On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are adhered to
>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of course, be
>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been the
>>>>> case.
>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl can be
>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>
>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>
>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3 thickness of vinyl
>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a small vinyl collection.
>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7" singles
>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about preferring
>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a measurably
>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>
>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible evidence
>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>
>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>> ???
>>
>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>
> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the microphone you convert it to digital.
> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it a digital representation of frequency and volume.

Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
signal. Each stage adds some distortion and noise of its own, too. Yes,
minimal, but it is there, can't be avoided.

In the end, what matters is if the overall "alterations" sound better to
the ear if done one way or the other. And apparently no one knows why
some feel that analogue sounds better (with a blind test), nobody has
explained it in detail (maths). Once somebody finds this out, those
alterations can be emulated in digital and there will be no difference.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 11:51:21 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> >> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> >>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are adhered to
> >>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of course, be
> >>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been the
> >>>>> case.
> >>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
> >>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl can be
> >>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
> >>>
> >>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
> >>>
> >>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
> >>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3 thickness of vinyl
> >>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a small vinyl collection.
> >>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7" singles
> >>> on systems that were up to it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about preferring
> >>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a measurably
> >>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible evidence
> >>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
> >>>
> >>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
> >>> Sound is analogue.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> geoff
> >> ???
> >>
> >> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
> >
> > you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the microphone you convert it to digital.
> > which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it a digital representation of frequency and volume.
> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
> signal.

Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most of which is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
and pulses.
where do you think you get digital noise from in photos ?
How is light noisy ? Was taking a few shots of the moon last night, and while going through the settings there was an option
to reduce digital noise. The only analogue noise I could hear was my cat snoring.

>Each stage adds some distortion and noise of its own, too. Yes,
> minimal, but it is there, can't be avoided.

From vocal cords to the ear where are these noises. Tinnitus.
Someone talking...

I can hear the noise my light dimmer makes, if it werent; chopping up the signal to get pulse width modulation
it would be making a noise, if it were using ohms law to adjust the brightness.

>
>
> In the end, what matters is if the overall "alterations" sound better to
> the ear if done one way or the other.

Yes and that depends on the final product.

> And apparently no one knows why
> some feel that analogue sounds better (with a blind test), nobody has
> explained it in detail (maths).

Maybe that's the fault of the language used.
No ones really been able to describe love and love at first sight some don't believe it exists.
> Once somebody finds this out, those
> alterations can be emulated in digital and there will be no difference.

Maybe the alterations are the problem.

So you'll be adding stuff like extra sugar to burgers to make them taste better.
It does seem that there is a significant differnce in what people like.

I'ev tried hersley chocolate and I think it's horrible tastes nothing like real chocolate.
I used to quite like cadburys, but not any more I prefer lindt chocolate, sure it's more expensive.

I wish I had the oppertunity to try a MacD'S Fries in the UK and then from the US
which I've heard taste much better because they have 14 additives and the UK version has 4.

>
> --
> Cheers, Carlos.

In article <7e399b94-98d3-4974-b3f6-93dc46210291n@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > All those processes are far superior to the best, the heaviest, the
> > widest groove-spaced, vinyl anybody has ever produced. Even at mere CD
> > spec.
>
> But you've already destroyed the original sound by cutting it up in the first
> p[lace,
> then you further compress it to make it sound better.

there is no destruction.

> Vinyl records beat CDs for first time in decades
> Consumers bought 41.3 million vinyl LPs and 200,000 vinyl singles in 2022, an
> increase of 3.2%. CD sales decreased 28% to 33.4 million albums and 100,000 CD singles.18 Mar 2023

comparing two obsolete formats is stupid.

now go look at the popularity of streaming and digital downloads.

In article <63b47bd8-c231-4007-bb3f-51cd973a04dan@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
> > signal.
>
> Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most of which
> is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
> and pulses.

not relevant to sampling.

> where do you think you get digital noise from in photos ?

almost entirely from the sensor, before it's sampled.

On 26/05/2023 10:09 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are adhered to
>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of course, be
>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been the
>>>>> case.
>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl can be
>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>
>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>
>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3 thickness of vinyl
>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a small vinyl collection.
>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7" singles
>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about preferring
>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a measurably
>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>
>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible evidence
>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>
>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>> ???
>>
>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>
> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the microphone you convert it to digital.

