Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: WSJ Article about vinyl
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Arkansan Raider
Jan 27, 2012, 8:47:54 PM1/27/12
to
I quoted just a bit of the article. The rest of it is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577184973290800632.html
Felten does a pretty good job of laying out why vinyl seems to be doing
so well. It's not just about sound alone, according to him.
---Jeff
It's Alive! Vinyl Makes a Comeback
By ERIC FELTEN
<snip>
"The LP still represents just a sliver of music sales. But last year,
according to Nielsen SoundScan data, while CD sales fell by more than
5%, vinyl record sales grew more than 36%."
<snip>
"Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals.
To play records, you have to be relatively engaged in the activity. The
disc has to be taken off the shelf and out of its sleeve. It has to be
placed on the platter. The needle has to be lowered just so. How
different that is from the way we've been encouraged to consume music—as
a sort of automated aural wallpaper best achieved by a digital playlist
in shuffle mode. Vinyl demands—and encourages—more attention. "If I'm
cooking or cleaning around the house, I'll plug in the iPhone or play
CDs," says Nick Blandford, managing director of the Jagjaguwar record
label, home to the indie-folk-rock band Bon Iver. "But if I'm sitting
down deliberately to listen to music, I'll listen to vinyl.""
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577184973290800632.html
Felten does a pretty good job of laying out why vinyl seems to be doing
so well. It's not just about sound alone, according to him.
---Jeff
It's Alive! Vinyl Makes a Comeback
By ERIC FELTEN
<snip>
"The LP still represents just a sliver of music sales. But last year,
according to Nielsen SoundScan data, while CD sales fell by more than
5%, vinyl record sales grew more than 36%."
<snip>
"Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals.
To play records, you have to be relatively engaged in the activity. The
disc has to be taken off the shelf and out of its sleeve. It has to be
placed on the platter. The needle has to be lowered just so. How
different that is from the way we've been encouraged to consume music—as
a sort of automated aural wallpaper best achieved by a digital playlist
in shuffle mode. Vinyl demands—and encourages—more attention. "If I'm
cooking or cleaning around the house, I'll plug in the iPhone or play
CDs," says Nick Blandford, managing director of the Jagjaguwar record
label, home to the indie-folk-rock band Bon Iver. "But if I'm sitting
down deliberately to listen to music, I'll listen to vinyl.""
William Sommerwerck
Jan 27, 2012, 8:14:18 PM1/27/12
to
> "Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals.
> To play records, you have to be relatively engaged in the activity..."
J Gordon Holt said this almost 30 years ago -- that people would object to
CDs because there was no need for the rituals required to play an LP.
Mxsmanic
Jan 28, 2012, 4:09:28 AM1/28/12
to
Arkansan Raider writes:
> "Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals."
Oh really? That was the main reason I abandoned it. Too much messing around
> "Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals."
each time you wanted to listen to something.
Another psychologically stressful aspect of vinyl is that you know that every
time you play something, it gets worse. So if you play your favorite music a
lot, it deteriorates into noise very quickly, and if you don't want it to
deteriorate, you can't play it.
Scott Dorsey
Jan 28, 2012, 7:59:15 AM1/28/12
to
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Another psychologically stressful aspect of vinyl is that you know that every
>time you play something, it gets worse. So if you play your favorite music a
>lot, it deteriorates into noise very quickly, and if you don't want it to
>deteriorate, you can't play it.
It could be argued that this forces people to actually listen to the music.
>
>Another psychologically stressful aspect of vinyl is that you know that every
>time you play something, it gets worse. So if you play your favorite music a
>lot, it deteriorates into noise very quickly, and if you don't want it to
>deteriorate, you can't play it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mxsmanic
Jan 28, 2012, 8:31:54 AM1/28/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> It could be argued that this forces people to actually listen to the music.
Is that good or bad?
> It could be argued that this forces people to actually listen to the music.
polymod
Jan 28, 2012, 11:02:34 AM1/28/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eme7i7pjpjaopsh1s...@4ax.com...
> Arkansan Raider writes:
>
>> "Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals."
>
> Oh really? That was the main reason I abandoned it. Too much messing
> around
> each time you wanted to listen to something.
I remember having the Mountain album with Mississippi Queen.
>
>> "Vinyl is decidedly inconvenient, which is the very reason it appeals."
>
> Oh really? That was the main reason I abandoned it. Too much messing
> around
> each time you wanted to listen to something.
It skipped in the same spot each time. But I really dug the "15/8" measure
in the middle of Leslie's solo so much that I eventually embraced
Mahavishnu.
Shoot. Do THAT with a CD ;)
Poly
hank alrich
Jan 28, 2012, 12:39:48 PM1/28/12
to
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Arny Krueger
Jan 28, 2012, 4:27:56 PM1/28/12
to
"Arkansan Raider" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:jfvk4a$dur$2...@dont-email.me...
>I quoted just a bit of the article. The rest of it is here:
The 2012 vinyl comeback:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577184973290800632.html
>
> Felten does a pretty good job of laying out why vinyl seems to be doing so
> well. It's not just about sound alone, according to him.
http://blogs.metrotimes.com/index.php/2011/05/the-vinyl-comeback-or-hipster-format-snobbery-neat-o-graph-alert/
The 2010 vinyl comback:
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/vinyl-records-make-comeback-big-way
The 2009 vinyl comeback:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/26/entertainment/et-vinyl26
The 2008 vinyl comeback:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702369,00.html
The 2007 vinyl comeback:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/vinyls-comeback-more-than-spin/2007/07/22/1185042950416.html
The 2006 vinyl comeback:
http://blogcritics.org/music/article/the-comeback-of-vinyl/
The 2005 vinyl comeback:
http://music-promotion-blog.blogspot.com/2005/12/vinyl-quality-making-comeback.html
Get it?
;-)
Jenn
Jan 28, 2012, 6:29:42 PM1/28/12
to
In article <-pKdnSGHK8TA9bnS...@giganews.com>,
Yes. Vinyl sales are raising. Got it.
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com
hank alrich
Jan 28, 2012, 8:59:39 PM1/28/12
to
> http://music-promotion-blog.blogspot.com/2005/12/vinyl-quality-making-come
> back.html
>
>
> Get it?
>
> ;-)
Yep, the pundits keep being surprised that for several years LP sales
> back.html
>
>
> Get it?
>
> ;-)
have been increasing, so they write it up and put it out during what
used to be a slow period for news.
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Jan 29, 2012, 12:01:59 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 28, 11:02 am, "polymod" <poly...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I remember having the Mountain album with Mississippi Queen.
> It skipped in the same spot each time. But I really dug the "15/8" measure
> in the middle of Leslie's solo so much that I eventually embraced
> Mahavishnu.
>
> Shoot. Do THAT with a CD ;)
Best reply to this thread so far. :->)
> I remember having the Mountain album with Mississippi Queen.
> It skipped in the same spot each time. But I really dug the "15/8" measure
> in the middle of Leslie's solo so much that I eventually embraced
> Mahavishnu.
>
> Shoot. Do THAT with a CD ;)
Look, this is very simple, regardless of whether vinyl is "embraced"
or "making a comeback" or whatever:
Vinyl adds a degradation that some find pleasing. Modern digital is
perfectly clean. So the obvious solution is to capture a clean digital
recording of an LP the first time it's played. Then you listen to that
as often as you'd like.
Vinyl lovers who disagree with the above, believing that vinyl is
somehow better than digital, or that digital can't capture the essence
of vinyl, doesn't understand much about audio.
--Ethan
Scott Dorsey
Jan 29, 2012, 1:03:39 PM1/29/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote:
>
>Vinyl adds a degradation that some find pleasing. Modern digital is
>perfectly clean. So the obvious solution is to capture a clean digital
>recording of an LP the first time it's played. Then you listen to that
>as often as you'd like.
But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. Mind you,
>
>Vinyl adds a degradation that some find pleasing. Modern digital is
>perfectly clean. So the obvious solution is to capture a clean digital
>recording of an LP the first time it's played. Then you listen to that
>as often as you'd like.
it can be, but usually it's far from it.
Many of the abusive things that can be done during CD mastering just aren't
possible to do with vinyl. Aggressive limiting buys you very little with
vinyl. Pumping up the high end makes for a disc that is harder to cut and
will tend to require reducing levels. And as for lossy compression and the
whole MP3 nonsense, forget it.
Many of the young people who are coming into the vinyl world have probably
never heard anything that wasn't MP3ified.
>Vinyl lovers who disagree with the above, believing that vinyl is
>somehow better than digital, or that digital can't capture the essence
>of vinyl, doesn't understand much about audio.
better sounding recordings. It's a damnably weird world we live in.
Arny Krueger
Jan 30, 2012, 8:10:53 AM1/30/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jg41lr$d09$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> <eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote:
>>
>>Vinyl adds a degradation that some find pleasing. Modern digital is
>>perfectly clean. So the obvious solution is to capture a clean digital
>>recording of an LP the first time it's played. Then you listen to that
>>as often as you'd like.
> But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. Mind you,
> it can be, but usually it's far from it.
AFAIK there is no technology that entirely foolproof.
>>
>>Vinyl adds a degradation that some find pleasing. Modern digital is
>>perfectly clean. So the obvious solution is to capture a clean digital
>>recording of an LP the first time it's played. Then you listen to that
>>as often as you'd like.
> But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. Mind you,
> it can be, but usually it's far from it.
