Little kids with old technologies

[The Mad Monk]

"I'm multiplyin' Doc! I'm multiplyin'!"

[-Jrabbit]

Wait, what? Do you know what you are talking about? I think there's about a dozen reasons that doesn't make any sense...

I have never claimed to be a computer guy, HC. It was an example, based on the media storm surrounding the original Pentium chip when it was revealed to be less than 100% accurate. Let me try again, and sorry if I offended your geek sensibilities.

I was just trying to illustrate that digital devices are dependent on their granularity (probably the wrong term) for accuracy. Example: 24-bit, 192 kHz digital audio sounds great, while 8-bit, 44.1 kHz falls apart in the upper frequencies. It's audibly inferior because it lacks the acuity needed for the job. (In the 90s, this was a huge issue, both on the production side and for audiophiles. Today, most people listen to .mp3 files through crappy earbuds, so the issue has virtually disappeared.)

A properly designed analog system, on the other hand, captures the nuances that are lost in the quantization process inherent in a digital approach. Similar examples exist in fields like video.

Today's digital systems have the speed and processing power to overcome a lot of the problem, but it's important IMHO to realize that digital media is at best an approximation of the original source material. A really good approximation.

[Al B. Sure!]

I have never claimed to be a computer guy, HC. It was an example, based on the media storm surrounding the original Pentium chip when it was revealed to be less than 100% accurate. Let me try again, and sorry if I offended your geek sensibilities.

I was just trying to illustrate that digital devices are dependent on their granularity (probably the wrong term) for accuracy. Example: 24-bit, 192 kHz digital audio sounds great, while 8-bit, 44.1 kHz falls apart in the upper frequencies. It's audibly inferior because it lacks the acuity needed for the job. (In the 90s, this was a huge issue, both on the production side and for audiophiles. Today, most people listen to .mp3 files through crappy earbuds, so the issue has virtually disappeared.)

A properly designed analog system, on the other hand, captures the nuances that are lost in the quantization process inherent in a digital approach. Similar examples exist in fields like video.

Today's digital systems have the speed and processing power to overcome a lot of the problem, but it's important IMHO to realize that digital media is at best an approximation of the original source material. A really good approximation.

Well yeah with music... but calculating numbers is different, I think.

[Al B. Sure!]

Although why do the digitally remastered versions of analog recordings sound so much better? Is it just because it seems like that because of loudness?

[-Jrabbit]

This is now a threadjack, but hey, it's your thread.

The improvement is not in the A-to-D conversion. It's much more due to all the other manipulations that occur as part of the remastering process. The most notable improvement is (usually) the drop in the noise floor, accomplished with precise filtering of unwanted bits like background HVAC noise and other artifacts.

"Loudness" is a meaningless term in this context.

[-Jrabbit]

Well yeah with music... but calculating numbers is different, I think.

Not really. To use a really simple example:

A fraction like 1/3 is precise. One in every three. Exactly.

Digital results express this differently. Enter it into a calculator; it comes up as 0.3(repeating), the accuracy of which gets closer to, but never equals, the precision of the original number, as you include more significant digits:
0.3
0.33
0.333
0.3333
0.33333
0.333333
0.3333333
etc.
Each is a successively closer approximation of 1/3, but none actually equals it exactly.

[SpencerH]

This is now a threadjack, but hey, it's your thread.

The improvement is not in the A-to-D conversion. It's much more due to all the other manipulations that occur as part of the remastering process. The most notable improvement is (usually) the drop in the noise floor, accomplished with precise filtering of unwanted bits like background HVAC noise and other artifacts.

"Loudness" is a meaningless term in this context.

I think that's probably correct. I digitized and cleaned up a rare LP belonging to a co-worker who was a musician and he swore that he could hear more than he ever could before because of the sound clarity (ie reduction of background).

[Nikolai]

Clueless kids. I'm appalled.