IDM Mailing Archive

What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the sound quality on CDs: 44.1 Khz. With analogue formats, it is possible to be precise to a molecular level, so the sound quality can genuinely approach perfection. If the energy wasted on hyping digital formats was used on advancing analogue technology then the potential for better quality sound would be far greater. Lukey said vinyl technology has not advanced since the 1970s; this is because it is being phased out. If it was not being phased out then the technology would have advanced. When it comes to DJing vinyl is preferable to CD for numerous reasons, but the most important reason (to me) is that a double CD player with pitch bend is a lot more expensive than a pair of decks. If CDs were the exclusive format for DJs then money would take precedence over talent as all DJs would have to be able to afford such an expensive piece of equipment. This would effectively kill underground electronic music as the separation between the DJ and the crowd would become vast. Another important reason is that there are indeed a great deal of releases that are out on vinyl only, and there is not as much underground music on CD. I`m not convinced that machines which could mix automatically for a DJ are too bad an idea. Look at the arguments about "real" instruments vs electronic ones: "real" musicians say that they are the only ones with genuine talent because they can actually play, while we say that the music is more important than the means by which it`s produced. Electronic music removes the need for someone to have the dexterity to play an instrument for them to be considered a musician. If DJs object to a machine which mixes automatically they are being just as conservative as these "real" musicians. Such a machine would take DJing to a higher and more creative level than just mixing. On the other hand, though, it could kill off DJs in the same way as electronics could kill off music (I mean; anyone with a 303 + 909 making records, algorithmic music, music composed and produced by computers). It`s a complex issue... I`m sure that Irdial would have a lot to say on the subject. Brendan Nelson Lost transmission from Cowley

quoted 8 lines What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the

> What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the > sound quality on CDs: 44.1 Khz. With analogue formats, it is possible to be > precise to a molecular level, so the sound quality can genuinely approach > perfection. If the energy wasted on hyping digital formats was used on > advancing analogue technology then the potential for better quality sound > would be far greater. Lukey said vinyl technology has not advanced since the > 1970s; this is because it is being phased out. If it was not being phased > out then the technology would have advanced.

Theres no absolute limit to the digital technology, the limits comes with the standard. You cannot make the sounds on your vinyl records "approach perfection". It would take a new standard to do it, a very expensive standard which for sure wouldn't be in the average DJ's budget range. The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as is. This is in my opinion quite enough unless a brand new musicmarket directed to dogs appears. A human being cannot hear anything above 20kHz (and that is if the hearing is intact, ie on very young babies) and considering the Nyquist theorem 44.1 kHz is more than enough to satisfy human needs. On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which allow 65536 different levels of sound intesity to be sampled. An improvement to 17 bits would give twice the amount of levels, so the improvements to the CD-standard should be more bits/sample. Digital technologies will always be better, easier to use and also have a far better sound quality to price ratio. ----------------------------------------------------- - Johan Burman, eldjbu@tt.luth.se - - woom@ludd.luth.se - - - - woom uses akai equipment... - -----------------------------------------------------

ma93ben wrote:

quoted 8 lines What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the

> > > What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the > sound quality on CDs: 44.1 Khz. With analogue formats, it is possible to be > precise to a molecular level, so the sound quality can genuinely approach > perfection. If the energy wasted on hyping digital formats was used on > advancing analogue technology then the potential for better quality sound > would be far greater.

