Dolby used tried to get rid of recording (introduced) media noise that causes the hiss you hear in (admittedly lower end) tape systems. Higher transport speeds help this of course, but only up to a point.
If you read my other post, there is alot more noise to put up with and compensate for in Analog recording systems than in digital. You can even simulate the noise introduced by these analog/mechanical systems if you are feeling particularly nostalgic.
In audio, the higher sampling rates and more precise A/D is getting more and more mainstream every day. How else do you expect the industry to force people to buy their "obsolete" systems. LOL.
rg
graywolf wrote:
You are confusing noise with fidelity. They are different things entirely. Some are willing to put up with a bit of noise to hear the music as close to exactly as played as possible. Some prefer to less noise and accept less fidelity to get it.
We have the same thing in digit v. analog prints. Some actually like the creamy smoothness that lack of detail causes in digital. Some put up with the grain (noise) to get the finest possible detail.
Of course if you can get a high enough sampling rate, digital is both noiseless and ultra-fidelity as far as human systems can detect, but that is still very expensive (far out of the consumer range) equipment wise, both in audio and photography.
And by the way, do not confuse noise (grain or hiss) with static (pulses). Static is fairly easy to filter out in both systems.
--
Gonz wrote:
Huh? Analog mag tape original recordings are crap. Especially the older ones before metal came along. Horrible S/N ratio. Thats why Dolby went through such elaborate schemes to try to cut down on high frequency noise, which sounds like hiss to us. High end digital is the way to go, conventional CD's at lower bit stream rates cannot duplicate this, but higher end audio DVD's and some CD formats are now beginning to come out with the high bit stream rate reproduction, which is light years ahead of any analog recording ever made. Digital straight from the pre-amps. Quiet periods are where you can tell the difference immediately.
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The vinyl being produced today is mostly reissues of the finest recordings, both musically and sonically, on very high quality thick virgin vinyl for the best possible sound quality.
About 99 percent of these masters are ANALOG not digital because those are the best and these recordings are GREAT MUSIC not just boring demos no one wants to hear. The main reason they are economically viable is that the original LPS are rare and valuable in excellent or better condition so the $20-$30 for a good reissue seems like a bargain the discriminating music lover.
JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
On 25 Aug 2004 at 21:23, P�l Jensen wrote:
Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore?
REPLY:
Yes. It is a thriving business. But of course it is mostly high-end users who are interested. Not mass market. Audiophile issues are popular.
And few recordings (mostly digital in origin) are available in vinyl, a
lot of the Audiophile label recordings are esoteric and are designed primarily
to display the capabilities of ones system when having your audiophile
friends over for a listening session. :-)
It's akin to handing out your visiting photo pals loupes and lens test
chart images shot on 4x5 sheet film. Very impressive but boring as bat sh*t.
Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
