[sdiy] "Digital vs analog waveforms" [was: Ways for innovation]

[Chris Juried]

Hi Tom,
Not exactly. Your talking to a guy with (2) 24 track Studer decks, Studer A807, Studer A810, Otari MX5050 BII, Tascam 38, Tascam 122mkII, Revox, etc... tape decks. However, I do own many digital decks in the form of CD, DAT, Mitsubishi X-850 32 track 1", etc...

I am aware of Rupert Neve, analog designs, reaching exceptionally low noise floors approaching that of digital gear.

There is a lot to be said for ultrasonic (above the perceived upper limits of human hearing 17-20kHz) frequencies, reproducible by analog equipment (not limited by the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem), and their effects on the audible frequencies we hear. 

With respect to degradation of media, many of my tapes (Ampex, BASF, Agfa) have deteriorated due to the "Sticky-shed syndrome" though all my Scotch/3M products have held up exceptionally well. 

In any case I look forward to a fun discussion.

Sincerely,   
  Chris Juried  
Audio Engineering Society (AES) Member  
InfoComm-Recognized AV Technologist
http://www.JuriedEngineering.com (Juried Engineering, LLC.)
http://www.TubeEquipment.com (Tube Equipment Corporation)
http://www.HistoryOfRecording.com (History of Recording)

This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof.

 

      From: Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net>
 To: Chris Juried <cjuried at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "Lanterman, Aaron" <lanterma at ece.gatech.edu>; synth-diy List <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
 Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:16 AM
 Subject: Re: [sdiy] "Digital vs analog waveforms" [was: Ways for innovation]
   
I expect he's just saying that he likes a nice clean 16-bit/44.1KHz CD over a noisy old cassette tape. Hard not to agree, really. Especially once the tape's been in the back of a cupboard unloved for a few years and has print-through to boot. That's "degradation of stated media", I suppose.

Still, even offered a brand new consumer cassette or a CD, you'd still choose the CD, wouldn't you? There's no comparison in terms of S/N or distortion, not to mention wow and flutter.

On 27 Jan 2016, at 11:17, Chris Juried <cjuried at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
> 
> Are your preferences based on degradation of stated media and/or accurate reproduction of the original waveform? 
>  
> Sincerely,  
>  
> Chris Juried  
> Audio Engineering Society (AES) Member  
> InfoComm-Recognized AV Technologist
> http://www.JuriedEngineering.com (Juried Engineering, LLC.)
> http://www.TubeEquipment.com (Tube Equipment Corporation)
> http://www.HistoryOfRecording.com (History of Recording)
> 
> This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Lanterman, Aaron" <lanterma at ece.gatech.edu>
> To: synth-diy List <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl> 
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 4:38 PM
> Subject: [sdiy] "Digital vs analog waveforms" [was: Ways for innovation]
> 
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:27 AM, spivkurl at wearerecords.com wrote:
> 
> > they express their unfounded claims about how a digital waveform is that same or "higher resolution" (uh I hate that) than an analog waveform… 
> 
> I must once again remind cite the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
> 
> When you’re listening to a “digital waveform,” by that point it’s been converted back to analog. Analog and digital transmission and storage formats have different strengths and weaknesses. Analog formats tend to degrade gracefully; digital formats have a sharp degradation curve, in which they’re perfect until they’re garbage (as I’ve learned going through archiving some old DAT tapes). Digital waveforms are converted to “analog” for transmission — the cable your internet service uses doesn’t know anything about “bits,” but the circuits encoding and decoding those bits do. 
> 
> I’ll take a “digital waveform” off of high-rate AAC file or a CD over an analog waveform off my old consumer cassette tapes.
> 
> - Aaron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20160127/8b585296/attachment.htm>