From a purely audio-centric standpoint, pure analog sound recorded onto a medium that does not come into direct contact with the instrument that interprets that data (the laser on a CD player) would be vastly superior to digital audio on the same medium. With all of the digital to analog conversions that take place in a modern stereo system, it seems to me that a purely analog system would really be sweet.
For those of you that don't know or lack the historical perspective to realize, the advantage of a CD is that, short of the aluminum on the reverse side of the disk flaking off due to age, they retain the same level of playability as when purchased new. Records, Magnetic Tape and other, older forms of audio recording, are subject to the wear and tear they encounter with every use. Also, the quality of recording used for CD's is generally really high.
However, sound is not, in and of itself, digital in nature. As you know from your basic, high school physics class, sound is in wave form. It is not a series of ones and zeros.
So, in order for a CD to be even remotely audible, the data on the disc has to be converted to analog sound- eventually. Most modern, mid-to-high level stereo and home theatre systems leave that to the very last step. The signal stays digital until it has to head out to the speakers to prevent signal degredation due to a lot of conversions.
However, your average home theare system flips back and forth between digital and analogue to reduce cost (meaning, they use whatever component is necessary to get sound, but doesn't cost a lot).
Anyways, I want the opposite. I want the signal to always be analogue- from the CD to the speaker. And why not? It would be vastly preferable and, well, really freaking shweet.
The technology exists, too. Originally, the audio tracks on laserdiscs were analog. Unfortunately, the transfer from the original medium was usually crappy so, despite the potential quality of the recording, the source material sucked so much that it didn't matter. There are some great laserdiscs with analogue tracks, though. Also, when digital audio became the big fad, most laserdiscs started focusing on the digital audio tracks instead.
The only concern would be space. Analogue tracks would require a lot more detail than digital ones, so they'd probably take up a lot more space on a disc. Of course, with the technology we have these days (DVD, HD-DVD et al), it seems like we could cram anything into a 5" piece of round plastic.
Wow. I think my medication is kicking in. Normally I wouldn't care to write long posts about stuff people probably wouldn't care about, but this is numero dos for me today.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I know that there are record players which use lasers to read the disks. I'm not sure whether or not they are purely analog, but I know that they exist.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I've seen them. They cost an arm and a leg.
Of course, you also have to consider that there are no new vinyl records being produced these days. So, whatever you play on those record players will have already been worn by a needle in the past.
Most of the vinyle audiophile sites I've been to don't really talk about that technology. They mostly focus on high-end turntables and cartridges/stylii that cost $13,000 a piece.
I wish I could afford that kind of gear, but I guess I'll have to deal with my restored Dual turntable and $40 Audio-Technica cartridge.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Of course, you also have to consider that there are no new vinyl records being produced these days. So, whatever you play on those record players will have already been worn by a needle in the past.
Actually, a surprisingly large amount of music can still be found on vinyl. If it's ever been on the radio or on any music TV station, chances are it's on vinyl - this includes both 33 1/3 albums and 45 singles. Check your Tower Records the next time you go.
Also, I'm not sure whether music DVD technology uses analog audio or really, really detailed digital, but DVD music definitely sounds superior to CD stuff and, judging from the few I've seen, is taking up almost all the space on the disks.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
DVD audio is still digital.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
From a signal integrety standpoint, I would prefer that the signal be transmitted digitally. As long as no massive errors occur, the signal received will be the EXACT reconstruction of the signal sent. With analog, it is impossible to send a lossless transmission.
There's nothing inherently wrong with digital-other than you always lost some information Seriously though, to the human ear all you need to do is sample at a high enough frequency that aliasing does not occur-or (more practically) the human ear and body can't detect it. Of course, in sampling the harmonics of a frequency (musical notes), the CD sampling rate can violate the Nyquist criterion leading to a aliasing and the degradation of quality. For example, the timbre of the instrument won't sound as 'rich' or 'full.' From what I understand, the technology is there, just the consumer demand isn't. Too bad for the real audiophiles.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There are many places around here to get new vinyl, particularly stuff that DJs like. (Club/dance DJs, I mean.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
DVD audio is 24-bit/96 kHz, while CD audio is 16-bit/44.1 kHz.
I've also seen plenty of new albums released on vinyl (not nearly as many as are released on CD, of course).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: DVD audio is 24-bit/96 kHz, while CD audio is 16-bit/44.1 kHz.
You still need a sound system rated at 96mhz right? I mean, the sound quality is only as good as the poorest component, (part of the reason I always laugh at TV commercials for Bose Wave radio, because it includes a sample of how the radio will sound... coming from my Tv set...).
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Sounds like laserdisc technology to me. I completely disagree with you on the analog vs digital stance you have of quality. Not to mention your stance on being an audiophile.
You're basically saying you'd rather get a non-exact replication of sound vs an exact replication every time.
Just because it isn't digital in nature doesn't mean you can't digitally represent it. You can represent very closely with sine and cosine. BTW, even a curve has it's ones and zeros. It all depends on how you represent those ones and zeros to get the same information back.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Newbury Comics (an New England based chain) sells new records. Usually rap though.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously though, to the human ear all you need to do is sample at a high enough frequency that aliasing does not occur-or (more practically) the human ear and body can't detect it. Of course, in sampling the harmonics of a frequency (musical notes), the CD sampling rate can violate the Nyquist criterion leading to a aliasing and the degradation of quality. For example, the timbre of the instrument won't sound as 'rich' or 'full.' From what I understand, the technology is there, just the consumer demand isn't. Too bad for the real audiophiles.