• DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    To think that analog mediums are superior to digital requires a fundamental misunderstanding of signals and the human range of hearing that you can only get from placebo enthusiasts “audiophiles”

    (I am by no means shitting on actual audiophiles btw. I consider myself an amateur audiophile.)

    Edit: should also clarify I’m not shitting on people who enjoy records. I’m shitting on people who strictly think analog is better than digital.

    • Tech With Jake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      A pure analog recording can be superior to digital recordings. But those are so rare these days, we don’t have a good comparison.

      There’s things like “bass bleed” and cross talk that made analog so interesting to listen to.

      As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it. Especially in the lower end.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it.

        Someone hasn’t heard of the Nyquist theorem :)

        • Tech With Jake@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes. Yes I have. It’s why I state 48kHz or higher due to the halving effect. 44.1kHz will only get you to 22kHz and 18Hz. Not a whole different than what ours can hear. 44.1kHz was the standard for CDs due to size limitations but we’re well beyond that now.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org)

    This is a video about the digital vs analog audio quality debate. It explains, with examples, why analog audio within the accepted limits of human hearing (20 Hz to 20 kHz) can be reproduced with perfect fidelity using a 44.1 kHz 16 Bit digital signal.

    There is no audible difference between an analog and digital audio signal.

    Among other things, xiph.org maintains the .flac and .ogg vorbis audio formats - they know a little about audio encoding and reproduction.

    • vulpivia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s actually because of the limitations of analog media that analog audio might sound better. For example, you can’t compress the signal as much when mastering for vinyl instead of digital, since you risk the needle jumping between adjacent grooves. As a result, the vinyl version of a song can sound more dynamic.

      • Carnelian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s the opposite, no? Vinyl can’t handle the explosive dynamics common in modern music (especially electronic) due to the skipping issue, so any sharp peaks like that need to be compressed to make the overall mix more mellow