> Many of the abusive things that can be done during CD mastering just
> aren't
> possible to do with vinyl. Aggressive limiting buys you very little with
> vinyl. Pumping up the high end makes for a disc that is harder to cut and
> will tend to require reducing levels.
otherwise crazy people into fairly reasonable strait-jackets.
> And as for lossy compression and the whole MP3 nonsense, forget it.
> Many of the young people who are coming into the vinyl world have probably
> never heard anything that wasn't MP3ified.
prefer the artifacts of the abuse of some lossy compression schemes.
>>Vinyl lovers who disagree with the above, believing that vinyl is
>>somehow better than digital, or that digital can't capture the essence
>>of vinyl, doesn't understand much about audio.
> I think the limitations of the LP format can ironically wind up producing
> better sounding recordings. It's a damnably weird world we live in.
have done, unfettered by the audible limitions and colorations of analog,
can give great pleasure. IME the analog cup was always more than half empty
and the digital cup was always more than half full. But, that doesn't keep
either of them from being spilled! It also doesn't keep either from being
enjoyed.
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Jan 30, 2012, 11:09:02 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 29, 1:03 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. Mind you,
> it can be, but usually it's far from it.
I think that's overstating the case. There are various converter
> But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. Mind you,
> it can be, but usually it's far from it.
comparisons on my web site from expensive converters to $25
SoundBlaster sound cards, and the differences are subtle at best.
Maybe 15-20 years ago converters were not audibly transparent, but
today even the budget stuff is extremely high fidelity. Versus vinyl
that is so obviously different from the source that nobody could
possibly miss it.
> Many of the abusive things that can be done during CD mastering just aren't
> possible to do with vinyl.
Hz square wave for its entire length, which vinyl cannot, but who
wants to do that?
> I think the limitations of the LP format can ironically wind up producing
> better sounding recordings. It's a damnably weird world we live in.
with a finished mix that sounds exactly as you like it, putting that
mix on CD will sound the same, but putting it onto vinyl can only
sound worse. As I said before, if you like the effect of vinyl, and
enjoy the unique degradations it provides, you can cut a record then
record that record digitally. The degradation from vinyl is complex,
but not unknowable. Izotope has a free vinyl effect plug-in that to my
ears is not very good. But certainly someone could model the unique
distortion and mono bass etc of vinyl, and offer it as an effect.
--Ethan
Peter Larsen
Jan 30, 2012, 11:18:50 AM1/30/12
to
eth...@ethanwiner.com wrote:
>> I think the limitations of the LP format can ironically wind up
>> producing better sounding recordings. It's a damnably weird world we
>> live in.
> This would be true only if you view vinyl as an effect. If you start
> with a finished mix that sounds exactly as you like it, putting that
> mix on CD will sound the same, but putting it onto vinyl can only
> sound worse. As I said before, if you like the effect of vinyl, and
> enjoy the unique degradations it provides, you can cut a record then
> record that record digitally. The degradation from vinyl is complex,
> but not unknowable. Izotope has a free vinyl effect plug-in that to my
> ears is not very good. But certainly someone could model the unique
> distortion and mono bass etc of vinyl, and offer it as an effect.
I purchased a dual format release on CD and on vinyl. If only they had put
>> I think the limitations of the LP format can ironically wind up
>> producing better sounding recordings. It's a damnably weird world we
>> live in.
> This would be true only if you view vinyl as an effect. If you start
> with a finished mix that sounds exactly as you like it, putting that
> mix on CD will sound the same, but putting it onto vinyl can only
> sound worse. As I said before, if you like the effect of vinyl, and
> enjoy the unique degradations it provides, you can cut a record then
> record that record digitally. The degradation from vinyl is complex,
> but not unknowable. Izotope has a free vinyl effect plug-in that to my
> ears is not very good. But certainly someone could model the unique
> distortion and mono bass etc of vinyl, and offer it as an effect.
the vinyl version on the CD! - the record had dynamic range and the CD was
just another brick in the wall. What make it beyond silly is that they
probably paid good mastering money for both versions!
> --Ethan
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey
Jan 30, 2012, 12:53:03 PM1/30/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote:
>On Jan 29, 1:03=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. =A0Mind y=
But how many people know how to turn off the "sound enhancement" and disable
the horrible Windows graphic equalizer that is on by default?
We are at the point where the limiting factor is no longer the hardware.
>This would be true only if you view vinyl as an effect. If you start
>with a finished mix that sounds exactly as you like it, putting that
>mix on CD will sound the same, but putting it onto vinyl can only
>sound worse. As I said before, if you like the effect of vinyl, and
>enjoy the unique degradations it provides, you can cut a record then
>record that record digitally. The degradation from vinyl is complex,
>but not unknowable. Izotope has a free vinyl effect plug-in that to my
>ears is not very good. But certainly someone could model the unique
>distortion and mono bass etc of vinyl, and offer it as an effect.
Yes, but the limitations in the vinyl force you to make certain decisions
in tracking and mixing which turn out to be good decisions when you decide
to issue the same recording on some other format.
>On Jan 29, 1:03=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> But the thing is, modern digital usually isn't perfectly clean. =A0Mind y=
>ou,
>> it can be, but usually it's far from it.
>
>I think that's overstating the case. There are various converter
>comparisons on my web site from expensive converters to $25
>SoundBlaster sound cards, and the differences are subtle at best.
>Maybe 15-20 years ago converters were not audibly transparent, but
>today even the budget stuff is extremely high fidelity. Versus vinyl
>that is so obviously different from the source that nobody could
>possibly miss it.
Sure, you can now buy pretty clean-sounding D/A hardware for very cheap.
>> it can be, but usually it's far from it.
>
>I think that's overstating the case. There are various converter
>comparisons on my web site from expensive converters to $25
>SoundBlaster sound cards, and the differences are subtle at best.
>Maybe 15-20 years ago converters were not audibly transparent, but
>today even the budget stuff is extremely high fidelity. Versus vinyl
>that is so obviously different from the source that nobody could
>possibly miss it.
But how many people know how to turn off the "sound enhancement" and disable
the horrible Windows graphic equalizer that is on by default?
We are at the point where the limiting factor is no longer the hardware.
>This would be true only if you view vinyl as an effect. If you start
>with a finished mix that sounds exactly as you like it, putting that
>mix on CD will sound the same, but putting it onto vinyl can only
>sound worse. As I said before, if you like the effect of vinyl, and
>enjoy the unique degradations it provides, you can cut a record then
>record that record digitally. The degradation from vinyl is complex,
>but not unknowable. Izotope has a free vinyl effect plug-in that to my
>ears is not very good. But certainly someone could model the unique
>distortion and mono bass etc of vinyl, and offer it as an effect.
in tracking and mixing which turn out to be good decisions when you decide
to issue the same recording on some other format.
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Jan 30, 2012, 1:02:23 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 11:18 am, "Peter Larsen" <digi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I purchased a dual format release on CD and on vinyl. If only they had put
> the vinyl version on the CD! - the record had dynamic range and the CD was
> just another brick in the wall. What make it beyond silly is that they
> probably paid good mastering money for both versions!
Sure, but again this is not a limitation of digital audio. It's a poor
> I purchased a dual format release on CD and on vinyl. If only they had put
> the vinyl version on the CD! - the record had dynamic range and the CD was
> just another brick in the wall. What make it beyond silly is that they
> probably paid good mastering money for both versions!
decision made by humans.
On Jan 30, 12:53 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Sure, you can now buy pretty clean-sounding D/A hardware for very cheap.
> But how many people know how to turn off the "sound enhancement" and disable
> the horrible Windows graphic equalizer that is on by default?
their turntable? Again, this is human error that can (hopefully) be
solved through education. It's not evidence that vinyl is more
accurate / better than digital.
--Ethan
MG
Jan 30, 2012, 7:07:26 PM1/30/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote in message
news:ec9ff3f6-65e0-40c0...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Mxsmanic
Jan 31, 2012, 8:38:42 AM1/31/12
to
MG writes:
> +1 to Ethan's point. The medium is excellent, the craft not always so.
It's always possible to build a completely analog system that will meet or
> +1 to Ethan's point. The medium is excellent, the craft not always so.
exceed the performance of any digital system. It's just not always practical
or affordable.
Arny Krueger
Jan 31, 2012, 9:00:44 AM1/31/12
to
news:slrfi7hq9rbm492dl...@4ax.com...
No doubt true for data transmission and processing as long as short
distances and wires are involved. When you have to go even just dozens of
miles, analog starts getting dicey.
Data storage has always been an exception.
Data transmission without wires is another exception.
When plain old analog failed, the next step up for analog was usually
FM.When dynamic range became an issue, the ante was upped to companded FM.
True for both wireless and also true for data storage. FM instrumentation
recorders, anybody?
Companded FM is pretty good sonically, but in terms of measurements, it
can't come close to what is now done quite economically with digital.
Look where wireless microphones and headphones are going...
distances and wires are involved. When you have to go even just dozens of
miles, analog starts getting dicey.
Data storage has always been an exception.
Data transmission without wires is another exception.
When plain old analog failed, the next step up for analog was usually
FM.When dynamic range became an issue, the ante was upped to companded FM.
True for both wireless and also true for data storage. FM instrumentation
recorders, anybody?
Companded FM is pretty good sonically, but in terms of measurements, it
can't come close to what is now done quite economically with digital.
Look where wireless microphones and headphones are going...