Yes. And ?
> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it a digital representation of frequency and volume.

To a far great accuracy in all aspects that is achievable with vinyl or
tape.

>>
>> And also an A-D converter on the original recording side, or in the
>> transcribing from tape side.
>
> which comes before you store it on anything whether analogue or digital.
> which is why we use higher numbers of digital samples.
> 44 or 48KHz isn't the best you can achieved but it is for general purpose CDs'

And is still much better in all aspects than vinyl or tape. Unless
hugely ineptly implemented.

>> All those processes are far superior to the best, the heaviest, the
>> widest groove-spaced, vinyl anybody has ever produced. Even at mere CD spec.
>
> But you've already destroyed the original sound by cutting it up in the first p[lace,
> then you further compress it to make it sound better.

No you haven't. You don't need to compress it at all, unlike with vinyl.
Or do you mean data-reduction 'compession' for MP3 etc, which is
something else completely and irrelevant to this discussion ?

>> Not sure how this translates to colour accuracy (easily tweak in post)
>> or dynamic range of film v. best digital. I'm sure somebody can tell us.
>
> you'd have to define accuracy compared to precision .
> We talk about the wavelenght of light which is analogue , individual photon are essentially digital.
>
> And whether your talking about the retina or the ear drum both are essentially analogue.
> Then you have to decide whether watching a landscape on a digital screen is better than looking at it
> in real life.
>
> Similar to going to gigs and concerts.

???

>
> The main advantage of digital is how easy it is to manupulate, store and copy.

No. All true, but the main advantage is the hugely superior recording
quality and bit-perfect reproduction of the delivery media.

> Sales aren't the best way of looking at this as most want something for nothing or very little.
> You may well think spotify is the best quality music you can get because it's digital, and choose the way they cut the quality
> of the sound through 'digital and bandwidth limiting'
>
> Vinyl records beat CDs for first time in decades
> Consumers bought 41.3 million vinyl LPs and 200,000 vinyl singles in 2022, an increase of 3.2%. CD sales decreased 28% to 33.4 million albums and 100,000 CD singles.18 Mar 2023

The power of advertising, fashion , and ignorance. A bit like saying
McDonalds is the best food.

> https://eu.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/03/18/cd-players-40-years-compact-disc/11307793002/

A rather bizarre article riddled with half-truths and outright fiction.

geoff

On 26/05/2023 11:52 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 11:51:21 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are adhered to
>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of course, be
>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been the
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl can be
>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3 thickness of vinyl
>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a small vinyl collection.
>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7" singles
>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about preferring
>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a measurably
>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible evidence
>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> geoff
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>
>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the microphone you convert it to digital.
>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it a digital representation of frequency and volume.
>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>> signal.
>
> Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most of which is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
> and pulses.

Sorry that's just plain rubbish, unrelated to digital recording or
photography.

geoff

On 2023-05-26 22:35, geoff wrote:
> On 26/05/2023 11:52 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 11:51:21 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl
>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a
>>>>>> small vinyl collection.
>>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7"
>>>>>> singles
>>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible
>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>> ???
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>>
>>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>>>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it
>>>> a digital representation of frequency and volume.
>>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>>> signal.
>>
>> Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most of
>> which is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
>> and pulses.
>
> Sorry that's just plain rubbish, unrelated to digital recording or
> photography.

No it's not. Indeed one of the worst is quantization noise.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On 28/05/2023 3:34 am, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-05-26 22:35, geoff wrote:
>> On 26/05/2023 11:52 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 11:51:21 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always
>>>>>>>>> been the
>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl
>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality
>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a
>>>>>>> small vinyl collection.
>>>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7"
>>>>>>> singles
>>>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>>>
>>>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>>>>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>>>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it
>>>>> a digital representation of frequency and volume.
>>>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>>>> signal.
>>>
>>> Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most
>>> of which is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
>>> and pulses.
>>
>> Sorry that's just plain rubbish, unrelated to digital recording or
>> photography.
>
> No it's not.  Indeed one of the worst is quantization noise.
>

Yes it is rubbish. In audio for quantisation-noise to be a factor to
would have to have an incredibly incompetent method of input gain to the
A-D. If optimised (which is hardly difficult) even at 16 bits. Done
properly the results remain orders of magnitude lower distortion (ANY
distortion) than achievable on vinyl, and a least one order better than
the best analogue tape.