Bleah. When a sound is sampled at a certain rate, the resultant spectrum contains an image of the original at every frequency corresponding to the samplerate. Since the source contains both positive and negative frequency components, this sampling rate must be at least twice that of the highest frequency component to avoid "overlap" between frequency images (also known as aliasing). The resultant sound can be fully extracted by applying a low-pass filter. However, the ear itself is an excellent low-pass filter, because one cannot hear above 20,000 Hz. Thus, ideally, discrete sampling can have no effect on the perceived signal if the sampling rate is more than twice the highest freq. component we can hear, which is true in the case with CD's. The only irreversible loss occurs when the sampled data (amplitudes) are then quantized to 8 bits or 16 bits or whatever. However, since there is some limit where the ear/brain cannot process amplitude information either, this quantization will have dubious meaning at some point. I think the sound quality of CD's is excellent for all purposes. Anyway, vinyl does have more advantages, you can do stuff like funny packaging, locked grooves, colored surfaces, spinning at multiple speeds inexpensively etc. Thus arguments could be made that more money should be spent on improving analogue technology to match the digital standard. /-oOOo------------oOOo-\ --------------------------/------------------------\-------------------------- "the only constant / Harvey D. Thornburg \ "the only certainty thing is change" / \ is uncertainty" / hthornbu@osiris.ac.hmc.edu \ ------------------------------------------------------------

quoted 3 lines Bleah. When a sound is sampled at a certain rate, the resultant spectrum

>Bleah. When a sound is sampled at a certain rate, the resultant spectrum >contains an image of the original at every frequency corresponding to the >samplerate.

<theory of relativity deleted>

quoted 5 lines with CD's. The only irreversible loss occurs when the sampled data

>with CD's. The only irreversible loss occurs when the sampled data >(amplitudes) are then quantized to 8 bits or 16 bits or whatever. However, >since there is some limit where the ear/brain cannot process amplitude >information either, this quantization will have dubious meaning at some >point. I think the sound quality of CD's is excellent for all purposes.

i feel stupid. ___ (:)====/__/\=(:)(:)============================(:)====================(:) |\| _\_ \ \|\||=| Tai Nguyen |\| email address: |=| |=| /__/\_\ \=||\| Cornell University |=| thn1@cornell.edu |\| |\| / /\ __/\|(:)============================(:)====================(:) |=|/ / /\ \ |=||=| "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, |=| |\/__/ \_\/ |\||\| and statistics." |\| |=\__\/\ \ |=||=| - Mark Twain |=| (:)==\__\/===(:)(:)===================================================(:)

Ted Shab writes:

quoted 5 lines Actually, there is some talk now that the sounds we DON'T hear still effect

> Actually, there is some talk now that the sounds we DON'T hear still effect > the WAY we hear the sounds we do hear. One test of this was Brain-wave > activity while listening to analog vs. digital recordings - it differed > measurably. >

I'd believe that - given current research on subsonic effects (like alpha stimulation and other goodies like that). However, now we're talking about limitations in the actual transmission of these sounds to the ear. In other words, unless you've got a cool speaker system with a really BIG woofer, you're going to lose that stuff anyway. (Else if you pass it, you're going to get bad nonlinear effects.) I haven't heard anything about how frequencies _above_ 20 khZ might affect the brain, but again, reproduction with conventional equipment is a problem, given that speaker systems have to be designed for normal hearing range. Thus the only real difference in the systems overall is the type of "noise" induced. An analog recording will most certainly have some small level of noise induced - since there are so many ways this can happen, the noise can be effectively modeled as Gaussian. However, the main "noise" from digital recording comes from quantization effects, is usually much smaller in magnitude, and can be better represented as evenly distributed the better the quantization. My ony conjecture is that a certain level of "natural" (= Gaussian) noise, of course filtered many times throughout the recording process, adds some kind of "warmth" to the recording the digital process leaves out. In summary, I don't think the analog vs. digital debate in the _recording_ arena has anything to do with the ability of various _storage_ techniques to transmit _frequency_ information. Anyway, the issue here is storage media, not recording. But you have a good point, most AAD recordings I own I consider better sound quality than DDD, when a conscious attempt has been made to master on expensive equipment on both cases. /-oOOo------------oOOo-\ --------------------------/------------------------\-------------------------- "the only constant / Harvey D. Thornburg \ "the only certainty thing is change" / \ is uncertainty" / hthornbu@osiris.ac.hmc.edu \ ------------------------------------------------------------

