agree that there are areas where the CD holds the
advantage, but wide bandwidth fidelity is not one of them.
P.S.- I was actually a music major in college- have owned my own
recording studio (not pro level equipment, though)- have engineered
several hours worth of recorded music, and yet still own tube
equipment for my home stereo (McIntosh C-22 preamp- FWIW.)
The CD is a wonderful thing- but like the MP3, the standard
was written before the technology matured.
Cass
I have a couple of friends who were doing hydrophone telemetry for the
offshore business using Dallas DS-5000's
One still is involved but not sure of what processors he/they are utilizing
but are not as antiquated as the '5000.
Take care.
Cass
"Ron Crowley" <crowley2*NOSPAM*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:806olu4fdom1tdjo9...@4ax.com...
Cass
The ability of modern a/d converters are more than adequate to surpass what
is the maximum that vinyl can record.
Some time ago, a/d converters didn't have the resolution to do that but
significant advantages have been made and that is no longer true - they do
have the resolution.
That you were a music major has nothing to do with the technology.
Otherwise, Wagner would have competed with Werner VonBraun on rocket
science.
I know that this will make you mad but if you prefer old tube-type gear to
cd playback mechanisms, you are cheating yourself and fooling yourself, too.
Would a storage oscilloscope representation of the waveforms of the two
different technologies convince you?
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gpcolu85fglrebo2q...@4ax.com...
Chris Bryant
>Chris,
>
>The ability of modern a/d converters are more than adequate to surpass what
>is the maximum that vinyl can record.
>
>Some time ago, a/d converters didn't have the resolution to do that but
>significant advantages have been made and that is no longer true - they do
>have the resolution.
I don't disagree with that, but even the best a/d converters
can only extract the information that is encoded on the CD, and until
the next generation comes out, that information is encoded at 44.1
khz/16 bit .
>
>That you were a music major has nothing to do with the technology.
>Otherwise, Wagner would have competed with Werner VonBraun on rocket
>science.
Good point- I was trying to illustrate that I have had a more
than passing interest in the science of sound creation/ reproduction.
>
>I know that this will make you mad but if you prefer old tube-type gear to
>cd playback mechanisms, you are cheating yourself and fooling yourself, too.
A CD played through tube gear sounds glorious.I like what
sounds good, whether the technology is old or new. For a while I was
using a Panasonic SV3700 DAT deck- which at least had a 48K sample
rate- it sounded pretty good, but the best digital sound I have heard
was from an old DBX 700 system- but it used a system far different
than the CD- much higher sample rate, and each bit just said "higher"
or "lower". Really nice sound.
>
>Would a storage oscilloscope representation of the waveforms of the two
>different technologies convince you?
Sure- can you get me a picture of a 30khz sine wave encoded
and played back on a CD?
Don't get me wrong- the compact disc is great technology, but
it falls far short of the marketing hype- remember "Perfect sound..
Forever" ?- well, they don't sound perfect, and they don't last
forever.
Cass
fine. If you actually think that tube-type gear has a better sound -for
you- then, naturally, that is what you should stay with.
Oh, can you hear 30 khz.? Or are you talking about the mixing with
someother frequencies to produce the sum and difference by heterodyning?
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dbqpluouo01olak5g...@4ax.com...
Chris Bryant
>As I think I stated in the beginning of this thread, what you prefer is just
>fine. If you actually think that tube-type gear has a better sound -for
>you- then, naturally, that is what you should stay with.
Sorry- I thought this thread was about whether the compact
disc sounded better than vinyl. Tube gear was brought up to illustrate
that newer doesn't always equate to better.
>
>Oh, can you hear 30 khz.? Or are you talking about the mixing with
>someother frequencies to produce the sum and difference by heterodyning?
I cannot hear 30 khz directly, but because of the science of
waveforms, there is a difference in a 15khz sine wave and a 15 khz
square wave. The differences go out beyond 30 khz. (btw- one set of
speakers I own have a -3db point of a bit over 30 khz).
FWIW- the next generation of digital audio is DVD- Audio- with
a max sampling rate of nearly 200 khz, and a word length of 24 bits,
digital audio will finally surpass what is possible with analog,
including vinyl.
Cass
What sounds good to one, may not to another.
If you have the proper instrumentation, you will find that a cd recording
the original 'anything' in music and not from another recording, will out
perform vinyl everytime unless old technology is used in the cd recording
process.
You don't have to wait for the next generation of dvd to have cds outperform
vinyl recordings.
Square waves are notorious for generating noise and harmonics due to the
sharp rise and fall times of the wave.
Cass
"Chris Bryant" <Bryan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:td1rlusmrksae524u...@4ax.com...
Vince Wirth
>
>Square waves are notorious for generating noise and harmonics due to the
>sharp rise and fall times of the wave.
Cass,
True but a good D/A converter only works on the middle of the square. I
would suggest that you study the subject before trying to sound like an
expert. If you continue, you will be digging that proverbial hole.
Vince
Cass
I have studied and what I haven't.
All I said that got you blown out of your mind, is that square waves
generate noise and harmonics.
Besides, I was talking about a/d converters.
How you determine that I don't know about the subject by just that, is
beyond me. Beyond you, too, I suppose.
Now, buzz off, kiddo.
Cass
"Vince Wirth" <vince...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3d5dc5a8...@news.earthlink.net...
Chris Bryant
>As I am sure you know, the perception of sound is a subjective impression.
>What sounds good to one, may not to another.
Agreed- to a point. Where that point is, I'm not sure.
>
>If you have the proper instrumentation, you will find that a cd recording
>the original 'anything' in music and not from another recording, will out
>perform vinyl everytime unless old technology is used in the cd recording
>process.
