Re: [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy

[seva <seva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steven C. Barr wrote:
> ...I tend to doubt that, if an existing analog
> sound source is converted to a digital file without any further
> processing, there exists anyone who can notice a difference?


i agree that it is possible to nearly perfectly preserve the analog recordings.
MAG had recommended to never destroy archives of analog because of future
development, including complete removal of wow and flutter by using the
remaining bias signature as a "clock". (this has been done by a NYC man, can't
remember his name now).  that was part of my 38kB post...

in conversations informal and otherwise, bob ludwig and many other greats in
audio have indicated that high resolution analog-digital conversion *can* retain
the nuances of analog tape. there's a lot of assumption in this however.

here are the assumptive points.
the quality of the AD converter is paramount.
the bitdepth and the sampling rates are critical. (as richard hess has pointed
out, Nyquist already addresses the urban myth about steps in the waveform).
the playback machine and all cabling is critical.

so what does it take? something on the order of a Weiss AD mark II converter, or
a Pacific Microsonics, 24bits of real data (which these units will provide) and
at least 88.2kHz sampling rate, 176.4kHz being ideal. i think i've already
mentioned my view that 176.4 is the ultimate rate for maximum compatibility with
digital media (CD, DVD-A, DSD)....

and yes, after that, no processing!

seva