On 07/03/2014 04:52 PM, James Knott wrote:
On 07/03/2014 12:50 PM, michael norman wrote:
I don't know anything about the fact that cd is superior to vinyl, and I suspect I know more about the process than you do. What do you mean by reproduction accuracy ? When it comes to frequency response dynamic range and noise level analogue is in fact better than cd and that is fact.
There's something called "transfer function". It compares what goes in with what goes out. If there's any difference, other than level, it's distortion. So, a perfect amp would exactly replicate the input, with no distortion. And yes, I do know a fair bit about the process. I studied Electrical Engineering and have over 40 years experience in the telecommunications industry, where digital audio has been in use for almost 50 years. The description of the process was covered in courses I took at work and elsewhere.
Those of us who prefer vinyl are interested in music, I have no idea what you mean by audio accuracy.
See above.
My experience was a little different, I was dealing with higher frequencies and hence none of it was about personal feelings and all of it was about the ACCURACY of amplification of (very faint RF) signals. The fact that those signals were latter digitally sampled and had many transformation (FFT butterflies being just one of many) is beside the point. The accuracy of the radar return or the signal from a military listening post is critical. As James say, if there's any difference other than signal strength its distortion. The waveform, the frequency spread, all must be preserved accurately. And while maser amplifiers in liquid nitrogen can do an excellent job, they are impractical for many types of mobile listening station -- to say nothing of home audio :-) -- /"\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Mail / \ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org