That I disagree with. The trouble is that there are *very* few
new recordings released on vinyl. The one glaring example that I have
is Tower of Power "Direct"- which was recorded direct to disc, and
digitally at the same time. The vinyl sounds *far* better than the CD-
but it is a fairly old recording.
>
>You don't have to wait for the next generation of dvd to have cds outperform
>vinyl recordings.
If I want any frequency above 20 khz I do.
>
>Square waves are notorious for generating noise and harmonics due to the
>sharp rise and fall times of the wave.
That's called ringing- and not what I am talking about. I'm
talking about the harmonics that are present in the original sound.
BTW- Vince's point was very good- if you sample a 20 khz sound
at 44.1 khz, you will get a square wave- no matter what the original
wave looks like, which is why the near 200 khz sample rate is so
important.
Vince Wirth
Cass,
You are a classic!! Your first statement;
>You are funny and stupid, too. So stupid in fact, that you don't know what
>I have studied and what I haven't.
Try to bring down your opponent not with fact but with insult. Don't work.
>All I said that got you blown out of your mind, is that square waves
>generate noise and harmonics.
And I agreed if you notice.
>Besides, I was talking about a/d converters.
And I was talking about D/A converters and how a good one
don't care how many harmonics are present when sampling
the data.
>
>How you determine that I don't know about the subject by just that, is
>beyond me. Beyond you, too, I suppose.
>
It wasn't just that statement but other ones in this thread also.
>Now, buzz off, kiddo.
The shovel is now working??
Vince Wirth
http://home.earthlink.net/~vincewirth
Cass
Cass
"Vince Wirth" <vince...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3d5e4709...@news.earthlink.net...
John S
0...@cfl.rr.com says...
> >Square waves are notorious for generating noise and harmonics due to the
> >sharp rise and fall times of the wave.
>
> That's called ringing- and not what I am talking about. I'm
> talking about the harmonics that are present in the original sound.
> BTW- Vince's point was very good- if you sample a 20 khz sound
> at 44.1 khz, you will get a square wave- no matter what the original
> wave looks like, which is why the near 200 khz sample rate is so
> important.
know better. After 44.1 khz A/D sampling and D/A reconstruction &
filtering you will get a *SINE* wave and *NOT* a square wave of the 20
khz sound component. And, of course, you will not get any harmonics
of that 20 khz signal (if it originally contained harmonics).
Harry Nyquist figured this one out in 1928. He figured out a lot of
other good stuff too.
Technically, since these two frequencies are asynchronous, the A/D
sampling is *NOT* at the middle of to 20 khz wave as Vince stated.
(You can draw a picture of the two frequencies superimposed to prove
this and it will show sort of a beat note for the sampling spot) The
sampled digital signal will be a complex time waveform containing the
20 khz sampled frequency as well as the alias frequencies generated by
the 44.1 khz sampling signal. After D/A reconstruction of the
signal, an anti aliasing filter will remove all but the frequencies
below about 20 khz. Thus, all output frequencies above about 10 khz
will not contain any harmonics. For these frequencies, you will get
a summation of the individual frequencies' *SINE* waves.
Your ears are obviously better than mine because good quality MP3s are
good enough for me. I bet this argument will be going on a hundred
years from now. In fact, look at the price of old tubes and tube
type Power Amps on E-bay. Even the solid state Amps that synthesize
the tube type distortion are not good enough for some folks.
John
Chris Bryant
<<..>>
>Actually, it is not that important but Vince is confused and ought to
>know better. After 44.1 khz A/D sampling and D/A reconstruction &
>filtering you will get a *SINE* wave and *NOT* a square wave of the 20
>khz sound component. And, of course, you will not get any harmonics
>of that 20 khz signal (if it originally contained harmonics).
Yep- I suspect Vince knows that, but was using a 2:1 ratio as
an example.
>
>Harry Nyquist figured this one out in 1928. He figured out a lot of
>other good stuff too.
>
>Technically, since these two frequencies are asynchronous, the A/D
>sampling is *NOT* at the middle of to 20 khz wave as Vince stated.
>(You can draw a picture of the two frequencies superimposed to prove
>this and it will show sort of a beat note for the sampling spot) The
>sampled digital signal will be a complex time waveform containing the
>20 khz sampled frequency as well as the alias frequencies generated by
>the 44.1 khz sampling signal. After D/A reconstruction of the
>signal, an anti aliasing filter will remove all but the frequencies
>below about 20 khz. Thus, all output frequencies above about 10 khz
>will not contain any harmonics. For these frequencies, you will get
>a summation of the individual frequencies' *SINE* waves.
Which is my point- the real world does contain frequencies
above 20K, vinyl can reproduce them, and the CD cannot.
>
>Your ears are obviously better than mine because good quality MP3s are
>good enough for me. I bet this argument will be going on a hundred
>years from now. In fact, look at the price of old tubes and tube
>type Power Amps on E-bay. Even the solid state Amps that synthesize
>the tube type distortion are not good enough for some folks.
>
>John
I really don't do much "serious" listening now- that meaning
where I sit down with no distractions, crank the volume to near
concert levels, and just listen. For serious listening, I want to be
able to place the instruments in a 3D soundstage- violins at the
right, cellos to the left, bass behind the cellos, etc.Nowadays, i
listen causally, which CDs or MP3s are more than adequate for- I see
the MP3 as a great replacement for the cassette. There is also Ogg
Vorbis, which is a slightly better replacement for the MP3- depending
on how anal Fraunhofer gets with licensing, Ogg *might* replace the
MP3.
http://www.vorbis.com/