Scott Dorsey
Jan 31, 2012, 10:40:01 AM1/31/12
to
In article <slrfi7hq9rbm492dl...@4ax.com>,
Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time delay,
that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in the
digital world. There are other things, like transducers, that are quite the
opposite.
that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in the
digital world. There are other things, like transducers, that are quite the
opposite.
Mxsmanic
Jan 31, 2012, 2:16:05 PM1/31/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> No doubt true for data transmission and processing as long as short
> distances and wires are involved. When you have to go even just dozens of
> miles, analog starts getting dicey.
Dicey, yes, but analog systems can always be better. Because just about all
> No doubt true for data transmission and processing as long as short
> distances and wires are involved. When you have to go even just dozens of
> miles, analog starts getting dicey.
real-world systems involve analog interfaces at both ends, the overall quality
of the system is always equal to or less than the best possible analog system.
In other words, in an audio system, the limitations on quality are at the
recording and playback ends, where the analog components are. You can use as
many bits and samples as you want in the digital chain between the two, but it
won't improve anything. A digital representation that isn't up to the level of
the analog endpoints might worsen things overall, but a representation that is
far beyond the quality limits of the analog endpoints will not improve
something.
In still other words, if you have an analog recording circuit that has a
signal to noise ratio of 1000 to 1, going from 16 bits and 44.1 kHz to 1000
bits and 1 Mhz will not improve anything.
The advantage of digital is that it removes a lot of analog equipment from the
chain. Once the information is in the digital realm, there is no further
degradation. But no matter what digital parts of the chain you build, the best
possible quality from the system as a whole can never be greater than the best
possible 100% analog system you could theoretically build (given enough money
and time and resources).
These are all principles and limitations imposed by information theory.
There's no way around them.
Mxsmanic
Jan 31, 2012, 2:17:15 PM1/31/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time delay,
> that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in the
> digital world.
Hard to do, but never impossible. If you have enough time, money, and
> Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time delay,
> that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in the
> digital world.
engineering skill, anything that can be done digitally can also be done with
analog equipment. It's just not worthwhile because it's usually much easier to
do it digitally with an acceptable level of quality.
Arny Krueger
Jan 31, 2012, 2:40:35 PM1/31/12
to
news:c6fgi75k89ednp7n9...@4ax.com...
Right now the practical performance limit of digital systems might be on the
order of 132 dB dynamic range and whatever bandwidth (up to 200 KHz - no
longer audio).
The question at hand is how long of a piece of copper does it take to make
that performance level hard to beat or even meet?
What about wireless?
Practially speaking 100 dB +/- dynamic range with some gain tracking errors
is about as far as pure analog wireless technology seems to be able to go.
132 dB seems out of the question.
As far as copper goes, it probably takes a mile or more to make the cable
difficult to drive and load and get 132 dB dynamic range. But, that is a
very real world system.
There's your apples-to-apples comparisons.
> Because just about all
> real-world systems involve analog interfaces at both ends, the overall
> quality
> of the system is always equal to or less than the best possible analog
> system.
Here's a good general rule - over inches analog is hard to beat. Over miles,
or through space, not so much.
> In other words, in an audio system, the limitations on quality are at the
> recording and playback ends, where the analog components are.
Depends on the system. Over inches, analog is very hard to beat. With a
long piece of wire or a wireless link, the stuff in the middle sets the
pace.
> You can use as
> many bits and samples as you want in the digital chain between the two,
> but it
> won't improve anything.
That's all true for digital, but I thought we were talking about analog.
You've said: analog systems can always be better.
I've said, that depends on the system. If the stuff in the middle isn't a
fairly short piece of wire, analog sets a relatively low level of
performance to beat. Digital can beat analog.
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> No doubt true for data transmission and processing as long as short
>> distances and wires are involved. When you have to go even just dozens of
>> miles, analog starts getting dicey.
> Dicey, yes, but analog systems can always be better.
Not so, if you are comparing apples and apples.
>
>> No doubt true for data transmission and processing as long as short
>> distances and wires are involved. When you have to go even just dozens of
>> miles, analog starts getting dicey.
> Dicey, yes, but analog systems can always be better.
Right now the practical performance limit of digital systems might be on the
order of 132 dB dynamic range and whatever bandwidth (up to 200 KHz - no
longer audio).
The question at hand is how long of a piece of copper does it take to make
that performance level hard to beat or even meet?
What about wireless?
Practially speaking 100 dB +/- dynamic range with some gain tracking errors
is about as far as pure analog wireless technology seems to be able to go.
132 dB seems out of the question.
As far as copper goes, it probably takes a mile or more to make the cable
difficult to drive and load and get 132 dB dynamic range. But, that is a
very real world system.
There's your apples-to-apples comparisons.
> Because just about all
> real-world systems involve analog interfaces at both ends, the overall
> quality
> of the system is always equal to or less than the best possible analog
> system.
or through space, not so much.
> In other words, in an audio system, the limitations on quality are at the
> recording and playback ends, where the analog components are.
long piece of wire or a wireless link, the stuff in the middle sets the
pace.
> You can use as
> many bits and samples as you want in the digital chain between the two,
> but it
> won't improve anything.
You've said: analog systems can always be better.
I've said, that depends on the system. If the stuff in the middle isn't a
fairly short piece of wire, analog sets a relatively low level of
performance to beat. Digital can beat analog.
Arny Krueger
Jan 31, 2012, 2:42:08 PM1/31/12
to
news:0gfgi79lao9cq8ih4...@4ax.com...
dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
> Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time
>> delay,
>> that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in the
>> digital world.
>
> Hard to do, but never impossible. If you have enough time, money, and
> engineering skill, anything that can be done digitally can also be done
> with
> analog equipment.
Really? Here's your challenge. 132 dynamic range, 5-200 KHz bandwidth, 0.1
>
>> Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time
>> delay,
>> that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in the
>> digital world.
>
> Hard to do, but never impossible. If you have enough time, money, and
> engineering skill, anything that can be done digitally can also be done
> with
> analog equipment.
dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
Scott Dorsey
Jan 31, 2012, 2:52:06 PM1/31/12
to
In article <0gfgi79lao9cq8ih4...@4ax.com>,
You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the analogue
world, though. You can't spend the while GDP developing one delay line.
world, though. You can't spend the while GDP developing one delay line.
Ron Capik
Jan 31, 2012, 3:04:21 PM1/31/12
to
the lines of an analog PC or Mac.
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Mxsmanic
Jan 31, 2012, 4:19:36 PM1/31/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Not so, if you are comparing apples and apples.
It's always possible. It's mathematically inevitable.
> Not so, if you are comparing apples and apples.
> Right now the practical performance limit of digital systems might be on the
> order of 132 dB dynamic range and whatever bandwidth (up to 200 KHz - no
> longer audio).
>
> The question at hand is how long of a piece of copper does it take to make
> that performance level hard to beat or even meet?
> What about wireless?
Same thing.
> Practially speaking 100 dB +/- dynamic range with some gain tracking errors
> is about as far as pure analog wireless technology seems to be able to go.
> 132 dB seems out of the question.
dB in the digital domain serve? Sooner or later you have to convert to or from
analog, and if you can only do that with a range of 100 dB, the extra 32 dB in
the digital domain will never be used.
> As far as copper goes, it probably takes a mile or more to make the cable
> difficult to drive and load and get 132 dB dynamic range. But, that is a
> very real world system.
money, and research. But there isn't any need to, since putting the signal in
the digital domain allows the problem to be avoided.
> Here's a good general rule - over inches analog is hard to beat. Over miles,
> or through space, not so much.
> Depends on the system. Over inches, analog is very hard to beat. With a
> long piece of wire or a wireless link, the stuff in the middle sets the
> pace.
> That's all true for digital, but I thought we were talking about analog.
One of the many misunderstandings about digital is that it somehow makes
things better. It doesn't. It just helps prevent things from getting worse.
But it will always be the analog parts of the system that set the upper limit
on quality. Digital can make things worse, if the digital part of the system
doesn't have the necessary capacity to handle the analog part. But it cannot
make things better.
> You've said: analog systems can always be better.
mathematically inevitable.
> I've said, that depends on the system. If the stuff in the middle isn't a
> fairly short piece of wire, analog sets a relatively low level of
> performance to beat. Digital can beat analog.
vs. performance, digital has great advantages over analog. You can build
digital equipment very cheaply, since all it has to do is carry a few numbers.
Analog equipment must preserve a physical model of the signal, and that is
extremely expensive.
In theory, LP technology could be improved to match any digital system that
now exists. The problem is that it just gets too expensive to bother beyond a
certain point. Why spend millions trying to get a fully analog system to a
certain point if you can get the same quality digitally at lower cost?
The one expense you cannot avoid is the cost of getting the endpoints to work.
They have to be analog, so you have no choice but to spend big bucks to get
whatever level of quality you want. Digital won't help you at all with that.
Mxsmanic
Jan 31, 2012, 4:20:31 PM1/31/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Really? Here's your challenge. 132 dynamic range, 5-200 KHz bandwidth, 0.1
> dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
>
> Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
Find someone who is offering to pay for it. If someone is willing to spend the
> Really? Here's your challenge. 132 dynamic range, 5-200 KHz bandwidth, 0.1
> dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
>
> Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
money on it, there should be someone who's willing to accept the money in
order to get it working. It worked for NASA.
Mxsmanic
Jan 31, 2012, 4:21:22 PM1/31/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the analogue
> world, though. You can't spend the while GDP developing one delay line.
