|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
 |
|
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
| Quote: | In article <8i0n91pgla3bg5i5kc0khls4t42p5453nh@4ax.com>,
patent3@dircon.co.uk says...
On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:08:09 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
adr5@columbia.edu> wrote:
In article <slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws>,
calmar@calmar.ws
says...
Hi,
I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic
card + good
speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that
only for
the card itself, I would suspect, that that good
computer/soundcard and good speaker combo can be as
good as a good
HiFi System?
So I really don't know much about these things.
For word processing, the computer easily wins. For
music
reproduction, the good HiFi will easily win.
And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
No keyboard on the HiFI.
|
How does the keyboard detract from music reproduction on the
computer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Geoff Wood
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
| Quote: | No keyboard on the HiFI.
How does the keyboard detract from music reproduction on the
computer?
|
Would look pretty crap decor in my lounge.
geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr.T
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:01 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:429d0925$1@clear.net.nz...
| Quote: | Would look pretty crap decor in my lounge.
|
Home entertainment style cases for PC are available now people are using
them for PVR's.
By adding a HQ sound card, you can have a PVR and sound system PC in one
unit. Connect to the HiFi and TV for full HT.
MrT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I used to be very reluctant to believe that
lossless compression would really work although rationally you know it
has to.
|
Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
Tim Martin wrote:
| Quote: | "Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... |
| Quote: | I used to be very reluctant to believe that
lossless compression would really work although
rationally you know
it has to.
Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
|
However to be fair we must say that the best commonly-used
(e.g. CD audio) digital storage almost always compresses the
signal less than analog storage.
| Quote: | That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x
bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x
bits which
can be used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the
original
analog signal.
|
In general the better digital storage formats (e.g. CD
audio) have far greater resolution than the analog signals
they store. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:59:23 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I used to be very reluctant to believe that
lossless compression would really work although rationally you know it
has to.
Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
|
No, it doesn't. This is utter nonsense, but a persistent urban myth.
| Quote: | That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.
|
That's not even theoretically true. Provided that the dynamic range of
the analogue signal, i.e. the range from peak level to noise floor,
can be accommodated within the quoted number of bits, then adding bits
will provide *zero* extra accuracy.
For example, no known music *master* tape hasa dynamic range exceeding
85dB, due to microphone self-noise among other factors, which may be
represented by a fraction more than 14 bits. Hence, 16-bit sampling is
more than adequate for any musical *replay* medium. You'll ideally
have a little more at the recording end, to cater for EQ and
accidental microphone overloads on some tracks, so the ubiquitous
24/96 is useful here, but 16 bits will be more than adequate for the
final mixdown master, and hence for the replay medium.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoff Wood
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Tim Martin" <tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fygne.4449$ci4.544@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
| Quote: |
"Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I used to be very reluctant to believe that
lossless compression would really work although rationally you know it
has to.
Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.
|
What if the original x bits has more resolution than the original media ?
geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:59:23 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.
|
You don't understand sampling, do you? :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:09 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
TIm Martin intoned:
| Quote: | Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
|
You want to bet on that? If you do, consider who's going to be
wagering against you:
Blesser, B.A., "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive
Examination of Theory, Implementation, and Current
Practice," JAES, vol. 26, no. 10, October, 1978.
"Elementary and Basic Aspects of Digital Audio," AES
Digital Audio Collected Papers, Rye, 1983.
Nyquist, H., "Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed,"
Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, April, 1924.
"Certain Topics in Telegraph Transmission Theory," Trans.
AIEE, vol. 47, no. 2, April, 1928
Shannon, C.E., "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, vol. 27, October, 1948.
Vanderkooy, J., and S.P. Lipshitz, "Dither in Digital Audio,"
JAES, vol. 35, no. 12, December, 1987.
"Resolution Below the Least Significant Bit in Digital Audio
Systems with Dither," JAES, vol. 32, no. 3, March, 1984,
Erratum, JAES, vol. 32, no. 11, November, 1984.