geoff

On 2023-05-27 21:58, geoff wrote:
> On 28/05/2023 3:34 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-05-26 22:35, geoff wrote:
>>> On 26/05/2023 11:52 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 11:51:21 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always
>>>>>>>>>> been the
>>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises,
>>>>>>>>> distortion,
>>>>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in
>>>>>>>>> vinyl can be
>>>>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under
>>>>>>>> exposure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality
>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>>>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a
>>>>>>>> small vinyl collection.
>>>>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7"
>>>>>>>> singles
>>>>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible
>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>>>>>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>>>>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give
>>>>>> it a digital representation of frequency and volume.
>>>>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>>>>> signal.
>>>>
>>>> Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most
>>>> of which is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
>>>> and pulses.
>>>
>>> Sorry that's just plain rubbish, unrelated to digital recording or
>>> photography.
>>
>> No it's not.  Indeed one of the worst is quantization noise.
>>
>
>
> Yes it is rubbish. In audio for quantisation-noise to be a factor to
> would have to have an incredibly incompetent method of input gain to the
> A-D. If optimised (which is hardly difficult) even at 16 bits. Done
> properly the results remain orders of magnitude lower distortion (ANY
> distortion) than achievable on vinyl, and a least one order better than
> the best analogue tape.

I wasn't even comparing to analog. Simply put, quantization noise, is
something that needs consideration in the system design. Period.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 14:55:21 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <7e399b94-98d3-4974...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > All those processes are far superior to the best, the heaviest, the
> > > widest groove-spaced, vinyl anybody has ever produced. Even at mere CD
> > > spec.
> >
> > But you've already destroyed the original sound by cutting it up in the first
> > p[lace,
> > then you further compress it to make it sound better.
> there is no destruction.

They use it for impact especailly during ad breaks on TV that's why ads tend to sound louder than the film you are watching.

> > Vinyl records beat CDs for first time in decades
> > Consumers bought 41.3 million vinyl LPs and 200,000 vinyl singles in 2022, an
> > increase of 3.2%. CD sales decreased 28% to 33.4 million albums and 100,000 CD singles.18 Mar 2023
> comparing two obsolete formats is stupid.

Hardley obsolete.
>
> now go look at the popularity of streaming and digital downloads.

Streaming is pretty shit quality.
Downloads are better when you get a choice of formats.

On 2023-06-05 13:29, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 14:55:21 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>> In article <7e399b94-98d3-4974...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> All those processes are far superior to the best, the heaviest, the
>>>> widest groove-spaced, vinyl anybody has ever produced. Even at mere CD
>>>> spec.
>>>
>>> But you've already destroyed the original sound by cutting it up in the first
>>> p[lace,
>>> then you further compress it to make it sound better.
>> there is no destruction.
>
> They use it for impact especailly during ad breaks on TV that's why ads tend to sound louder than the film you are watching.

Common! They have been using that technique since decades. With analog
TV, certainly.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 27/05/2023 1:53 am, nospam wrote:
> In article <7e399b94-98d3-4974-b3f6-93dc46210291n@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> All those processes are far superior to the best, the heaviest, the
>>> widest groove-spaced, vinyl anybody has ever produced. Even at mere CD
>>> spec.
>>
>> But you've already destroyed the original sound by cutting it up in the first
>> p[lace,
>> then you further compress it to make it sound better.
>
> there is no destruction.
>
>
>
>> Vinyl records beat CDs for first time in decades
>> Consumers bought 41.3 million vinyl LPs and 200,000 vinyl singles in 2022, an
>> increase of 3.2%. CD sales decreased 28% to 33.4 million albums and 100,000 CD singles.18 Mar 2023
>
> comparing two obsolete formats is stupid.
>
> now go look at the popularity of streaming and digital downloads.

'Popularity' has nothing to do with quality.

The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
inferior to CD.