Exactly. So you do it digitally. But it's important to understand that digital
> You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the analogue
> world, though. You can't spend the while GDP developing one delay line.
isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
Trevor
Jan 31, 2012, 11:23:15 PM1/31/12
to
news:slrfi7hq9rbm492dl...@4ax.com...
Since it's definitely not practical or affordable, and thus has not been
done, we have no idea if it's possible.
Trevor
> It's always possible to build a completely analog system that will meet or
> exceed the performance of any digital system. It's just not always
> practical
> or affordable....
> exceed the performance of any digital system. It's just not always
> practical
Since it's definitely not practical or affordable, and thus has not been
done, we have no idea if it's possible.
Trevor
Trevor
Jan 31, 2012, 11:30:17 PM1/31/12
to
news:c6fgi75k89ednp7n9...@4ax.com...
transmission capabilities Vs digital. *IF* you don't need storage or
transmission over any distance, then there is no need to convert from analog
to digital and back again. I think most pro's here already realised that,
even if you didn't!
Trevor.
> In other words, in an audio system, the limitations on quality are at the
> recording and playback ends, where the analog components are. You can use
> as
> many bits and samples as you want in the digital chain between the two,
> but it
> won't improve anything. A digital representation that isn't up to the
> level of
> the analog endpoints might worsen things overall, but a representation
> that is
> far beyond the quality limits of the analog endpoints will not improve
> something.
All true, but completely ignores the limitations of analog storage and
> recording and playback ends, where the analog components are. You can use
> as
> many bits and samples as you want in the digital chain between the two,
> but it
> won't improve anything. A digital representation that isn't up to the
> level of
> the analog endpoints might worsen things overall, but a representation
> that is
> far beyond the quality limits of the analog endpoints will not improve
> something.
transmission capabilities Vs digital. *IF* you don't need storage or
transmission over any distance, then there is no need to convert from analog
to digital and back again. I think most pro's here already realised that,
even if you didn't!
Trevor.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 12:12:53 AM2/1/12
to
Trevor writes:
> Since it's definitely not practical or affordable, and thus has not been
> done, we have no idea if it's possible.
It is mathematically inevitable.
> Since it's definitely not practical or affordable, and thus has not been
> done, we have no idea if it's possible.
You are again discussing a topic that you do not seem to understand, so I
won't discuss it further with you.
Trevor
Feb 1, 2012, 12:41:50 AM2/1/12
to
news:1dihi7dkqpo7inonh...@4ax.com...
>so I won't discuss it further with you.
Is that a promise? :-)
Trevor.
> You are again discussing a topic that you do not seem to understand,
One of us doesn't, look in the mirror first.
>so I won't discuss it further with you.
Trevor.
anahata
Feb 1, 2012, 3:18:29 AM2/1/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:21:22 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
You literally can't do that with analog.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444
Arny Krueger
Feb 1, 2012, 8:08:16 AM2/1/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6mgi7l7fusj2o2vl...@4ax.com...
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Not so, if you are comparing apples and apples.
>
> It's always possible. It's mathematically inevitable.
>
>> Right now the practical performance limit of digital systems might be on
>> the
>> order of 132 dB dynamic range and whatever bandwidth (up to 200 KHz - no
>> longer audio).
>>
>> The question at hand is how long of a piece of copper does it take to
>> make
>> that performance level hard to beat or even meet?
>
> It's always possible, as I've said. It's just a question of practicality.
Science isn't that simple. There are definitely technical problems that
>
>> Not so, if you are comparing apples and apples.
>
> It's always possible. It's mathematically inevitable.
>
>> Right now the practical performance limit of digital systems might be on
>> the
>> order of 132 dB dynamic range and whatever bandwidth (up to 200 KHz - no
>> longer audio).
>>
>> The question at hand is how long of a piece of copper does it take to
>> make
>> that performance level hard to beat or even meet?
>
> It's always possible, as I've said. It's just a question of practicality.
can't be solved at any price.
>> What about wireless?
> Same thing.
>> Practically speaking 100 dB +/- dynamic range with some gain tracking
>> errors
>> is about as far as pure analog wireless technology seems to be able to
>> go.
>> 132 dB seems out of the question.
> If you can't get past 100 dB with analog equipment, then what purpose does
> 132
> dB in the digital domain serve?
You are again mistaken. One can get to 132 dB with analog equipment. Well,
>> is about as far as pure analog wireless technology seems to be able to
>> go.
>> 132 dB seems out of the question.
> If you can't get past 100 dB with analog equipment, then what purpose does
> 132
> dB in the digital domain serve?
some of it but not all of it.
> Sooner or later you have to convert to or from
> analog, and if you can only do that with a range of 100 dB, the extra 32
> dB in
> the digital domain will never be used.
just not all analog.
>> As far as copper goes, it probably takes a mile or more to make the cable
>> difficult to drive and load and get 132 dB dynamic range. But, that is a
>> very real world system.
> I have no doubt that such a problem can be overcome, given sufficient
> time,
> money, and research.
> But there isn't any need to, since putting the signal in
> the digital domain allows the problem to be avoided.
>> Here's a good general rule - over inches analog is hard to beat. Over
>> miles,
>> or through space, not so much.
> Only because longer links are more expensive to perfect.
price.
>> Depends on the system. Over inches, analog is very hard to beat. With a
>> long piece of wire or a wireless link, the stuff in the middle sets the
>> pace.
> Either way, it can always be done.
price.
>> That's all true for digital, but I thought we were talking about analog.
>
> We're talking about both.
>
> One of the many misunderstandings about digital is that it somehow makes
> things better. It doesn't. It just helps prevent things from getting
> worse.
> But it will always be the analog parts of the system that set the upper
> limit
> on quality. Digital can make things worse, if the digital part of the
> system
> doesn't have the necessary capacity to handle the analog part. But it
> cannot
> make things better.
>
>> You've said: analog systems can always be better.
>
> Yes, if someone is willing to spend the time, money, and research. It's
> mathematically inevitable.
price.
>> I've said, that depends on the system. If the stuff in the middle isn't a
>> fairly short piece of wire, analog sets a relatively low level of
>> performance to beat. Digital can beat analog.
> Digital cannot beat analog, but it can nearly match it, and in terms of
> price vs. performance, digital has great advantages over analog. You can
> build
> digital equipment very cheaply, since all it has to do is carry a few
> numbers.
> Analog equipment must preserve a physical model of the signal, and that is
> extremely expensive.
I just got lectured on another forum by an audiophile with technical
pretensions who surely believes that analog buffers for ADCs and DACs have
to be extremely expensive to do a good job of preserving the analog signal.
Fact is, a $0.50 (one-off) chip and some dime resistors are fully capable
of that particular task.
> In theory, LP technology could be improved to match any digital system
> that
> now exists. The problem is that it just gets too expensive to bother
> beyond a certain point. Why spend millions trying to get a fully analog
> system to a
> certain point if you can get the same quality digitally at lower cost?
any
price.
> The one expense you cannot avoid is the cost of getting the endpoints to
> work.
can now be very reasonable.
> They have to be analog, so you have no choice but to spend big bucks to
> get whatever level of quality you want.
that it has to be expensive.
> Digital won't help you at all with that.
Arny Krueger
Feb 1, 2012, 8:10:30 AM2/1/12
to
news:inmgi71e2k387525r...@4ax.com...
can't man up to admitting to it.>
> Find someone who is offering to pay for it. If someone is willing to spend
> the
> money on it, there should be someone who's willing to accept the money in
> order to get it working.
You simply don't appreciate that there are things that seem simple that
simply can't be done.
> It worked for NASA.
No it didn't. They have been hamstrung on many fronts by the immutable laws
of physics.
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Really? Here's your challenge. 132 dynamic range, 5-200 KHz bandwidth,
>> 0.1
>> dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
>>
>> Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
<Note that no coherent answer follows. My correspondent is a no-show, but
>
>> Really? Here's your challenge. 132 dynamic range, 5-200 KHz bandwidth,
>> 0.1
>> dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
>>
>> Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
can't man up to admitting to it.>
> Find someone who is offering to pay for it. If someone is willing to spend
> the
> money on it, there should be someone who's willing to accept the money in
> order to get it working.
simply can't be done.
> It worked for NASA.
No it didn't. They have been hamstrung on many fronts by the immutable laws
of physics.
Arny Krueger
Feb 1, 2012, 8:12:35 AM2/1/12
to
news:jg9gp6$t1c$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Not only that, but it is probably scientifically and mathematically provable
that an pure analog delay line with 132 dynamic range, 5 Hz-200 KHz
bandwidth, and 0.1
dB gain tracking is impossible to build in this particular universe.
> In article <0gfgi79lao9cq8ih4...@4ax.com>,
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey writes:
>>
>>> Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time
>>> delay,
>>> that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in
>>> the
>>> digital world.
>>
>>Hard to do, but never impossible. If you have enough time, money, and
>>engineering skill, anything that can be done digitally can also be done
>>with
>>analog equipment. It's just not worthwhile because it's usually much
>>easier to
>>do it digitally with an acceptable level of quality.
> You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the
> analogue
> world, though. You can't spend the whole GDP developing one delay line.
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey writes:
>>
>>> Well, depends what you want to do. There are a lot of things, like time
>>> delay,
>>> that are very hard to do in the analogue world but very easy to do in
>>> the
>>> digital world.
