mshilarious
Banned
That's it I'm moving, I can't buy cheaper than $7/L (for bottles)
Go right ahead, and while that takes you another week, notice that I ran an 18/19kHz signal (this measures not only HF response but also undesirable distortion products like IMD and jitter) from the CD player on the Tascam CD-A500 out (analog of course, this unit doesn't have a digi out) to an entirely ordinary 2003-vintage soundcard and posted the result . . . oh, on page 2 of this thread . . . post #30 . . . so check your converters at some high frequency, or better yet, a pair of frequencies, or just shoot a square wave at 'em and compare input to output on the scope (dual trace?). Then do the same thing with one of your tape recorders.
It ain't rocket surgery . . .
I have "Dual 2246's", and each one is a 4 trace scope!
VP
Actually, the clue should be in the word "analogue" (or "analog" for left-ponders) itself: "something that bears and analogy to something else".
And your analogue electrical signals are exactly that: an electrical representation of the original pressure oscillations in the trasmission medium (in our case, usually air). So, by the time you get your precious analogue recording, the sound has already gone through one conversion (the transducer in the microphone) and several processes (mic pre amp, bias amp in the recorder, etc).
Now this doesn't mean it can't sound good--but don't argue that your analogue signal hasn't been converted. The only original in the chain is the pressure waves in the air.
As for "an analogue signal has a theoretically infinite resolution", the key word is "theoretically". I could theoretically be a millionaire--but, in practical terms, I have $2.75 in my pocket just now.
(Oh, and that bad joke is analagous to the digital vs. analogue situation.)
AtoDeficient..... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE...
I use a JC converter, no jitter, no flutter just infinitely changes coin directly into wine. It beats the 'hell' out of analog.AUD.
Hey, that's another good analogy. If it was USD2.75 and I converted to USD, the number is 2.60608. Now, this would normally round off to $2.61 but the smallest coin in Australia is 5 cents so that $2.61 gets rounded to $2.60.
However, it still buys me a bottle of cheap wine!
Now, THAT is a conversion!
it's all just an alcohol delivery system.Another "boxer" here. I've discovered a very drinkable Traminer-Riesling blend (THISl one) which is $15.99 per 4 litre box ($14.99 if I buy four at a time--I buy four at a time) which is a nice light summer drink.
Once the weather cools down, I tend to move to a Shiraz or a Shiraz-Cabernet blend. Hmmm...must try doing my own mixes! (In more than the audio sense!).
And blind tests have shown that people can't really tell the difference between wines that well.
So often I just go for Captain on the rocks.
I saw an interesting article that some here at HR linked to where they had a BIG test ...... hundreds of blind tastings.Well . . . now . . . wine is just a bunch of chemicals, so if you take a white wine that lacks certain anthocyanins and has lower pH (or is it higher? I am bad at chemical lingo, but the white is about 3.3 and the red more like 3.8) and you dump the missing chemicals and buffers into the white wine, then is it not a red wine? Where did you get the anthocyanins in the first place? Probably extracted them from a red wine fermentation . . .
On the other hand if you give a blindfolded taster two glasses of shiraz and one glass of merlot, can they match the shiraz glasses? I'll have wifey test me on that later tonight, although the box merlot is higher acidity than the bottled shiraz so I don't think it will be hard, it's less tannic as well which is why I add the oak chips. Sour and bitter are basic senses so discrimination should not be difficult. Let's see!
Master sommeliers (which I ain't, my nose is mostly shot) are required to pass a number of really difficult blind tastings to earn their certification . . .
I saw an interesting article that some here at HR linked to where they had a BIG test ...... hundreds of blind tastings.
And even among the master sommeliers only 1 out of 10 would give a wine they had already tasted the same score as they did the first time.
It was pretty interesting and convincing ..... and, in fairness, it points out that taste and hearing and all our senses are taking place in the brain and are subject to us making them what we want or expect them to be.
And further .... what that means is that even though I say I can heard differences between digital and analog ........ it could very well be all in my head.
I really don't know.. . It's just sound, y'know ?. . . Vibrations. . . . Noise, really. . . . Nothing for everyone to get so freakin'. . . . freaky over.
I had NO IDEA that my original thread would spin off into several sit-coms. . . Let me know if I'm entitled to any syndication royalties. . .
I have solved the original queston from 35 pages ago!!!!
I opened up my computer and it has 4 case fans, a CPU heatsink fan and a PSU fan, so six total fans moving air
I opened up my analog, EQ's, Compressors, Pres, channel strips, summing busses and none of them has any fans, no air movement
So, in my house at least, digital moves more air. Question Answered!!!!
(now if only I could find some opinions on which one sounds better, maybe I should start a thread)
probably. The test I used about 6 years ago was to make very careful recordings of records I knew really well on my Masterlinks ..... I have a VPI 'table with Audioquest arm and a nice Lehman Black Cube phone pre with Sumiko Blue Point Special cart.I think it would depend on the production methodology.
ok poser.
You're such a waste of time.
You like to alienate even those that show a modicum of support for your position.
So ....... every single person on this board knows you're a poser with no actual knowledge or experience.
You NEVER produce the mythical results you claim to get from your non-existant experimentation.
A loser and a poser.
I never had the Masterlink, but the Alesis converters I had from that era had some audible passband attenuation--even though I can't hear an 18.5kHz sine anymore, enough such attenuation does seem to be audible.
For example, embedded in my fake cymbal test was a sample rate test--the two "hits" are not the same, one was down & upsampled from 44.1, and they are different left to right (just for a little hearing test). I can hear a difference between the two, because that SRC has similar passband attenuation.
I'd be interested to know if you repeated the test at 48 whether you got the same result, or if you offset the attenuation at 44.1 with a bit of EQ.