Tai Nguyen wrote:

quoted 7 lines Bleah. When a sound is sampled at a certain rate, the resultant spectrum

> > >Bleah. When a sound is sampled at a certain rate, the resultant spectrum > >contains an image of the original at every frequency corresponding to the > >samplerate. > > <theory of relativity deleted> >

Actually, there are five things that every idmer is assumed to know, and will hereby get tossed around as analytic to our very existence: 1. the special theory of relativity 2. the second law of thermodynamics 3. the Nyquist sampling theorem (described above) 4. the asymptotic equipartition theorem (rel. information to entropy) 5. the fact that Pete Namlook is a god, above all other ;=) Actually, remind me not to write anything at 8 in the morning. What I was really trying to say was that sampling at 44.1 kHz is of no consequence, and that the only limitations to digital media is the fact you have to quantize amplitudes. In other words, CD's are basically as good as _ideal_ analog media. /-oOOo------------oOOo-\ --------------------------/------------------------\-------------------------- "the only constant / Harvey D. Thornburg \ "the only certainty thing is change" / \ is uncertainty" / hthornbu@osiris.ac.hmc.edu \ ------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3 Feb 1994, ma93ben wrote:

quoted 8 lines What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the

> What you have to realise first is that there is an _absolute_ limit of the > sound quality on CDs: 44.1 Khz. With analogue formats, it is possible to be > precise to a molecular level, so the sound quality can genuinely approach > perfection. If the energy wasted on hyping digital formats was used on > advancing analogue technology then the potential for better quality sound > would be far greater. Lukey said vinyl technology has not advanced since the > 1970s; this is because it is being phased out. If it was not being phased > out then the technology would have advanced.

Here here! You know I've thought a lot about doing something like that. Howsabout an analog disc which could be laser read instead of stylus read? Or a helical-scan compact cassette tape? The world is analog. Digital will ALWAYS be an approximation of our analog world. Else it ceases to be sampling -- it will be copying, and it will be analog. Off in the ozone... tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred) The Finn/ VLA

On 3 Feb 1994, JOHAN BURMAN ELD92 wrote:

quoted 5 lines Theres no absolute limit to the digital technology, the limits comes

> Theres no absolute limit to the digital technology, the limits comes > with the standard. You cannot make the sounds on your vinyl records > "approach perfection". It would take a new standard to do it, a very > expensive standard which for sure wouldn't be in the average DJ's > budget range.

Oh, and a new digital standard won't cost big bucks? These same reasons you apply to analog can be applied to digital as well.

quoted 6 lines The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as

> The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as > is. This is in my opinion quite enough unless a brand new musicmarket > directed to dogs appears. A human being cannot hear anything above > 20kHz (and that is if the hearing is intact, ie on very young babies) > and considering the Nyquist theorem 44.1 kHz is more than enough to > satisfy human needs.

But there is still the possibility that the high-end affects the low end through interference.

quoted 4 lines On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which

> On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which > allow 65536 different levels of sound intesity to be sampled. An > improvement to 17 bits would give twice the amount of levels, so the > improvements to the CD-standard should be more bits/sample.

Yeah, but consider analog has INFINITE bits... Volume levels are continuously variable, only limited by precision.

quoted 2 lines Digital technologies will always be better, easier to use and also

> Digital technologies will always be better, easier to use and also > have a far better sound quality to price ratio.

Figure this -- both mediums are trying to get to the same audio "nirvana": true reproduction of sound. My reasoning for analog is that we live in an analog world. Things are not simply on or off, and they aren't even rounded to the umpteenth decimal point. You could argue that we could digitize on the molecular level, but even molecular positions are continuously variable. Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real. tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred) The Finn/ VLA

tfinn wrote:

quoted 2 lines Digital will ALWAYS be an approximation of our analog world. Else it

> Digital will ALWAYS be an approximation of our analog world. Else it > ceases to be sampling -- it will be copying, and it will be analog.

But if ideal sampling occurs satisfying the Nyquist criterion, and quantization occurs to a point beyond our ability to discern information, then to us (in the experiential realm) what's the difference? I guess we are left with the old question about if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound. Whatever. the Nyquist criterion is your friend...  As an aside, what are your opinions on digital vs. analog _synthesis_? In the current state of affairs, barring $200,000 machines contrary to the whole point of this music, I overwhelmingly prefer the latter, for the following reason: Analog synths, like any other "analog" instrument such as the violin or piano, have _dynamically indeterminate_ outputs. All the imperfections in an analog system change unpredictably over time, and are often nonlinear. This generates in the listener a feeling of warmth, of "naturalness", of flow. Digital synths, with all their conveniences, to this date generally lack this characteristic. Much of digital synthesis in the consumer market deals with manipulating preset, statically determinate waveforms. The only noise that gets introduced is quantization error, which is necessarily static. In other words, you play a sound, and you know exactly what it's going to sound like - no suprises - everything cold, static, determinate. The basic techniques may be copied from analog synths, but without their "imperfections". There is, however, a way around this. By introducing filters (preferably with feedback) that incorporate nonstationary _stochastic_ elements, one can hope to approximate the wonders of the analog world. One way to do this is to incorporate human feedback. At least this is my theory - no time to implement it :( I just wish that as the music gets more "biomorphic" (how I consider Black Dog, B12, etc.) the synthesis techniques will also.

quoted 5 lines Off in the ozone...

> > Off in the ozone... > > tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred) > The Finn/ VLA

/-oOOo------------oOOo-\ --------------------------/------------------------\-------------------------- "the only constant / Harvey D. Thornburg \ "the only certainty thing is change" / \ is uncertainty" / hthornbu@osiris.ac.hmc.edu \ ------------------------------------------------------------

quoted 8 lines Theres no absolute limit to the digital technology, the limits comes

> > Theres no absolute limit to the digital technology, the limits comes > > with the standard. You cannot make the sounds on your vinyl records > > "approach perfection". It would take a new standard to do it, a very > > expensive standard which for sure wouldn't be in the average DJ's > > budget range. > > Oh, and a new digital standard won't cost big bucks? These same reasons > you apply to analog can be applied to digital as well.

Compare the price of ADAT with any analogue eight track system with the same specs, and you will find that the ADAT is a bargain. Compare a any CD player with an analogue record player that can reproduce with the same quality, the CD will cost you nothing in comparsion. Digital is cheaper. Digital signals isn't as sensitive to the surroundings as analogue ones, therefore digital signals can be transferred, stored and replayed much cheaper than analogue ever will. (Of course there are other factors as well that make digital cheaper...)

quoted 9 lines The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as

> > The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as > > is. This is in my opinion quite enough unless a brand new musicmarket > > directed to dogs appears. A human being cannot hear anything above > > 20kHz (and that is if the hearing is intact, ie on very young babies) > > and considering the Nyquist theorem 44.1 kHz is more than enough to > > satisfy human needs. > > But there is still the possibility that the high-end affects the low end > through interference.

Well, there's a possibility, but I don't think you would hear any difference between a recording made at 44.1kHz/16 bits and a recording made at 88.2 kHz/16 bits. And a crowd enjoying the talents of a DJ through a PA for sure wouldn't.

quoted 8 lines On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which

> > On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which > > allow 65536 different levels of sound intesity to be sampled. An > > improvement to 17 bits would give twice the amount of levels, so the > > improvements to the CD-standard should be more bits/sample. > > Yeah, but consider analog has INFINITE bits... Volume levels are > continuously variable, only limited by precision. >

Not INFINITE. There are still limitations. Your ears are not as good as you seem to think, neither your eyes. There isn't much use in trying to reproduce something that you cannot sense in the first place.

quoted 9 lines Digital technologies will always be better, easier to use and also

> > Digital technologies will always be better, easier to use and also > > have a far better sound quality to price ratio. > > Figure this -- both mediums are trying to get to the same audio > "nirvana": true reproduction of sound. My reasoning for analog is that > we live in an analog world. Things are not simply on or off, and they > aren't even rounded to the umpteenth decimal point. You could argue that > we could digitize on the molecular level, but even molecular positions > are continuously variable.

Yeah, sure. But can you actually notice the difference at molecular level? Of course things aren't just on or off, but if things are divided into very tiny pieces, on or off is adequate (spell?).

quoted 1 line Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real.

> Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real.

Virtual is real.

quoted 2 lines tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred)

> tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred) > The Finn/ VLA

----------------------------------------------------- - Johan Burman, eldjbu@tt.luth.se - - woom@ludd.luth.se - - - - woom uses akai equipment... - -----------------------------------------------------

Actually, there are five things that every idmer is assumed to know, and will hereby get tossed around as analytic to our very existence: 1. the special theory of relativity 2. the second law of thermodynamics 3. the Nyquist sampling theorem (described above) 4. the asymptotic equipartition theorem (rel. information to entropy) 5. the fact that Pete Namlook is a god, above all other ;=) Not QCD or the General Theory of Relativity? Actually "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" is a neat physics-history-aware name. This was one of the outstanding phyics problems (dealing with the spectra of black body radiation -- pre-modern thermo theory had an ultraviolet catastrophe) that lead to thte modern theory of thermodynamics. Just a Quantum Fluctuation, this message. Albert Boulanger

Aaron Grier <tfinn@crash.cts.com> writes:

quoted 10 lines On 3 Feb 1994, JOHAN BURMAN ELD92 wrote:

> On 3 Feb 1994, JOHAN BURMAN ELD92 wrote: > > > Theres no absolute limit to the digital technology, the limits comes > > with the standard. You cannot make the sounds on your vinyl records > > "approach perfection". It would take a new standard to do it, a very > > expensive standard which for sure wouldn't be in the average DJ's > > budget range. > > Oh, and a new digital standard won't cost big bucks? These same reasons > you apply to analog can be applied to digital as well.

There is a new digital standard, and it doesn't _have_ to cost big bucks. It's what's known as 'direct-to-disk' or 'hard drive' recording nowadays, but it's quite obvious that within ten or fifteen years, this is how people will get their music. Flip to the Tower records channel, or maybe to 'Bob's ever-present record store', browse through the onscreen racks, hear a short clip from a 'package' that catches your eye, decide whether you like it or not, and if you do, bingo it arrives a few minutes later in your very own 'record collection' ala the house entertainment center with a very large hard drive, or other form of non-removable large storage device. People are already sending tracks to radio stations across the net via ADPCM compressed CD quality recordings, as well as more direct links like ISDN lines. As far as a new digital standard costing big bucks, programmable DSPs will keep the costs of upgrades like more bits down to a very small minimum. The first adopters of this kind of technology were, and some still are, paying out the wahooty, but it's quickly coming down in price. I've got the stuff in my computer to do it, and it cost about $300, or the price of a high-end CD player. The only two things remaining before this new digital technology takes over is that we need inexpensive, high speed data lines into every house, something which is fast becoming reality, and we need a highly reliable but very inexpensive form of data storage. With 1.8gb drives going for around $1100 and new technology coming that will make magnetic drives obselete, this isn't too far off either.

quoted 9 lines The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as

> > The CD-standard will not allow sample rates above 44.1 kHz as > > is. This is in my opinion quite enough unless a brand new musicmarket > > directed to dogs appears. A human being cannot hear anything above > > 20kHz (and that is if the hearing is intact, ie on very young babies) > > and considering the Nyquist theorem 44.1 kHz is more than enough to > > satisfy human needs. > > But there is still the possibility that the high-end affects the low end > through interference.

Well, I believe it was Francois Dion who pointed out on another list that really it's kind of silly that so many people complain about "CD-quality" considering most of these people have their CD-players hooked to audio equipment that's far more imperfect. Most people don't have $10,000 stereos, so it's kind of a moot point.

quoted 7 lines On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which

> > On the other hand, the resolution of each sample is 16 bits which > > allow 65536 different levels of sound intesity to be sampled. An > > improvement to 17 bits would give twice the amount of levels, so the > > improvements to the CD-standard should be more bits/sample. > > Yeah, but consider analog has INFINITE bits... Volume levels are > continuously variable, only limited by precision.

Yeah, but how precise can we get and be PRACTICAL? Especially considering most of us would be using these 'perfect' sounding devices in poorly engineered sound environments (clubs and raves).

quoted 6 lines Figure this -- both mediums are trying to get to the same audio

> Figure this -- both mediums are trying to get to the same audio > "nirvana": true reproduction of sound. My reasoning for analog is that > we live in an analog world. Things are not simply on or off, and they > aren't even rounded to the umpteenth decimal point. You could argue that > we could digitize on the molecular level, but even molecular positions > are continuously variable.

We can't recreate sound on the molecular level with analog! And I think most people would agree there's no need to. I don't think Richard James strives for audio perfection when he sits down and makes music. I know I don't, and I can count the number of musicians who do this on one hand. So it really doesn't matter, because the _source_ recordings are "flawed" to begin with.

quoted 1 line Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real.

> Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real.

Well, if you'd like to put it in that context, then how about this: when digitally reproduced sound re-enters the analog world (right before you hear it) it _becomes "real" again_, right? It must, because it is once again analog. Otherwise, any sound that went through a digital process (effects), or originated from a digital source (synth) is never a "real" sound! :) And for those of you who are asking what the hell all this has to do with IDM, just try and think of one other group that would go this far into the ether in a discussion of this stuff! - Dan |=|=|=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=|=|=|-------------------------- The 8-BIt Collective - Transmission 23 - edrone dan nicholson, Clonor the Other - Finnish Techno Zyndicate 8bit@vlad.bowker.com -=>ICBM volume one available soon!<=- moddan@vlad.bowker.com "This message has been sent out - did you originate it?"

On 4 Feb 1994, JOHAN BURMAN ELD92 wrote:

quoted 12 lines Oh, and a new digital standard won't cost big bucks? These same reasons

> > Oh, and a new digital standard won't cost big bucks? These same reasons > > you apply to analog can be applied to digital as well. > > Compare the price of ADAT with any analogue eight track system with > the same specs, and you will find that the ADAT is a bargain. > Compare a any CD player with an analogue record player that can > reproduce with the same quality, the CD will cost you nothing in > comparsion. Digital is cheaper. Digital signals isn't as sensitive to > the surroundings as analogue ones, therefore digital signals can be > transferred, stored and replayed much cheaper than analogue ever will. > (Of course there are other factors as well that make digital > cheaper...)

True. But then tell me why a decent dual-CD DJ model costs about three grand (Denon 2700F I believe) while a pair of 1200s still goes for about $900? I guess the price will fall though as the technology becomes easier to manufacture and demand goes up, etc... But the same thing could happen with analog technologies too. Everyone is hopping on the digital bandwagon.

quoted 6 lines But there is still the possibility that the high-end affects the low end

> > But there is still the possibility that the high-end affects the low end > > through interference. > Well, there's a possibility, but I don't think you would hear any > difference between a recording made at 44.1kHz/16 bits and a > recording made at 88.2 kHz/16 bits. And a crowd enjoying the talents > of a DJ through a PA for sure wouldn't.

True.

quoted 7 lines Yeah, but consider analog has INFINITE bits... Volume levels are

> > Yeah, but consider analog has INFINITE bits... Volume levels are > > continuously variable, only limited by precision. > > > Not INFINITE. There are still limitations. Your ears are not as good > as you seem to think, neither your eyes. There isn't much use in > trying to reproduce something that you cannot sense in the first > place.