>>
>>Hard to do, but never impossible. If you have enough time, money, and
>>engineering skill, anything that can be done digitally can also be done
>>with
>>analog equipment. It's just not worthwhile because it's usually much
>>easier to
>>do it digitally with an acceptable level of quality.
> You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the
> analogue
Not only that, but it is probably scientifically and mathematically provable
that an pure analog delay line with 132 dynamic range, 5 Hz-200 KHz
bandwidth, and 0.1
dB gain tracking is impossible to build in this particular universe.
Arny Krueger
Feb 1, 2012, 8:13:15 AM2/1/12
to
"anahata" <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote in message
news:irSdnTznuZLIaLXS...@brightview.co.uk...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:21:22 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
>
> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
> You literally can't do that with analog.
Even having a budget of the world's GDP for a decade probably can't change
>
>> digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
>
> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
> You literally can't do that with analog.
that.
Arny Krueger
Feb 1, 2012, 8:15:22 AM2/1/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jgaen9$hrs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
may be impossible in this particular universe.
It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant with
say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we do
it with a power plant? ;-)
hank alrich
Feb 1, 2012, 10:53:29 AM2/1/12
to
anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:21:22 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
>
> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
> You literally can't do that with analog.
One may mathematically model a perfect reality. One should not confuse
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:21:22 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
>
> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
> You literally can't do that with analog.
that model with reality.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 11:38:53 AM2/1/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Science isn't that simple.
Yes, it is, in this case.
> Science isn't that simple.
> There are definitely technical problems that can't be solved at any price.
as good as a digital system.
> You're wrong. It is yet another problem that can't be solved at any price.
> You are again mistaken. One can get to 132 dB with analog equipment.
> You are dreaming about what you obviously don't understand.
and additionally it is very difficult to explain (depending somewhat on the
audience).
> No, because of the immutable laws of physics that can't be overcome at any
> price.
digital. But audio systems are never entirely digital, because they must
interface with the physical world at their endpoints. So digital audio systems
are subject to the same constraints as analog systems.
> No, because of the immutable laws of physics that can't be overcome at any
> price.
> Digital can easily beat analog depending on the task at hand.
real world is ultimately constrained by the same real-world constraints that
limit analog representation. There is no way to get around this.
You can beat analog for doing certain types of abstract arithmetic because
abstract arithmetic does not interact with the real world. But you cannot do
this for audio systems because they must interface with the real world.
Even then, there are analog systems that beat digital for mathematics, too.
You can represent pi exactly on a slide rule, but not in a digital computer.
> I just got lectured on another forum by an audiophile with technical
> pretensions who surely believes that analog buffers for ADCs and DACs have
> to be extremely expensive to do a good job of preserving the analog signal.
> Fact is, a $0.50 (one-off) chip and some dime resistors are fully capable
> of that particular task.
ADCs and DACs.
> No, it is because of the immutable laws of physics that can't be overcome at
> any price.
> If you use digital for communications or data storage, the endpoint costs
> can now be very reasonable.
its endpoints.
> Again, just because its analog and has good signal accuracy, no longer means
> that it has to be expensive.
expensive indeed. You can easily represent sound digitally with 100 bit
samples every picosecond, but building analog components to match that is
likely to be very costly.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 11:39:57 AM2/1/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> You simply don't appreciate that there are things that seem simple that
> simply can't be done.
Just about anything can be done, for a price, and we are very, very far from
> You simply don't appreciate that there are things that seem simple that
> simply can't be done.
any fundamental limitations.
> No it didn't. They have been hamstrung on many fronts by the immutable laws
> of physics.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 11:41:08 AM2/1/12
to
anahata writes:
> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
> You literally can't do that with analog.
You could hold losses arbitrarily low with a purely analog system. It would
> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
> You literally can't do that with analog.
just cost a lot more than a digital system that does the same thing.
Digital systems have no internal losses, but they've already suffered a loss
during the conversion to or from analog.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 11:42:04 AM2/1/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Even having a budget of the world's GDP for a decade probably can't change
> that.
GPS receivers routinely pick up signals that are well below the noise level of
> Even having a budget of the world's GDP for a decade probably can't change
> that.
the channels through which they are transmitted.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 11:42:56 AM2/1/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Not only that, but it is probably scientifically and mathematically provable
> that an pure analog delay line with 132 dynamic range, 5 Hz-200 KHz
> bandwidth, and 0.1 dB gain tracking is impossible to build in this particular
> universe.
There are probably millions of civilizations in this universe who are already
> Not only that, but it is probably scientifically and mathematically provable
> that an pure analog delay line with 132 dynamic range, 5 Hz-200 KHz
> bandwidth, and 0.1 dB gain tracking is impossible to build in this particular
> universe.
doing better than this.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 11:45:52 AM2/1/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant with
> say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we do
> it with a power plant?
We can. We just aren't doing it currently. The laws of thermodynamics don't
> It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant with
> say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we do
> it with a power plant?
place an upper limit on efficiency, provided that it is less than 100%.
John Williamson
Feb 1, 2012, 12:04:21 PM2/1/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
> anahata writes:
>
>> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
>> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
>> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
>> You literally can't do that with analog.
>
> You could hold losses arbitrarily low with a purely analog system. It would
> just cost a lot more than a digital system that does the same thing.
>
But there is an inevitable loss of quality in every link of the analogue
> anahata writes:
>
>> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
>> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
>> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
>> You literally can't do that with analog.
>
> You could hold losses arbitrarily low with a purely analog system. It would
> just cost a lot more than a digital system that does the same thing.
>
chain, whereas with digital links, there are only two places where
quality is lost.
> Digital systems have no internal losses, but they've already suffered a loss
> during the conversion to or from analog.
of a signal, then copy that a number of times, there is an inevitable
loss of fidelity to the original with each generation of copying a copy.
The most blatant way of showing this is to record something like a
guitar onto a cassette, then copy that to another cassette and so on.
After not very many generations, all you can hear is noise. This will
eventually happen no matter how good your analogue recorder is.
The digital equivalent would be to record your guitar onto a CD, then
copy that CD and so on. In each case, even using cheap domestic
equipment, the data on the last CD generation will be identical to the
data on the first generation. One conversion at each end of the chain is
the only deterioration in quality, even after a thousand generations of
copying.
Going back to the start of digital audio, a BBC engineer on outside
broadcasts said in an interview that he was very happy that he didn't
need to constantly monitor and adjust a digital link back to
Broadcasting House the way he did an analogue link. It was either
perfect or not working, as against the analogue version's constantly
varying quality.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Les Cargill
Feb 1, 2012, 1:46:31 PM2/1/12
to
engines, class A/AB/B amps, Stirling engines all have well known upper
limits on efficiency that are system-inherent.
--
Les Cargill
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 6:15:26 PM2/1/12
to
John Williamson writes:
> But there is an inevitable loss of quality in every link of the analogue
> chain, whereas with digital links, there are only two places where
> quality is lost.
Right. But you can hold analog losses arbitrarily low if you spend enough
> But there is an inevitable loss of quality in every link of the analogue
> chain, whereas with digital links, there are only two places where
> quality is lost.
money, at least in theory.
The trade-off is that digital is lossless, but can never actually represent an
arbitrary analog signal perfectly, whereas analog can theoretically be a
perfect representation. The reality is the inverse of theory, so even though
analog should be superior in theory, digital turns out to be superior in any
practical, real-world setting.
> The point being made by others is that if you take an analogue recording
> of a signal, then copy that a number of times, there is an inevitable
> loss of fidelity to the original with each generation of copying a copy.
Which method wins depends on the exact circumstances.
If you build a totally analog system to record sound, there is no fixed upper
bound to the quality you can reproduce. You might be able to reproduce
frequencies of 1000 kHz, albeit not very well. But when you convert to
digital, everything beyond a certain point is instantly destroyed. With CD
audio, you will never reproduce frequencies of 50 kHz, period. Digital
involves making certain sacrifices for certain gains. It's ultimately no
better or worse than analog.
The problem is that many think that digital is inherently better, which is not
true. And some people think analog is inherently better, which also is not
true. They are just variations on a single theme, anyway, which is rooted
inextricably in information theory.
> The digital equivalent would be to record your guitar onto a CD, then
> copy that CD and so on. In each case, even using cheap domestic
> equipment, the data on the last CD generation will be identical to the
> data on the first generation.
away when you converted to digital.
In an analog system, there's always some information at every frequency, the
only question being how good it is.
> One conversion at each end of the chain is
> the only deterioration in quality, even after a thousand generations of
> copying.
Here again, a modem can provide an example. If a telephone connection is
entirely analog, there's no fixed upper limit to the information capacity that
can be achieved with a modem, because there's no fixed lower limit to the
noise or bandwidth ... it just depends on the quality of the connection. But
if any part of that connection undergoes a digital conversion, there will be a
hard upper limit to the information capacity of the channel, no matter how
advanced the modem is or what the bandwidth or S/N ratio of the analog
portions of the channel might be.
> Going back to the start of digital audio, a BBC engineer on outside
> broadcasts said in an interview that he was very happy that he didn't
> need to constantly monitor and adjust a digital link back to
> Broadcasting House the way he did an analogue link. It was either
> perfect or not working, as against the analogue version's constantly
> varying quality.
degrade, but you can often still see and hear something. In digital TV,
everything looks fine above a certain level, but blinks out below that level.
Thus, some people who had a little bit of reception in the past now have
nothing at all.