Even MQA is not lossless. FLAC or course at 44k1/16/s is identical to
CD, and of course higher spec FLAC are superior to anything.

geoff

On 29/05/2023 1:02 am, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-05-27 21:58, geoff wrote:
>> On 28/05/2023 3:34 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-26 22:35, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 26/05/2023 11:52 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 11:51:21 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always
>>>>>>>>>>> been the
>>>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises,
>>>>>>>>>> distortion,
>>>>>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in
>>>>>>>>>> vinyl can be
>>>>>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under
>>>>>>>>> exposure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality
>>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>>>>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>>>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a
>>>>>>>>> small vinyl collection.
>>>>>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7"
>>>>>>>>> singles
>>>>>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite
>>>>>>>>>> incontrovertible evidence
>>>>>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>> ???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>>>>>>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>>>>>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give
>>>>>>> it a digital representation of frequency and volume.
>>>>>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>>>>>> signal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noise is defined as unwanted signal. You get digital noise too most
>>>>> of which is from fast switching , rising and falling edges
>>>>> and pulses.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry that's just plain rubbish, unrelated to digital recording or
>>>> photography.
>>>
>>> No it's not.  Indeed one of the worst is quantization noise.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it is rubbish. In audio for quantisation-noise to be a factor to
>> would have to have an incredibly incompetent method of input gain to
>> the A-D. If optimised (which is hardly difficult) even at 16 bits.
>> Done properly the results remain orders of magnitude lower distortion
>> (ANY distortion) than achievable on vinyl, and a least one order
>> better than the best analogue tape.
>
> I wasn't even comparing to analog.  Simply put, quantization noise, is
> something that needs consideration in the system design.  Period.

Quantisation noise (unless hugely incompetently recorded) is hugely
lower than anything capable of being even reproduced on vinyl.

geff

On 26/05/2023 10:46 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been the
>>>>>> case.
>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl
>>>>> can be
>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>>
>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a small
>>>> vinyl collection.
>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7" singles
>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>
>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>> ???
>>>
>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>
>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it a
>> digital representation of frequency and volume.
>
> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
> signal. Each stage adds some distortion and noise of its own, too. Yes,
> minimal, but it is there, can't be avoided.

It is inaudible unless you normalise very quietly recorded sound up to
higher levels. Which is not done, else the loud bit would be totally
clipped !

And even in most CDs any quantisation noise is below that of the replay
chain, and swamped by noice in the source media (except for higher-spec
digital recording, as in 24-bit), and by distortion inevitable in all
speakers.

geoff

In article <3PacnZY_yem-cuL5nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >
> >> Vinyl records beat CDs for first time in decades
> >> Consumers bought 41.3 million vinyl LPs and 200,000 vinyl singles in 2022,
> >> an
> >> increase of 3.2%. CD sales decreased 28% to 33.4 million albums and
> >> 100,000 CD singles.18 Mar 2023
> >
> > comparing two obsolete formats is stupid.
> >
> > now go look at the popularity of streaming and digital downloads.
>
> 'Popularity' has nothing to do with quality.

nobody said it did.

some people like to claim vinyl records are making some sort of a
comeback. while it's true sales have increased, it's still a tiny
fraction compared to streaming.

> The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
> inferior to CD.

nope. they're audibly indistinguishable from cd, and in many cases,
*better* (e.g., spatial audio).

> Even MQA is not lossless. FLAC or course at 44k1/16/s is identical to
> CD, and of course higher spec FLAC are superior to anything.

lossless isn't needed.

On 2023-06-07 04:55, geoff wrote:
> On 26/05/2023 10:46 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been the
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a small
>>>>> vinyl collection.
>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7" singles
>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible
>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> geoff
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>
>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it a
>>> digital representation of frequency and volume.
>>
>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>> signal. Each stage adds some distortion and noise of its own, too.
>> Yes, minimal, but it is there, can't be avoided.
>
> It is inaudible unless you normalise very quietly recorded sound up to
> higher levels. Which is not done, else the loud bit would be totally
> clipped !

I clearly remember hearing the hiss on vinyls.

>
> And even in most CDs any quantisation noise is below that of the replay
> chain, and swamped by noice in the source media (except for higher-spec
> digital recording, as in 24-bit), and by distortion inevitable in all
> speakers.
>
> geoff
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-06-06 22:46, geoff wrote:
> On 29/05/2023 1:02 am, Alan Browne wrote:

>>
>> I wasn't even comparing to analog.  Simply put, quantization noise, is
>> something that needs consideration in the system design.  Period.
>
> Quantisation noise (unless hugely incompetently recorded) is hugely
> lower than anything capable of being even reproduced on vinyl.

