It's true! He does indeed say that:
http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/Default.aspx?tabid=69&EntryId=266
Examples of early digital recordings?
- Thread starter Groucho
- Start date
It's true! He does indeed say that:
http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/Default.aspx?tabid=69&EntryId=266
That's my take too. As JJ said - which facts and basic logic confirm - a bit for bit copy by definition sounds the same as the original. Further, it's easy to confirm the bits, at least in Windows, using the FC (File Compare) utility.
--Ethan
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I should point out that there are some digital boards out there, that when you bounce a track with 0dB gain, the gain applied is actually 1-2^-15, which is slightly less than one, which of course results in a loss, especially if the board does not dither.
This has given more than one person the wrong impression.
This has given more than one person the wrong impression.
Either you or JJ have your maths wrong... 
2^-15 is a very small number indeed.
Does this have to do with some implementations of 32 bit floating point math?
2^-15 is a very small number indeed.Does this have to do with some implementations of 32 bit floating point math?
Either you or JJ have your maths wrong...
Does this have to do with some implementations of 32 bit floating point math?
It's very, very close to 0dB. It has a lot to do with some boards that used fractional 16 bit fixed point coefficients, which only reach (2^15 -1)/(2^15)
No, it surely shouldn't have happened, but that kind of very close to 1 gain can really wreck havoc when there's no dithering.
Ah, OK. I see. It would have no apparent effect on loudness but would increase the number of significant bits in the result, which would require dithering to get back to the original bit depth. If it was truncated instead of dithered, and subsequently had its gain increased a lot during mixdown, it could be quite noticeable.
So from the off, the analogue to digital transformation gave the following advantages:
- extreme fidelity of storage and playback
- zero degradation over time
- infinite copy-ability
- ease of editing (they were doing this with Soundstream)
It was worth doing just for that, but within a few years they could add:
- zero degradation during mixing, processing, production
- flexibility of distribution
- low cost of distribution
- extreme quality of consumer playback
- extreme reduction in cost, size of audio hardware
- extreme reduction in cost, size of storage
- total elimination of equipment alignment, maintenance
At its heart it is nothing more than a mathematical transform. How many other ideas are so perfect?
- extreme fidelity of storage and playback
- zero degradation over time
- infinite copy-ability
- ease of editing (they were doing this with Soundstream)
It was worth doing just for that, but within a few years they could add:
- zero degradation during mixing, processing, production
- flexibility of distribution
- low cost of distribution
- extreme quality of consumer playback
- extreme reduction in cost, size of audio hardware
- extreme reduction in cost, size of storage
- total elimination of equipment alignment, maintenance
At its heart it is nothing more than a mathematical transform. How many other ideas are so perfect?
Last edited:
I should save this post. It is an answer to about half the audiophile discussion board threads of the past couple of decades.
Tim
One thing I have learned over the years is that people who love digital sound and the math behind it are probably never going to be swayed to love the sound of analog even though lots of the recordings they are loving played back digitally were sourced from analog tape. On the other hand, lots of analog people who used to hate digital have been swayed to the fact that some digital can sound really, really good. I know because I'm one of them. My personal opinion is that DSD sounds best to my ears compared to the other digital formats. I can and have listened to it for hours on end. In the end, people who love digital will continue to denigrate analog and the hardcore analog lovers will continue to denigrate the sound of digital. It's like the Hatfields and McCoys. I personally just don't care anymore and I'm not about to try and convince a dyed in the wool digital lover that his belief system is sadly misguided and analog is superior. I would rather work on bringing peace to the Mideast because my chances of success are probably higher in that endeavor.
Ain't that the truth. I don't really hate analog, Mark, I just don't think it's superior, so I don't see the point in keeping up with all of its fussy playback equipment. Analog is a pain. You have to love it to be bothered with it. But I get what people like about it. I understand the appeal, I just don't share it.
Tim
I have said many times that digital is "Look ma, no hands" while analog is the exact opposite. It requires user knowledge for proper set up and on-going maintenance in the form of record cleaning, head cleaning/tape path cleaning, and replacing cartridges and going through the set up again. Analog requires another level of user involvement and dedication. Obviously the payback is not appreciated nor desired for those that love the digits.
@gary
In the play list from that meeting there is a Linda Ronstadt track Poor, Poor Pitiful Me (Elektra Records B00002GVQ, track 7 from the album Simple Dreams), dated 1976. Can you recall the significance of that track? Was that whole album recorded with the Soundstream system?
Similar threads
- Sticky