Mxsmanic
Feb 1, 2012, 6:16:18 PM2/1/12
to
Les Cargill writes:
> Oh yah they do - depends on the system in question. Internal combustion
> engines, class A/AB/B amps, Stirling engines all have well known upper
> limits on efficiency that are system-inherent.
There are other devices besides amps and engines. All you have to do is find a
> Oh yah they do - depends on the system in question. Internal combustion
> engines, class A/AB/B amps, Stirling engines all have well known upper
> limits on efficiency that are system-inherent.
different method that provides greater efficiency.
Ralph Barone
Feb 1, 2012, 10:37:32 PM2/1/12
to
parade.
Trevor
Feb 2, 2012, 2:23:47 AM2/2/12
to
news:vpqii71gcgrn8eli6...@4ax.com...
noise measurements. No surprise there.
Trevor.
> GPS receivers routinely pick up signals that are well below the noise
> level of
> the channels through which they are transmitted.
So you don't understand the difference between wide band and narrow band
> level of
> the channels through which they are transmitted.
noise measurements. No surprise there.
Trevor.
anahata
Feb 2, 2012, 3:14:01 AM2/2/12
to
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:53:29 -0800, hank alrich wrote:
> anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:21:22 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> > digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
>>
>> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at
>> all. Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error
>> correction. Even after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
>> You literally can't do that with analog.
>
> One may mathematically model a perfect reality. One should not confuse
> that model with reality.
I wasn't. That's why I was careful to refer only to storage. Whatever
> anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:21:22 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> > digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
>>
>> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at
>> all. Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error
>> correction. Even after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
>> You literally can't do that with analog.
>
> One may mathematically model a perfect reality. One should not confuse
> that model with reality.
misgivings one may have about the accuracy of the model, at least with
digital I can make a perfect copy of the model itself, and that is the
reason why the medium was attractive, and unfortunately why the whole
marketplace has changed - because copying is so easy.
anahata
Feb 2, 2012, 3:20:16 AM2/2/12
to
correlation to detect many cycles of a sine wave whose amplitude is below
the noise, but that kind of technique has no relevance to the recording
of sound.
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 3:35:32 AM2/2/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Really? Here's your challenge. 132 dynamic range, 5-200 KHz
>> bandwidth, 0.1 dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
>>
>> Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
>
>> bandwidth, 0.1 dB gain tracking, and you must use a wireless link.
>>
>> Find someone who is actually doing this for *any* price.
>
> Find someone who is offering to pay for it. If someone is willing to
> spend the money on it, there should be someone who's willing to
> accept the money in order to get it working. It worked for NASA.
> spend the money on it, there should be someone who's willing to
You mean the guys who couldn't quite get to grips with the metric system ?
geoff
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 3:37:43 AM2/2/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
>> one delay line.
>
> Exactly. So you do it digitally. But it's important to understand
> that digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
Oh no,, it's better. Your digital delay line can be 1ms or 10 years with no
difference in the 100% identical data out to data in.
geoff
> Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the
>> analogue world, though. You can't spend the while GDP developing
>
>> You can hit diminishing returns really fast doing time delays in the
>> one delay line.
>
> Exactly. So you do it digitally. But it's important to understand
> that digital isn't better, it's just cheaper in some situations.
Oh no,, it's better. Your digital delay line can be 1ms or 10 years with no
difference in the 100% identical data out to data in.
geoff
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 3:40:03 AM2/2/12
to
that the losses incurred in any transducer, or the average analogue
gain-stage.
geoff
anahata
Feb 2, 2012, 4:06:21 AM2/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:15:26 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> The problem is that many think that digital is inherently better, which
> is not true. And some people think analog is inherently better, which
> also is not true. They are just variations on a single theme, anyway,
> which is rooted inextricably in information theory.
Spot on.
> The problem is that many think that digital is inherently better, which
> is not true. And some people think analog is inherently better, which
> also is not true. They are just variations on a single theme, anyway,
> which is rooted inextricably in information theory.
I think one of the advantages of digital, however, is that the
limitations are well known and defined. Assuming your conversion is done
well enough, the dynamic range and bandwidth of your signal approaches
levels defined by your sampling rate and bit depth and that doesn't
change though transmission and storage unless you deliberately change it
or the transmission or storage equipment is broken.
If all you want is a PA system with a mic connected to an amplifier
connected to a speaker, there's no point in digitising anything, but the
more transmission, recording and processing happens in btween, the more
the advantages of digital become apparent.
With analog, you can't make any such promises, only minimise your losses
and hope for the best. I take your earlier point about digital letting us
do things cheaper, but with real wires and electronic components, long
distances and physical recording media, ultimately there is nothing you
can do about thermal noise, cable losses and non-linearity. I don't think
you could send CD quality audio round the world on an analog chain at
*any* price, and analog tape recording doesn't approach the 96dB S/N
ratio of a 16 bit system, let alone the 120dB or so you get in a 24 bit
conversion.
anahata
Feb 2, 2012, 4:11:27 AM2/2/12
to
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:53:29 -0800, hank alrich wrote:
> One may mathematically model a perfect reality. One should not confuse
> that model with reality.
A better answer than my previous one: the analog signal is also only a
> that model with reality.
model.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 4:59:09 AM2/2/12
to
anahata writes:
> They do this by relying on the signal being repetitive.
Yes, in a sense. They use spread-spectrum techniques.
> They do this by relying on the signal being repetitive.
Each satellite uses a pseudo-random chip sequence to identify itself. The
signal is below the level of background noise. However, when a
locally-generated chip sequence is shifted in phase against this background,
there will be a slight jump in signal strength (about 6%, as I recall) when
the local signal is in phase with the received signal. The GPS receiver looks
for this jump and knows that it has the signal when the jump occurs.
The chip sequence spreads the energy of the signal over a larger spectrum of
frequencies, allowing multiple satellites to use the same frequency. The fixed
sequence of chips contrasts with the completely random nature of background
noise, so when the local receiver is in phase with the satellite, the overall
signal for the entire sequence rises significantly as compared with it being
out of phase.
> It's easy to use
> correlation to detect many cycles of a sine wave whose amplitude is below
> the noise, but that kind of technique has no relevance to the recording
> of sound.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 5:03:39 AM2/2/12
to
anahata writes:
> I think one of the advantages of digital, however, is that the
> limitations are well known and defined.
By those who understand digital, yes. Unfortunately, since digital is still
> I think one of the advantages of digital, however, is that the
> limitations are well known and defined.
quite new, many people do not understand it, and instead believe the hype they
hear about it, or have mysterious superstitions concerning it.
> Assuming your conversion is done
> well enough, the dynamic range and bandwidth of your signal approaches
> levels defined by your sampling rate and bit depth and that doesn't
> change though transmission and storage unless you deliberately change it
> or the transmission or storage equipment is broken.
> If all you want is a PA system with a mic connected to an amplifier
> connected to a speaker, there's no point in digitising anything, but the
> more transmission, recording and processing happens in btween, the more
> the advantages of digital become apparent.
and speaker will somehow make things better. It won't.
> With analog, you can't make any such promises, only minimise your losses
> and hope for the best. I take your earlier point about digital letting us
> do things cheaper, but with real wires and electronic components, long
> distances and physical recording media, ultimately there is nothing you
> can do about thermal noise, cable losses and non-linearity. I don't think
> you could send CD quality audio round the world on an analog chain at
> *any* price, and analog tape recording doesn't approach the 96dB S/N
> ratio of a 16 bit system, let alone the 120dB or so you get in a 24 bit
> conversion.
not at any realistic price.
However, since digital does the job without fancy technology or high prices,
there's no reason to attempt to do it with analog systems.
It is interesting to note, however, that many digital systems are approaching
the same problems that analog has. For example, digital video often involves
such aggressive compression that it is only marginally better than analog, and
suffers from many of the same limitations. Fortunately, sound requires far
less bandwidth, so lossy compression isn't always necessary (but the
widespread use of MP3 still looks eerily like analog).
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 5:08:06 AM2/2/12
to
geoff writes:
> .... which can now be less (even with relatively trival level componentry)
> that the losses incurred in any transducer, or the average analogue
> gain-stage.
Perhaps so ... I'm no expert in that domain. If that's true, it sounds great
> .... which can now be less (even with relatively trival level componentry)
> that the losses incurred in any transducer, or the average analogue
> gain-stage.
(pun intended).
It does please me that audio can be digitized losslessly, whereas this still
isn't practical for most video. However, I think and hope that the future will
bring processing speeds and storage capacities that will allow video to be
handled losslessly as well.
Right now, for example, streamed video on the Net often undergoes 500 to 1
lossy compression, but streaming uncompressed audio is perfectly possible and
practical (albeit not necessarily common). Streamed uncompressed audio
requires only 1.5 Mbps, which many home broadband Internet connections can
manage. Streamed uncompressed HD video would require a thousand times more
bandwidth, and even fiber cannot yet easily provide that to home or office.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 5:09:14 AM2/2/12
to
geoff writes:
> Oh no,, it's better. Your digital delay line can be 1ms or 10 years with no
> difference in the 100% identical data out to data in.
Clocks provide analog delay lines that can last for years, and they are not
> Oh no,, it's better. Your digital delay line can be 1ms or 10 years with no
> difference in the 100% identical data out to data in.
expensive.
Trevor
Feb 2, 2012, 5:55:48 AM2/2/12
to
news:lknki7lu4amph9k3c...@4ax.com...
completely unstated, unknown, previously unmentioned, completely speculated
about "some people"?
