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?"