A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had read
in HFW to do with Tim de P's views on bitrates and their vinyl equivalents
and said I would post a reference to it, if it ever appeared. Well it's
popped up out of the blue and is, of course, nothing like I remembered it.

It's on 2 pages of the April 2004 edition:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article01.jpg

plus the top left paragraph he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article02.jpg


The 'bitrates' are nothing to do with vinyl it seems - simply Tim De P's
idea of a minimum requirements for digital to come even close.

Now, having said all this, I still have another memory that there are some
pretty impressive figures somewhere that compare vinyl 'information flow'
very favourably with digital bitrates, but I've no idea where from and have
no intention of trying to find out. - I don't need to, I *know* there's more
detail in vinyl played on decent equipment. I can prove that to myself
anytime I feel the need with a number of CD/LP pairings.

(I've even had people here, pointing it out to *me* on my own sodding
kit...!! ;-)

Keith G wrote:

The 'bitrates' are nothing to do with vinyl it seems - simply Tim De P's
idea of a minimum requirements for digital to come even close.

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had read
in HFW to do with Tim de P's views on bitrates and their vinyl equivalents
and said I would post a reference to it, if it ever appeared. Well it's
popped up out of the blue and is, of course, nothing like I remembered it.

It's on 2 pages of the April 2004 edition:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article01.jpg

plus the top left paragraph he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article02.jpg



Actually it gets better on the second page:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article03.jpg

.... a 'Digital Mastering Consultant' who says "I'd rather listen to analogue
masters than digital" and "analogue still has the edge".....!!!


(Ya hafta larf....!!! :-)

"Ian Molton" almost choked on his de-caffinated espresso...

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.

But the point isn't the maximum frequency, it's the content of the audible
waveform . . . .

Remember the idea . . . increased frequency of sampling allows you to
reconstruct a waveform closer to the original analogue form . . . .??

And let's face it, a lot of 'musicality' is based on harmonics and the
interplay of notes, so you really do want a pretty big sampling rate to make
sure you catch it all . . .

________
Geoff B

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message
...

"Ian Molton" almost choked on his de-caffinated espresso...

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.

But the point isn't the maximum frequency, it's the content of the audible
waveform . . . .



Molton, eh?

(I wondered what tit had made that remark!! :-)

Keith G wrote:

A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had read
in HFW

Hi-Fi World is just the sort of mag that Keith would read and believe.
The web site is good for a laugh: http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk

--
Eiron.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

Keith G wrote:

The 'bitrates' are nothing to do with vinyl it seems - simply Tim De
P's idea of a minimum requirements for digital to come even close.

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.

But Tim de Paravincini obviously thinks he can hear it. Just shows how
out-to-lunch he is.

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message

"Ian Molton" almost choked on his de-caffinated espresso...

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.

But the point isn't the maximum frequency, it's the content of the
audible waveform . . . .

Remember the idea . . . increased frequency of sampling allows you to
reconstruct a waveform closer to the original analogue form . . . .??


That idea is well-known to be false.

And let's face it, a lot of 'musicality' is based on harmonics and the
interplay of notes, so you really do want a pretty big sampling rate
to make sure you catch it all . . .

Dumb, dumb, dumber!

New Geoff wrote:
"Ian Molton" almost choked on his de-caffinated espresso...

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.


But the point isn't the maximum frequency, it's the content of the audible
waveform . . . .

Remember the idea . . . increased frequency of sampling allows you to
reconstruct a waveform closer to the original analogue form . . . .??

Up to a point, yes. but as someone else here pointed out - over ~8kHz
humans cant distinguish the difference between sine, triangle, sawtooth,
square at all. thats well below 22kHz.

Eiron wrote:

Keith G wrote:

A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had
read in HFW


Hi-Fi World is just the sort of mag that Keith would read and believe.
The web site is good for a laugh: http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk


I read the Sept issue of it with an article stating (something like)
"the new hi-res digital formats have taken digital closer step towards
matching analogue". You know, more of the "analogue is superior" mantra.

A quote from the article said (something like) "CD is based on
technology used for code developed in the 70s which was considered
inferior even then"

Classic!

:P