lonewhitefly
Active member
To what end? what will we ultimately gain from this experiment? I still don't get it
To what end? what will we ultimately gain from this experiment? I still don't get it
The OP posed a question, something like 'does analog move more air?' For some, this question generated responses based on physics. For others, the question generated philosophical responses.
Philosophical responses are not counter arguments to responses based on physics, and vice versa, so we have endless pages of debate where there is no resolution possible . . . nor does there need to be.
In the pro-analog camp, it seems to me that the answers are mostly 'metaphysical'. The best of these might have even been yours, i.e. that analog has some kind of 'magical' properties. I can go along with that. For example, I think there is something 'magical' about steam locomotives that is not present in diesel or electric. I accept, though, that this 'magical' quality does not necessarily mean that steam power is more efficient or more effective than modern counterparts.
So we have a range of responses, mostly dwelling on two themes:
1 Analog is better because it sounds better
2 Analog is better because it is more accurate.
The first theme is fine by me. It's also non-contestable. "Sounding better" is subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and no-one can presume authority over what someone else prefers (or does not prefer). This, of course, means that the statement "digital is better because it sounds better" is as equally valid and non-contestable.
The second theme is contestable, because it is possible to develop experiments and measure the results. MSH has not bought into the debate of which sounds better, and has focussed on the physics. If the original question was intended to elicit a physical answer, MSH has taken the running on providing information to that end. From my perspective, VP is trying to mount a case that supports 2, but his responses seem to me to be mainly evasions or distortions.
Through all this, there are contributions from a variety of posters who believe 1, but believe that it is contestable and unchallengeable. This seems like a contradiction (and perhaps it is), but it's no different to, say, a religion saying "we know what's right, and if you differ, you are a heretic."
So what will we get from this?
An experiment may show that one or other format is more accurate than the other. But you are right . . . this will have no bearing on what format people prefer to listen to.
The OP posed a question, something like 'does analog move more air?' For some, this question generated responses based on physics. For others, the question generated philosophical responses.
Philosophical responses are not counter arguments to responses based on physics, and vice versa, so we have endless pages of debate where there is no resolution possible . . . nor does there need to be.
In the pro-analog camp, it seems to me that the answers are mostly 'metaphysical'. The best of these might have even been yours, i.e. that analog has some kind of 'magical' properties. I can go along with that. For example, I think there is something 'magical' about steam locomotives that is not present in diesel or electric. I accept, though, that this 'magical' quality does not necessarily mean that steam power is more efficient or more effective than modern counterparts.
So we have a range of responses, mostly dwelling on two themes:
1 Analog is better because it sounds better
2 Analog is better because it is more accurate.
The first theme is fine by me. It's also non-contestable. "Sounding better" is subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and no-one can presume authority over what someone else prefers (or does not prefer). This, of course, means that the statement "digital is better because it sounds better" is as equally valid and non-contestable.
The second theme is contestable, because it is possible to develop experiments and measure the results. MSH has not bought into the debate of which sounds better, and has focussed on the physics. If the original question was intended to elicit a physical answer, MSH has taken the running on providing information to that end. From my perspective, VP is trying to mount a case that supports 2, but his responses seem to me to be mainly evasions or distortions.
Through all this, there are contributions from a variety of posters who believe 1, but believe that it is contestable and unchallengeable. This seems like a contradiction (and perhaps it is), but it's no different to, say, a religion saying "we know what's right, and if you differ, you are a heretic."
So what will we get from this?
An experiment may show that one or other format is more accurate than the other. But you are right . . . this will have no bearing on what format people prefer to listen to.
The only thing I would like to add is that I believe 'accurate' is also subjective. So I think we're chasing our own (or each others') tails.
My position here is this: I feel Analog sounds better, but I never specifically said why. I do however feel Digital leaves something out specifically in the high frequencies which seem to sound harsh and thin.
" . . .Analog keeps the original signal as true as possible. Sure there is coloration and artifacts but it is still kept in its original infinite resolution state."
But it gets a bit tricky here:
This quote cited by VP is difficult to untangle. "Analog keeps the original signal as true as possible" . . . well, yes. But so does digital.
Is Digital "as true as possible" if it goes through an A/D and D/A converter? This is why I look forward to my experiments recording various waveforms and frequencies and observe the output from my CD and DAT recorders on my Tektronix 2246.
VP
Not an Analog signal, no way! Apparently you dont understand Electricity at all.
Analog signal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote taken from the above link "An analog signal has a theoretically infinite resolution"
VP
I have $2.75 in my pocket just now.