I wasn't referring to vinyl.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On 8/06/2023 12:04 am, nospam wrote:
> In article <3PacnZY_yem-cuL5nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Vinyl records beat CDs for first time in decades
>>>> Consumers bought 41.3 million vinyl LPs and 200,000 vinyl singles in 2022,
>>>> an
>>>> increase of 3.2%. CD sales decreased 28% to 33.4 million albums and
>>>> 100,000 CD singles.18 Mar 2023
>>>
>>> comparing two obsolete formats is stupid.
>>>
>>> now go look at the popularity of streaming and digital downloads.
>>
>> 'Popularity' has nothing to do with quality.
>
> nobody said it did.
>
> some people like to claim vinyl records are making some sort of a
> comeback. while it's true sales have increased, it's still a tiny
> fraction compared to streaming.

True.

>
>> The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
>> inferior to CD.
>
> nope. they're audibly indistinguishable from cd, and in many cases,
> *better* (e.g., spatial audio).

Yes. And instamatic photos are indistinguishable from 35mm. Ha ha. I
guess you are not into sound. And 'Spatial Audio' is nothing to do with
fidelity as such. In all but recordings made specifically for it,it is
at best flawed and fraught concept and at worst no more than a gimmick.

>> Even MQA is not lossless. FLAC or course at 44k1/16/s is identical to
>> CD, and of course higher spec FLAC are superior to anything.
>
> lossless isn't needed.

On many peoples' replay systems maybe not a huge benefit. But for those
serious the flaws of lesser systems are clear.

geoff

On 8/06/2023 1:10 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-06-07 04:55, geoff wrote:
>> On 26/05/2023 10:46 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-26 12:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 01:11:09 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 25/05/2023 11:59 pm, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 00:17:24 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/05/2023 10:27 pm, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The technical constraints, where mastering is concerned, are
>>>>>>>> adhered to
>>>>>>>> in order to avoid distortion and other problems. CDs can, of
>>>>>>>> course, be
>>>>>>>> mastered in a similar way. Historically, that hasn't always been
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>> And all the vinyl imperfections (mastering compromises, distortion,
>>>>>>> noise, wow, flutter, frequency anomalies, etc) inherent in vinyl
>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> re-recorded to CD and reproduced exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like you can use filters in photography to over/under exposure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was also cheap vinyl pressings and the better quality versions.
>>>>>> Promos were usually slightly better. Then there were I think 3
>>>>>> thickness of vinyl
>>>>>> well I have 3 differnt thicknesses of vinyl and I only have a
>>>>>> small vinyl collection.
>>>>>> Then there were 12" singles which did sound better than the 7"
>>>>>> singles
>>>>>> on systems that were up to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aesthetics are subjective. There's nothing delusional about
>>>>>>>> preferring
>>>>>>>> one thing over another or having nostalgia. Believing that a
>>>>>>>> measurably
>>>>>>>> less capable format is better is misinformed, not delusional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But sticking to the misinformed belief despite incontrovertible
>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>> to the contrary borders on delusional. A bit like religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that CDs must sound better because they are better quaility.
>>>>>> Sound is analogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>> ???
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Sound is analogue" ? Yes. That's why there is a D-A converter.
>>>>
>>>> you need the A-D first though. Because sound is analogue from the
>>>> microphone you convert it to digital.
>>>> which basically mean cutting it up into discrete slices, to give it
>>>> a digital representation of frequency and volume.
>>>
>>> Yes, but with analogue you have electrical noise which distorts the
>>> signal. Each stage adds some distortion and noise of its own, too.
>>> Yes, minimal, but it is there, can't be avoided.
>>
>> It is inaudible unless you normalise very quietly recorded sound up to
>> higher levels. Which is not done, else the loud bit would be totally
>> clipped !
>
> I clearly remember hearing the hiss on vinyls.

Yes. From analogue tape. You will never had heard hiss from a digital
recording (except surface-noise from vinyl !).

geoff

On 8/06/2023 3:07 am, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-06-06 22:46, geoff wrote:
>> On 29/05/2023 1:02 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I wasn't even comparing to analog.  Simply put, quantization noise,
>>> is something that needs consideration in the system design.  Period.
>>
>> Quantisation noise (unless hugely incompetently recorded) is hugely
>> lower than anything capable of being even reproduced on vinyl.
>
> I wasn't referring to vinyl.
>
>

Name a digital recording where you imagine that can hear quantisation noise.

geoff

In article <5aqdnQqi4c0bZh35nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >
> >> The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
> >> inferior to CD.
> >
> > nope. they're audibly indistinguishable from cd, and in many cases,
> > *better* (e.g., spatial audio).
>
> Yes. And instamatic photos are indistinguishable from 35mm. Ha ha.

straw man.