> It is interesting to note, however, that many digital systems are
> approaching
> the same problems that analog has. For example, digital video often
> involves
> such aggressive compression that it is only marginally better than analog,
> and
> suffers from many of the same limitations.
Rubish, you are simply talking about specific broadcast implementations
designed to fit in more channels rather than high video quality. IF you
think there is currently a commercial analog video system better than BluRay
1920p HiDef for example, you should go right ahead and specify it. And now
there are 4k digital systems!
Trevor.
> Agreed. Yet some people believe that sticking something "digital" between
> mic
> and speaker will somehow make things better. It won't.
Some people will believe anything, but what is the point of an arguing with
> mic
> and speaker will somehow make things better. It won't.
completely unstated, unknown, previously unmentioned, completely speculated
about "some people"?
> It is interesting to note, however, that many digital systems are
> approaching
> the same problems that analog has. For example, digital video often
> involves
> such aggressive compression that it is only marginally better than analog,
> and
> suffers from many of the same limitations.
designed to fit in more channels rather than high video quality. IF you
think there is currently a commercial analog video system better than BluRay
1920p HiDef for example, you should go right ahead and specify it. And now
there are 4k digital systems!
Trevor.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:44:04 AM2/2/12
to
news:17qii79tvcqga05al...@4ax.com...
Got some science article that backs you up?
PhD from MIT?
Come on Maniac, you've been running on pure ego and supposition for days.
You've already sloughed any number of relevant questions.
>> There are definitely technical problems that can't be solved at any
>> price.
> There are no technical problems that prevent an analog system from being
> just
> as good as a digital system.
Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
>> You're wrong. It is yet another problem that can't be solved at any
>> price.
>
> See above.
>
>> You are again mistaken. One can get to 132 dB with analog equipment.
> I was only giving an example.
Yet another slough.
>> You are dreaming about what you obviously don't understand.
> I understand it very well.
Then why can't you substantiate your claim?
> But many people cannot or will not understand it,
> and additionally it is very difficult to explain (depending somewhat on
> the
> audience).
It's tough for you to explain what you obviously don't understand.
>> No, because of the immutable laws of physics that can't be overcome at
>> any
>> price.
> Those laws affect both digital and analog, unless a system is entirely
> digital.
Wrong. All you have to do is move the parts of the system where the
bottlenecks occur into the digital domain.
That's what we do with long transmission lines and wireless links.
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Science isn't that simple.
>
> Yes, it is, in this case.
What qualifies you to contradict me?
>
>> Science isn't that simple.
>
> Yes, it is, in this case.
Got some science article that backs you up?
PhD from MIT?
Come on Maniac, you've been running on pure ego and supposition for days.
You've already sloughed any number of relevant questions.
>> There are definitely technical problems that can't be solved at any
>> price.
> There are no technical problems that prevent an analog system from being
> just
> as good as a digital system.
>> You're wrong. It is yet another problem that can't be solved at any
>> price.
>
> See above.
>
>> You are again mistaken. One can get to 132 dB with analog equipment.
> I was only giving an example.
>> You are dreaming about what you obviously don't understand.
> I understand it very well.
> But many people cannot or will not understand it,
> and additionally it is very difficult to explain (depending somewhat on
> the
> audience).
>> No, because of the immutable laws of physics that can't be overcome at
>> any
>> price.
> Those laws affect both digital and analog, unless a system is entirely
> digital.
bottlenecks occur into the digital domain.
That's what we do with long transmission lines and wireless links.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:45:18 AM2/2/12
to
news:tlqii71nkh9isdhr3...@4ax.com...
Wireless links and long transmission lines.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:48:32 AM2/2/12
to
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Fv2dneE1oL5I17fS...@giganews.com...
was working back in the 70s to metrify a very large U.S. manufacturing
firm. We could have done it, but almost predictably the politicians lost
their will. So here we are 40 years later, running the country on two
standards, one of which we share with a few countries in darkest Africa. I
have to use twice as many tools as would be logically needed because so much
stuff is mixed standard.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:49:37 AM2/2/12
to
news:vpqii71gcgrn8eli6...@4ax.com...
Nope. They just narrow the effective bandwidth of the wireless channel.
Besides the system is not 100% analog, so it can't possibly help your side
of the argument.
Besides the system is not 100% analog, so it can't possibly help your side
of the argument.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:50:54 AM2/2/12
to
news:canki71vbh02v9kgq...@4ax.com...
argument!
You are one crazy piece of work Maniac - you try to win arguments about 100%
analog system with digital illustrations.
LOL!
> anahata writes:
>
>> They do this by relying on the signal being repetitive.
>
> Yes, in a sense. They use spread-spectrum techniques.
>
> Each satellite uses a pseudo-random chip sequence to identify itself.
Which makes the system at least partially digital and thus you lose the
>
>> They do this by relying on the signal being repetitive.
>
> Yes, in a sense. They use spread-spectrum techniques.
>
> Each satellite uses a pseudo-random chip sequence to identify itself.
argument!
You are one crazy piece of work Maniac - you try to win arguments about 100%
analog system with digital illustrations.
LOL!
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:56:10 AM2/2/12
to
news:9nqii79v5po747kon...@4ax.com...
Examples of highly developed analog systems that could not be improved to
match or even come close to the performance of economical digital systems,
even with totally unreasonable costs:
LP recording and playback
Analog tape
Transcontinental and transoceanic phone lines. Heck even just phone lines
across one of the larger metro areas.
Anything wireless
> It would just cost a lot more than a digital system that does the same
> thing.
For the performance levels that we now take for granted with economical
digital systems: Mission Impossible. Never happened, never came close to
happening, even when tons of money were spent.
Digital systems have no internal losses, but they've already suffered a loss
> during the conversion to or from analog.
Which generally compares favorably to the loss that the system would suffer
if it stayed 100% in the analog domain.
> anahata writes:
>
>> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
>> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
>> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
>> You literally can't do that with analog.
> You could hold losses arbitrarily low with a purely analog system.
LOL!
>
>> The original attraction of digital was storage without any losses at all.
>> Even corrupted bits can be corrected with digital error correction. Even
>> after 1000 generations of copying there is no loss.
>> You literally can't do that with analog.
> You could hold losses arbitrarily low with a purely analog system.
Examples of highly developed analog systems that could not be improved to
match or even come close to the performance of economical digital systems,
even with totally unreasonable costs:
LP recording and playback
Analog tape
Transcontinental and transoceanic phone lines. Heck even just phone lines
across one of the larger metro areas.
Anything wireless
> It would just cost a lot more than a digital system that does the same
> thing.
digital systems: Mission Impossible. Never happened, never came close to
happening, even when tons of money were spent.
Digital systems have no internal losses, but they've already suffered a loss
> during the conversion to or from analog.
if it stayed 100% in the analog domain.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:58:23 AM2/2/12
to
news:p4oki7df0375mpftn...@4ax.com...
???????????????
Got one of those clocks that has DC-100 KHz response with all spurious
responses 132 or better down?
Got one of those clocks that has DC-100 KHz response with all spurious
responses 132 or better down?
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:58:53 AM2/2/12
to
news:grqii7pkv16jpcb09...@4ax.com...
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Not only that, but it is probably scientifically and mathematically
>> provable
>> that an pure analog delay line with 132 dynamic range, 5 Hz-200 KHz
>> bandwidth, and 0.1 dB gain tracking is impossible to build in this
>> particular
>> universe.
>
> There are probably millions of civilizations in this universe who are
> already
> doing better than this.
It would appear that you belong with them!
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Not only that, but it is probably scientifically and mathematically
>> provable
>> that an pure analog delay line with 132 dynamic range, 5 Hz-200 KHz
>> bandwidth, and 0.1 dB gain tracking is impossible to build in this
>> particular
>> universe.
>
> There are probably millions of civilizations in this universe who are
> already
> doing better than this.
It would appear that you belong with them!
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 7:59:44 AM2/2/12
to
news:4vqii7pte5c7ejvqd...@4ax.com...
thermodynamics. Did you even try?
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant
>> with
>> say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we
>> do
>> it with a power plant?
>
> We can. We just aren't doing it currently. The laws of thermodynamics
> don't
> place an upper limit on efficiency, provided that it is less than 100%.
Obviously, you've never passed a first year university level course in
>
>> It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant
>> with
>> say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we
>> do
>> it with a power plant?
>
> We can. We just aren't doing it currently. The laws of thermodynamics
> don't
> place an upper limit on efficiency, provided that it is less than 100%.
thermodynamics. Did you even try?
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 8:00:57 AM2/2/12
to
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:jgc109$a28$1...@dont-email.me...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Arny Krueger writes:
>>
>>> It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant
>>> with
>>> say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we
>>> do
>>> it with a power plant?
>>
>> We can. We just aren't doing it currently. The laws of thermodynamics
>> don't
>> place an upper limit on efficiency, provided that it is less than 100%.
>
>
>> Arny Krueger writes:
>>
>>> It's like so many other *simple things* such as a thermal power plant
>>> with
>>> say 90% efficiency. If we can do it with electric motors, why can't we
>>> do
>>> it with a power plant?
>>
>> We can. We just aren't doing it currently. The laws of thermodynamics
>> don't
>> place an upper limit on efficiency, provided that it is less than 100%.
