Some extended info:
True, harmonic frequencies abound on analog repro's where digital falls short. But trade-offs exist, perfection is futile and todays recording environment has tools and toys to help "control" the end result, the listening experience. Do 96k recordings offer us that much closer to analog? Yes, the idea being that more sampling "points" creates more harmonic detail, but it will always be a digital repro, simulating the real, and will never be able to capture a full spectrum of analog quality.
But, let's face it, even a very good analog reproduction of a signal isn't a perfect reproduction of the original signal. Like every measuring/reproducing device, an analog recording contains abberations or discrepancies from the original.
At the very least, analog processes always have to fight the signal/noise ratio battle--every piece of equipment that you add to the processing chain adds just that little bit more hiss, even though at pro-audio quality levels, it's very little. Pure digital processing, on the other hand, adds no background hiss at all to the signal, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
One can certainly argue that they prefer analog to digital or vice versa, but arguing that one is more accurate than the other misses the point, IMO. Think of all the processing, mixing, and mastering that goes into producing a recording. All the reverb, equalizer, etc.. The point is that nobody wants to hear exactly, accurately, what the instrument laid down. We want to hear something that is pleasing.
One other thing on the Digital vs. Analog "debate": let's not forget the effect that digital has had on the music production process. That effect is much less obvious to the listener's perspective, but it's HUGE. At the "amateur/home recorder" level, digital recording and processing has opened up possibilities that used to be only available in million-dollar studios. Using Cakewalk Sonar, CuBase VST, or something like that, and less than $2000 in equipment (mics, a computer, a good soundcard, and a preamp for the mics), I can do 24-track (or more) recording, mix down, apply very high-quality effects that rival thousand-dollar analog counterparts in some cases, master, and burn to CD all on one computer.
At all levels, both pro and home audio, digital processing gives more freedom to the artist and engineer. The artist can do as many takes as he/she wants because there's no worry about wasting tape. The engineer can sample different effects... if he doesn't like it--Ctrl-Z! Digital equalizers, which use mathematics to separate out the frequency components of the signal, are much more precise and flexible than their analog counterparts--in some cases, you can set the center frequency and Q-factor exactly where you want them for as many bands as you like.
And then the question is raised, if humans can barely hear a frequency at 20k, how can we truly understand the difference between 44.1 and 96k? It's not really audible as much "feeling", and I can tell the difference on my Meyer HD1's but on my desktop setup through my JBL control 1's, hardly. It's there, and as a professional I should proudly proclaim "I hear it", but I don't.
I've got to ask if you've ever confirmed that with a double-blind A/B listening test. I ask because I used to be sure that I could hear the difference between a 16/44.1 WAV and a 128 Kbps WMA. And when I knew which one was which, I could! I could pick things out that were definitely different between them! Then I found some software that let me do a real double-blind test... turns out I can't tell the difference, even when I playback through my EDIROL soundcard (24/44.1, >100 dB S/N) and my best set of headphones.
Author
Topic: Audio 101, a primer -a very long post! (Read 14537 times)