> I guess you are not into sound.

don't need to be.

the laws of mathematics and sampling theory have not been overturned
and there is no indication that will ever happen.

perhaps you have some inside info to the contrary, in which case, go
win your nobel prize rather than post on usenet.

> And 'Spatial Audio' is nothing to do with
> fidelity as such. In all but recordings made specifically for it,it is
> at best flawed and fraught concept and at worst no more than a gimmick.

it's hardly a gimmick.

> >> Even MQA is not lossless. FLAC or course at 44k1/16/s is identical to
> >> CD, and of course higher spec FLAC are superior to anything.
> >
> > lossless isn't needed.
>
> On many peoples' replay systems maybe not a huge benefit. But for those
> serious the flaws of lesser systems are clear.

in numerous objective double-blind tests, people consistently can't
tell the difference, and do no better than chance.

On 8/06/2023 10:06 am, nospam wrote:
> In article <5aqdnQqi4c0bZh35nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
>>>> inferior to CD.
>>>
>>> nope. they're audibly indistinguishable from cd, and in many cases,
>>> *better* (e.g., spatial audio).
>>
>> Yes. And instamatic photos are indistinguishable from 35mm. Ha ha.
>
> straw man.

JPG v. RAW - there is no difference ?
>
>> I guess you are not into sound.
>
> don't need to be.
>
> the laws of mathematics and sampling theory have not been overturned
> and there is no indication that will ever happen.

Sampling theory has zero to do with data-reduction algorithms for
streaming audio.

> perhaps you have some inside info to the contrary, in which case, go
> win your nobel prize rather than post on usenet.

Sampling theory has zero to do with data-reduction algorithms for audio
file-size reduction and for streaming.

>> And 'Spatial Audio' is nothing to do with
>> fidelity as such. In all but recordings made specifically for it,it is
>> at best flawed and fraught concept and at worst no more than a gimmick.
>
> it's hardly a gimmick.

When normal stereo recordings are sprayed out in multiple directions as
essentially a sound-effect, yes it is. And read the first half of the
sentence.

>>>> Even MQA is not lossless. FLAC or course at 44k1/16/s is identical to
>>>> CD, and of course higher spec FLAC are superior to anything.
>>>
>>> lossless isn't needed.
>>
>> On many peoples' replay systems maybe not a huge benefit. But for those
>> serious the flaws of lesser systems are clear.
>
> in numerous objective double-blind tests, people consistently can't
> tell the difference, and do no better than chance.

On Jun 7, 2023, geoff wrote
(in article<5aqdnQqi4c0bZh35nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>):
>
> >
> > > The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
> > > inferior to CD.

“Digital downloads” covers a wide range of quality.

In article <1AKdnXOTQdFWnBz5nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >>>> The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
> >>>> inferior to CD.
> >>>
> >>> nope. they're audibly indistinguishable from cd, and in many cases,
> >>> *better* (e.g., spatial audio).
> >>
> >> Yes. And instamatic photos are indistinguishable from 35mm. Ha ha.
> >
> > straw man.
>
> JPG v. RAW - there is no difference ?

goalpost movement detected.

btw, instamatic film is 35mm wide and there were slrs that used it.

> >> I guess you are not into sound.
> >
> > don't need to be.
> >
> > the laws of mathematics and sampling theory have not been overturned
> > and there is no indication that will ever happen.
>
> Sampling theory has zero to do with data-reduction algorithms for
> streaming audio.

actually, it does. where do you think the original data came from?

> > in numerous objective double-blind tests, people consistently can't
> > tell the difference, and do no better than chance.

^^ this ^^

In article <0001HW.2A313EDD007456FF30619D38F@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,
Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > > > The 'digital downloads' listened to by most people are significantly
> > > > inferior to CD.
>
> ³Digital downloads² covers a wide range of quality.

same with cds.

some of the early cds were mastered from vinyl records, since that's
all that existed for that particular piece.