The history of recorded sound follows a path that never included the
quality of sound as a prime criteria. Think me off the deep end, then I
strongly suggest you study the history a bit closer.
What I believe you lack is a reference point. Get out & hear a double
reed instrument, a high hat, a steel drum, a double base, a timpani, a
National steel string guitar or childrens' voices or G-d forbid, the
Grambling Marching Band.
I'm quite familiar with all of those instruments in an acoustic setting,
having played trumpet in an orchestra (nothing too sophisticated as I
don't
play well). I've heard many an analog master tape as well, having worked
in the industry for more than 20 years. I've transferred my share of
30 ips
and 15 ips master tapes, as well as my share of consumer format reels at
slower speeds. I have more than enough reference point. I've also got
the
ears to tell me that analog isn't giving you more than digital, it's
giving
you less. The problem is that most people are accustomed to hearing less
and find more to be a sound they aren't familiar with or comfortable
with. Trust me, I have a reference point.
And I'm certainly not forcing anything on anyone or telling anyone
that it
has to be their "standard". However, I also won't sit by quietly while
people talk about how horrid digital is and listen to things about
digital
that I know to be inaccurate or at the very least based on listening
to an
inferior digital setup. There are people who would spend thousands on a
turntable, carefully selecting which arm, cartridge, stylus, even proper
interconnects just to get the "great sound that analog is capable of" who
think that a $50 CD player that doesn't sound as nice is proof that
digital
stinks. I've heard high end analog. I love the sound it gives. I've
heard
high end digital. I love the sound it gives. To hear someone say that
digital is incapable of what analog does it annoying because it's not
true.
I take you back to the start of this whole thread when I responded to
someone who thought that because digital is based on individual samples,
that the output upon playback would be stepped on a scope, not a smooth
sine wave like it was trying to reproduce. That's total BS and nothing
could be further from the truth. Just because someone doesn't like
digital,
and just because someone falsely believes that digital is incapable of
reproducing what analog can reproduce does not mean that garbage like the
stepped sine wave junk should be spread around as the gospel truth
when it
couldn't be any further from the truth. To that end, I stopped sitting
silently and took the time to speak up. I no more desire to force a
format
on anyone than I desire to destroy all the tape archives from the past 50
years. However, I'm also not going to sit by in a forum that is
supposed to
be made up of professionals and hear someone say that the analog
output of
a DAC would show a stepped wave form instead of a sinewave simply because
they've seem a digital editing setup show the individual steps based
on the
sample values. That's not what comes out of the DAC, that's what it looks
like while in digital format, not after being converted back to
analog. To
say otherwise is to lie or grossly misunderstand the technology.
So tell me where I've forced anyone to accept digital as a standard,
which
you seem to be claiming I've done with your statement that, "its
absurd if
not simply arrogant to force such technology as a STANDARD, which it
AIN'T!"
-----------------
Diamond Productions
Specializing in analog tape & film preservation / restoration in the
digital domain.
Dave Bradley President