There are probably 12-15 other articles that you'll want to study
before you lose your hard earned money betting on an ill-advised
position.
| Quote: | That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits,
it is possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits
which can be used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the
original analog signal.
|
Your assertion directly infers that you can measure any signal
with arbitrary accuracy. To do that requires a system that has
infinite bandwidth and infinite dynamic range. The practical
requirements for that is the necessity of infinite time and
energy.
Beyond what may seem to be a philosphical discussion (it isn't:
it's a direct and inevitable consequence of the your basic
assertion and is proven rigorously in work cited above by Nyquist
and Shannon), the simplem fact is that ANY system of a finite
bandwidth and limited dynamic range can be EXACTLY represented
by a quantized system of finite accuracy.
Nyquist and Shannon show that for a bandwidth of Fb, a sample
rate in excess of 2*Fb is necessary AND sufficient to sample
the signal in the time domain with NO loss in information. In
a similar fashion, they rigorously showed that to fully capture
with NO loss, a signal with a dynamic range of x dB, a sample
size of x/6.02 bits is required (since in binary representation,
the resolution is 6.02 dB/bit.
Assume that a bandwidth of 20 kHz, a sample rate in excess of
2*20 kHz is sufficient to capture the information in the time
with NO loss. Assume a dynamic range (noise floor to maximum
possible level) of 80 dB (VERY generous for LPs), 80/6.02 or
13.3 bits is needed to sufficiently sample in the amplitude
domain with NO loss of accuracy. Increasing the sample rate
or the word size, contrary to your assertion, will NOT produce
any more accuracy.
Thus, a sample rate of 44.1 kHz and a word size of 16 bits can
be shown to be more than sufficient to encode LPs with no loss
or compression at all.
Them's the facts. Do with them what you will.
But I would recommend you not bet against them and I would
also recommend that you not continue to spread misinformation
of the sort:
"Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Kesselman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:09 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
Tim Martin wrote:
| Quote: | That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.
|
Well, yes, analog is _theoretically_ infinite precision. And 1 is
theoretically different from
..999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
.... but for most practical purposes, "good enough" really is Good
Enough. Human hearing is not infinitely accurate. Nor is any real-world
recording medium.
Digital beats the accuracy of most analog media quite handily, given a
suprisingly small investment. The limiting factor, actually, tends to be
the analog hardware used to get the signal into and out of digital form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Kesselman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:09 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
| Quote: | For word processing, the computer easily wins. For music reproduction, the
good HiFi will easily win.
|
Your CD player is a computer. Most of the music you're hearing these
days passed through computers before it reached you. I'm sorry, but you
really don't know what you're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Kesselman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:09 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
OK, it's clear that some of the folks on this topic are just here to
troll. Since they're incurable, I'm gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
| Quote: | Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
No, it doesn't. This is utter nonsense, but a persistent urban myth.
|
No storage of any analog signal is perfect, whether you digitize it or not.
There are errors with digital storage but there are also errors with analog
storage.
With digital, once you've encoded the signal, you can store and retrieve it
with no further change. Not with analog.
Getting back to the question of whether there is such a thing as lossless
compression of digital signals: Yes, certainly. The simplest is run-length
encoding. Whenever a value recurs (e.g., a long series of zeroes for a
period of silence), instead of repeating the value over and over, you
precede it with a code that means "repeat this value such-and-such number of
times." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
| Quote: | That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog
signal.
What if the original x bits has more resolution than the original media ?
|
If it has sufficiently more, then the digital copy will be at least as
accurate as any analog copy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:23 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Joe Kesselman" wrote ..
| Quote: | Alex Rodriguez wrote:
For word processing, the computer easily wins. For music reproduction,
the
good HiFi will easily win.
Your CD player is a computer. Most of the music you're hearing these
days passed through computers before it reached you. I'm sorry, but you
really don't know what you're talking about.
|
Certainly EVERYTHING you hear over the air and EVERYTHING you can
buy on CD passed through several "computers" of various kinds. You'd have
to go to a vintage record store to find pure-analog recordings these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 FAQ
 Memberlist
 Usergroups
Featured Site: Free Antivirus and Antispyware Info
Powered by p|-|pBB
Usenet and forums posts belong to their respective authors. Everything else is (c) 2004 - 2006 Web-S-Sense Pty. Ltd.
Terms and Conditions of Use
|
|
|
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
