|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:23 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
 |
|
"Tim Martin" wrote ...
| Quote: | Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
|
You'd better explain that if you don't want people to think you
are completely daft.
| 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.
|
Do you have some magic method of creating additional data where
there was none before? Don't even answer this message, rush down
and patent it and become an instant millionaire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Alex Rodriguez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
In article <l5ednQWyVKVaTwHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, arnyk@hotpop.com says...
| Quote: |
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
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?
|
No keyboard on the HiFi makes it hard to use it for word processing. 
----------------
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
Joe Kesselman wrote:
| Quote: | Tim Martin wrote:
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.
|
No, it is not, not even theoretically.
Because for there to be infinite resolution for any arbitrary
signal, even in theory, there must be infinite signal-to-noise,
because the presence of noise limits the resolution of the signal
to a level of ambiguity defined by the level of the noise. And since
no noise requires that the system operate at a teemperature of
precisely 0 degrees K, the introduction of ANY signal into such
a system will be the equivalent of raising itsd temperature and in
and of itself introduces noise. SO that shifts the requirement to
having a finite noise floor. And a finite noise floor, even one
which is vanishngly small, requires that to achieve the infinite
dynamic range that is intrinsic of infinite resolution requires
signals of infinite amplitude, which means infinite energy.
And even if we ignore all that, we're bitten by the fact of simple
quantum uncertainty, which prevents perfect knowledge of a system.
And further, to have infinite resolution in the time domain requires
the system to have infinite bandwidth. Since bandwidth and time are
related by the fundamental time-frequency uncertainty relationship,
the only way to have infinite resolution in the time domain, i.e.,
the ability to distinguish to event separated by infinitesimal time,
the system must exist for infinite time.
And the assertion that analog has infinite time resolution means
that ANY change in level in a an infintiesimal period of time
intrinisically requires infinite energy.
So, no even THEORETICALLY, analog does not, indeed, CANNOT have
infinite resolution. To claim so is absurd.
| Quote: | ... but for most practical purposes, "good enough" really is Good
Enough. Human hearing is not infinitely accurate. Nor is any real-world
recording medium.
|
Or even a theoretical one.
| Quote: | 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.
|
Indeed, this is often the case.
And, as Shannon quite rigorously demonstrated over half a century ago,
any system sampling at more than twice the bandwidth of the signal
and simply having sufficient bits (dynamic range in dB/6.02 db/bit)
WILL encode that signal with perfect accuracy. Increasing the sample
rate or the bit depth WILL not result in ANY more accuracy, just a
waste
of data bandwidth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s7or915iebk5j0754tiiivkr2njjm2f94c@4ax.com...
| Quote: | 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.
|
What have tapes and microphones got to do with it? I was talking about
analog signals, not recorded approximations of analog signals.
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Tim Martin" wrote ...
| Quote: | "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote ...
For example, no known music *master* tape has a 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.
What have tapes and microphones got to do with it? I was
talking about analog signals, not recorded approximations
of analog signals.
|
How did your "analog signals" originate? How did they then
end up as ones and zeroes on a tape or disc?
Just to confirm: Most of us are reading this newsgroup on
"Earth" in the "Solar System" of the "Milky Way" galaxy.
If you are posting from a different galaxy (or universe) we
may have to attempt some understanding of each other's laws
of physics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
<dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:1117671221.564785.245640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | 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.
|
An analog signal, such as a bird singing in the woods, has infinite
bandwidth.
That is, there is no upper frequency f, such that any combination of waves
of frequency less than f, can exactly represent an arbitrary analog signal,
regardless of the precision of the waves.
Nyquist's Theoerem is about representation of periodic signals; most sounds
are not periodic signals.
Of course in practice we can specify a combinations of waves that make close
approximations to the bird singing; and we can get as close as we like, up
to the limits of whatever equipment we use to detect the analog signal we
are approximating.
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Tim Martin" wrote ...
| Quote: | An analog signal, such as a bird singing in the woods, has infinite
bandwidth.
|
Baloney. Assuming you are talking about a REAL woods and
REAL birds.
| Quote: | That is, there is no upper frequency f, such that any combination
of waves of frequency less than f, can exactly represent an arbitrary
analog signal, regardless of the precision of the waves.
|
Of course there is an upper frequency limit . If you are talking
about near-field (within milimeters of the REAL bird), you have
the limitation that the sounds are produced by organic structures
with mass that can move only so fast. And in the diffuse field,
you can add to that the HF attenuation of the atmosphere in the
REAL woods.
| Quote: | Nyquist's Theoerem is about representation of periodic signals;
most sounds are not periodic signals.
Of course in practice we can specify a combinations of waves
that make close approximations to the bird singing; and we can
get as close as we like, up to the limits of whatever equipment
we use to detect the analog signal we are approximating.
|
And the problem with that is.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:119vfc5o62hbt00@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | How did your "analog signals" originate?
|
A bird singing in the woods. This generates an analog signal, detectable by
ears.
| Quote: | How did they then end up as ones and zeroes on a tape or disc?
|
It's possible to store a digital approximation of this analog signal by a
number of methods; I don't see that it actually matters what method is
used, but I suppose the most direct method is to have some flexible device
that vibrates with the sound of the bird singing, and periodically measure
the physical position of the flexible device.
The more frequently we measure the position, and the more precisely we
measure the position, the more accurate is our digital representation of the
analog signal.
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Joe Kesselman" <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:brCdna2kvYJ-xAPfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
| Quote: |
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.
|
Yes. However, since digital representations of analog signals are
compressed, there is little point agonizing over "lossy" versus "lossless"
compresssion. What matters is the quality delivered.
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
"Tim Martin" <tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:lsPne.21$BQ3.15@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
| Quote: |
"Joe Kesselman" <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:brCdna2kvYJ-xAPfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
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.
Yes. However, since digital representations of analog signals are
compressed,
|
Unless you show some support for this fantastic statement,
there doesn't appear to be any point in continuing this dialog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Bradley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:16:36 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Tim Martin" wrote ...
What have tapes and microphones got to do with it? I was
talking about analog signals, not recorded approximations
of analog signals.
|
What exactly are "analog signals"? Going back a few decades, what
exactly were (and still are) analog computers, and what were they used
for?
| Quote: | How did your "analog signals" originate? How did they then
|
Furthermore, what is the meaning of the word "analog"?
| Quote: | end up as ones and zeroes on a tape or disc?
Just to confirm: Most of us are reading this newsgroup on
"Earth" in the "Solar System" of the "Milky Way" galaxy.
If you are posting from a different galaxy (or universe) we
may have to attempt some understanding of each other's laws
of physics.
|
As well as other analogous laws...
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Bradley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:42:25 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Joe Kesselman" <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:brCdna2kvYJ-xAPfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
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.
Yes. However, since digital representations of analog signals are
compressed, there is little point agonizing over "lossy" versus "lossless"
compresssion.
|
You stated something very similar earlier in the thread (6/01/05,
6:59AM, in response to Wessel Dirksen) It appears you may be confusing
dynamic (volume or signal amplitude) compression with data compression
(as defined in computer science), but it's really hard to tell.
Please be very specific on what you mean by "digital
representations of analog signals are compressed."
| Quote: | What matters is the quality delivered.
|
I agree with that, but I don't see how that follows from what you
wrote earlier.
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:50 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:07:30 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s7or915iebk5j0754tiiivkr2njjm2f94c@4ax.com...
For example, no known music *master* tape has a 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.
What have tapes and microphones got to do with it? I was talking about
analog signals, not recorded approximations of analog signals.
|
Stop being disingenuous, you were just plain *wrong*, live with it.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:52 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:42:25 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Joe Kesselman" <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:brCdna2kvYJ-xAPfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
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.
Yes. However, since digital representations of analog signals are
compressed, there is little point agonizing over "lossy" versus "lossless"
compresssion.
|
No, they're not. Please read up on digital audio before you spout this
nonsense.
| Quote: | What matters is the quality delivered.
|
And digital far exceeds the quality of any available analogue source
signal.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:32 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:19:12 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:1117671221.564785.245640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.
An analog signal, such as a bird singing in the woods, has infinite
bandwidth.
|
Utter garbage! Everything generating noise in the woods has a very
well defined bandwidth,dependent on the mass/compliance resonaces of
its suspension systems. This includes the larynxes of birds. Also, the
atmosphere has a well-defined sound absorption coefficient which
increases with frequency, such that even a metre away from that bird,
you won't detect much above 100kHz. That's why bats don't have to
worry about reflections from more than a few yards away, the signal
simply doesn't get back to them.
More importantly, since you seem to understand almost nothing which
you are spouting, these are *not* analogue sugnals, they are simply
sounds. Once you have *converted* that sound with say a microphone,
you then have a signal which is an analogue of the original sound. The
live microphone feed is the analogue signal, *not* the original sound.
| Quote: | That is, there is no upper frequency f, such that any combination of waves
of frequency less than f, can exactly represent an arbitrary analog signal,
regardless of the precision of the waves.
|
However, since there definitely *is* an upper frequency limit to
birdsong, that's not actually a problem.
| Quote: | Nyquist's Theoerem is about representation of periodic signals; most sounds
are not periodic signals.
|
Actually, it's not, except in so far as it does have a bandwidth limit
of less than half the sampling frequency.
| Quote: | Of course in practice we can specify a combinations of waves that make close
approximations to the bird singing; and we can get as close as we like, up
to the limits of whatever equipment we use to detect the analog signal we
are approximating.
|
The analogue signal from the microphone *is* the approximation of the
original sound. At least learn the *basics*, then you wouldn't make
such nonsensical statements.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| 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
