Now msh and others can read and quote as many "experts" as they like but until they put up samples of genuine "real world" musical material their "contributions" will retain the appearance of being a lot of ego stroked hot air being propelled by questionable motives.
ausrock, it's working the other way around. It starts with an observation made by some/many/few/whatever:
- Digital doesn't sound as good as analog.
From there, a hypothesis is needed to explain why. That's the wado/OP post, modified by wado's first post.
Once we have a hypothesis, then we can evaluate it. Here are a few that have been discussed:
- quantization distortion. This is a function of bit depth, signal complexity, and noise. This also works into dynamic range.
- filter behavior. A digital sample HAS to be bandwidth limited (at least if we accept the need for PCM for processing). How does that filter work, and what does it do to the audible band?
- ultrasonic frequencies--are they audible, and at what level?
The last two questions have to do with sample rate. While we are considering sample rate, we can also consider the effect of sample accuracy vs. sample rate.
Those are physical concerns that have nothing to do with any specific implementation. This is an important distinction, because as we enter into the real world, converter quality has a large effect on whether the theoretical performance of the system is reached.
There was a side discussion on DSP, but that is not essential because one can record digitally with no processing, for example to something like an HD24 and mix entirely analog, and there are a number of studios that do operate that way.
The value of test signals is that it helps identify areas of concern which can be the subject of a real-world test. The samples I have posted thus far aren't the experiment, they are the hypothesis. The real world samples are coming . . . but I intend to generate real world signals that will be intended for objective observation; not "which one sounds better", but "can any distortion be heard or measured".
I wouldn't mind the subjective listening approach, but in the threads I've seen it rarely results in progress. Besides, as others have noted this isn't a tape vs. digital comparison, it's a strict evaluation of digital distortions. Ideally we would evaluate a live but 100% repeatable source through an analog input chain against the A/D/A, but I can't share that on internet . . .
There's no reason for "them" to start producing again. The situation has changed radically (and it did not happen naturally, btw). It's no longer about producing a Through-The-Ear-Mind-Shocking Great Recording. It's all about competing over presentation and instant mass distribution throughout the strategically iPodized and Cellularized population.
].