>
>
> Oh yah they do - depends on the system in question. Internal combustion
> engines, class A/AB/B amps, Stirling engines all have well known upper
> limits on efficiency that are system-inherent.
Good point. We can now say for sure that the Maniac's CV does not include
> engines, class A/AB/B amps, Stirling engines all have well known upper
> limits on efficiency that are system-inherent.
any kind of credible technical education beyond high school, and some
questions about even high school.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 8:01:59 AM2/2/12
to
news:pshji71vlglbpbv0k...@4ax.com...
Proof positive that you are totally uneducated about thermodynamics.
Good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
Good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
Scott Dorsey
Feb 2, 2012, 10:07:20 AM2/2/12
to
In article <p4oki7df0375mpftn...@4ax.com>,
Okay, now I know you're really joking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 1:09:48 PM2/2/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Wrong. All you have to do is move the parts of the system where the
> bottlenecks occur into the digital domain.
That isn't possible. The endpoints are always analog.
> Wrong. All you have to do is move the parts of the system where the
> bottlenecks occur into the digital domain.
> That's what we do with long transmission lines and wireless links.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 1:10:43 PM2/2/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Which makes the system at least partially digital and thus you lose the
> argument!
No, it doesn't make it digital at all. It's just a waveform--an analog
> Which makes the system at least partially digital and thus you lose the
> argument!
waveform.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 1:13:17 PM2/2/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> ???????????????
>
> Got one of those clocks that has DC-100 KHz response with all spurious
> responses 132 or better down?
Mechanical, analog clocks have parts that function accurately over periods of
> ???????????????
>
> Got one of those clocks that has DC-100 KHz response with all spurious
> responses 132 or better down?
hours, minutes, and sometimes tens of thousands of years. Thus, analog delay
lines with a 10-year delay can indeed be built.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 1:13:50 PM2/2/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> It would appear that you belong with them!
I'm not at liberty to comment on that.
> It would appear that you belong with them!
John Williamson
Feb 2, 2012, 1:37:05 PM2/2/12
to
until you need it?
One way might be to use magnetic tape, but can you imagine the size of a
loop able to hold ten years worth of signal? The ones used by the echo
machines are unwieldy enough, and they hold at most a few seconds worth
of audio. The delay lines used by early colour TV sets only held a
line's worth (About a fifteenth of a millisecond) of information and
were almost a foot long.
The state of the art in analogue delay lines:_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 1:39:01 PM2/2/12
to
news:2akli7dlk6ivq05ab...@4ax.com...
>> That's what we do with long transmission lines and wireless links.
> Neither of these is ever entirely digital.
The data transmitted over them, which is what this discussion is about, can
be entirely digital.
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Wrong. All you have to do is move the parts of the system where the
>> bottlenecks occur into the digital domain.
> That isn't possible. The endpoints are always analog.
But they aren't always the bottlenecks.
>
>> Wrong. All you have to do is move the parts of the system where the
>> bottlenecks occur into the digital domain.
> That isn't possible. The endpoints are always analog.
>> That's what we do with long transmission lines and wireless links.
> Neither of these is ever entirely digital.
be entirely digital.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 1:40:20 PM2/2/12
to
news:2ckli7pnmmkrjaidv...@4ax.com...
No, this is about the how the the audio information is being transmitted.
You're just trying to change the argument from one that you can't possibly
win.
You're just trying to change the argument from one that you can't possibly
win.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 1:41:12 PM2/2/12
to
news:tfkli7l2o1b8j4k7m...@4ax.com...
If you are talking about any form of analog information but audio, you've
gone off topic and automatically lose your argument.
gone off topic and automatically lose your argument.
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 3:32:10 PM2/2/12
to
geoff
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 3:38:09 PM2/2/12
to
JUst had a week in Colrado, and really couldn't get to grips with the
antideluvian F system - the numbers have no relevance to anything in
day-to-day life and seem pointless. Freezing at zero and boiling at 100
just seems so straightforward !
And 17/64", 2300ft, etc WTF ?
geoff
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 3:49:33 PM2/2/12
to
geoff
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 4:35:54 PM2/2/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> But they aren't always the bottlenecks.
Times change.
> But they aren't always the bottlenecks.
> The data transmitted over them, which is what this discussion is about, can
> be entirely digital.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 4:40:57 PM2/2/12
to
John Williamson writes:
> Where are you planning to keep the signal you're delaying by ten years
> until you need it?
You could engrave it on a disk, for example.
> Where are you planning to keep the signal you're delaying by ten years
> until you need it?
>
> One way might be to use magnetic tape, but can you imagine the size of a
> loop able to hold ten years worth of signal?
The length of the delay is not what counts, it's the total amount of
> One way might be to use magnetic tape, but can you imagine the size of a
> loop able to hold ten years worth of signal?
information. That's true for both analog and digital.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 4:42:07 PM2/2/12
to
geoff writes:
> Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 ....
You can build clocks that don't tick, and this has often been done.
> Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 ....
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 4:43:52 PM2/2/12
to
news:gc0mi7lopeh299jnt...@4ax.com...
You're trying to evade where the discussion has been.
We were talking about storing audio data, which is what vinyl and CDs do.
We were talking about storing audio data, which is what vinyl and CDs do.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 4:45:05 PM2/2/12
to
news:AdudnbNbkYevabfS...@giganews.com...
I tried so hard to get that all put into the past, way back then. Being as
close as we are to Canada, we get plenty of exposure to proper measurements.
close as we are to Canada, we get plenty of exposure to proper measurements.
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 4:45:22 PM2/2/12
to
geoff writes:
> And no degradation of the analogue sample ?
The degradation depends on the way the device is designed. The device itself
> And no degradation of the analogue sample ?
is always analog, but if you encode information on it digitally, you'll need
to settle for very low capacity if the information must be highly resistant to
degradation.
For example, the written word--a type of digital representation--only survives
for long periods if only a very small fraction of the capacity of the medium
holding the writing is used. If this fraction is small enough, there is no
loss. However, if virtually all the capacity of the medium is used, there will
be substantial losses even in digital representation.
It goes back to digital being simply an arbitrary division between signal and
noise.
Arny Krueger
Feb 2, 2012, 4:46:09 PM2/2/12
to
news:tfkli7l2o1b8j4k7m...@4ax.com...
There's no way to keep the audio from being noise after that much analog
delay.
delay.
Scott Dorsey
Feb 2, 2012, 5:02:26 PM2/2/12
to
geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>JUst had a week in Colrado, and really couldn't get to grips with the
>antideluvian F system - the numbers have no relevance to anything in
>day-to-day life and seem pointless. Freezing at zero and boiling at 100
>just seems so straightforward !
It makes some odd sense. The weather in Colorado runs from about 0 to 100
>JUst had a week in Colrado, and really couldn't get to grips with the
>antideluvian F system - the numbers have no relevance to anything in
>day-to-day life and seem pointless. Freezing at zero and boiling at 100
>just seems so straightforward !
degrees F. It's a reasonable range for talking about weather. Unfortunately
it's not so good for talking about some other things.
>And 17/64", 2300ft, etc WTF ?
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 7:21:23 PM2/2/12
to
geoff
geoff
Feb 2, 2012, 7:22:52 PM2/2/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
> geoff writes:
>
>> And no degradation of the analogue sample ?
>
> The degradation depends on the way the device is designed. The device
> itself is always analog, but if you encode information on it
> digitally, you'll need to settle for very low capacity if the
> information must be highly resistant to degradation.
Scuttles for cover .....
> geoff writes:
>
>> And no degradation of the analogue sample ?
>
> The degradation depends on the way the device is designed. The device
> itself is always analog, but if you encode information on it
> digitally, you'll need to settle for very low capacity if the
> information must be highly resistant to degradation.
geoff
Mxsmanic
Feb 2, 2012, 8:22:37 PM2/2/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> There's no way to keep the audio from being noise after that much analog
> delay.
Record it on tape, stop the tape for a decade, then play it back. Mission
> There's no way to keep the audio from being noise after that much analog
> delay.
accomplished.
Marc Wielage
Feb 3, 2012, 5:00:47 AM2/3/12
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:08:06 -0800, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article <8snki7dc991urnq5d...@4ax.com>):
> It does please me that audio can be digitized losslessly, whereas this still
> isn't practical for most video. However, I think and hope that the future
will
> bring processing speeds and storage capacities that will allow video to be
> handled losslessly as well.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Uncompressed HD, 2K, and 4K video files are used every single day in pro film
production, in Hollywood, NY, London, and many other places around the world,
usually in DPX format. Every major motion picture now in theaters has
probably had all or part of its images processed as uncompressed 2K or 4K
files.
It's only the delivery on the net that forces extremely lossy compression
schemes for downloads. Given a massive increase in bandwidth, this will
eventually be solved. (We hope.)
--MFW
(in article <8snki7dc991urnq5d...@4ax.com>):
> It does please me that audio can be digitized losslessly, whereas this still
> isn't practical for most video. However, I think and hope that the future
will
> bring processing speeds and storage capacities that will allow video to be
> handled losslessly as well.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Uncompressed HD, 2K, and 4K video files are used every single day in pro film
production, in Hollywood, NY, London, and many other places around the world,
usually in DPX format. Every major motion picture now in theaters has
probably had all or part of its images processed as uncompressed 2K or 4K
files.
It's only the delivery on the net that forces extremely lossy compression
schemes for downloads. Given a massive increase in bandwidth, this will
eventually be solved. (We hope.)
--MFW
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages