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