Continously variable is a lot closer to infinity than discrete digital levels are. The point of going PAST human sense limits is a good one though.

quoted 10 lines Figure this -- both mediums are trying to get to the same audio

> > Figure this -- both mediums are trying to get to the same audio > > "nirvana": true reproduction of sound. My reasoning for analog is that > > we live in an analog world. Things are not simply on or off, and they > > aren't even rounded to the umpteenth decimal point. You could argue that > > we could digitize on the molecular level, but even molecular positions > > are continuously variable. > > Yeah, sure. But can you actually notice the difference at molecular > level? Of course things aren't just on or off, but if things are > divided into very tiny pieces, on or off is adequate (spell?).

Yeah, I suppose that is true. But a CD sure doesn't cut it.

quoted 3 lines Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real.

> > Wheee... Digital will always be virtual. Analog is physical, it is real. > > Virtual is real.

Virtual is real only in its OWN reality, not in the world of objects. A groove in a record or a wave in the air or a pattern of magnetic particles on a tape exist in a physical sense. Numbers do not. Your points are well argued. I guess my point is that a CD just doesn't cut it. tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred) The Finn/ VLA

On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Harvey Thornburg wrote:

quoted 12 lines tfinn wrote:

> tfinn wrote: > > > Digital will ALWAYS be an approximation of our analog world. Else it > > ceases to be sampling -- it will be copying, and it will be analog. > > But if ideal sampling occurs satisfying the Nyquist criterion, and > quantization occurs to a point beyond our ability to discern information, > then to us (in the experiential realm) what's the difference? I guess we > are left with the old question about if a tree falls in the forest, and no > one is around to hear it, does it make a sound. Whatever. > > the Nyquist criterion is your friend...

But then you come down to resolution... Even if a CD can capture everything we can hear, the resolution still leaves a bit to be desired. Now if someone were to introduce a better format, a format that went beyond the limits of human hearing (which 16 bits does not) I couldn't complain except on intangible grounds. (like FEELING and stuff like that.)

quoted 5 lines Analog synths, like any other "analog" instrument such as the violin or

> Analog synths, like any other "analog" instrument such as the violin or > piano, have _dynamically indeterminate_ outputs. All the imperfections in > an analog system change unpredictably over time, and are often nonlinear. > This generates in the listener a feeling of warmth, of "naturalness", of > flow.

Yeah -- exactly. For instance, the crosstalk between circuit boards on a Moog have to add to its overall sound somehow.

quoted 5 lines [stuff deleted]

> [stuff deleted] > filters (preferably with feedback) that incorporate nonstationary > _stochastic_ elements, one can hope to approximate the wonders of the analog > world. One way to do this is to incorporate human feedback. At least this > is my theory - no time to implement it :(

I like it... Howzabout making a little bleep box -- a simple synthesizer with a filter? I'm going to have to make one in the future. :)

quoted 2 lines I just wish that as the music gets more "biomorphic" (how I consider Black

> I just wish that as the music gets more "biomorphic" (how I consider Black > Dog, B12, etc.) the synthesis techniques will also.

Gotta pick these up and give 'um a listen. tfinn@crash.cts.com (Preferred) The Finn/ VLA

On Sun, 6 Feb 1994, Aaron Grier wrote:

quoted 6 lines True. But then tell me why a decent dual-CD DJ model costs about three

> True. But then tell me why a decent dual-CD DJ model costs about three > grand (Denon 2700F I believe) while a pair of 1200s still goes for about > $900? I guess the price will fall though as the technology becomes > easier to manufacture and demand goes up, etc... But the same thing > could happen with analog technologies too. Everyone is hopping on the > digital bandwagon.

Think about what a 2700F can do that a record player can't. Like sample and store cue points. You're making an unrealistic comparison. The Denon 2000F (basic model dual deck CD player w/instant start and +-8% pitch control) can be bought for $900. Peace, Matt <(hcy)>