[rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers (was Re: Re: Rollei -Singapore) now analogue versus digital
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:19:42 -0500
Lasers are now employed to read the untouched groove surfaces of
important old cylinders and acetates. The resonances of the mechanical
audio systems are reversed, speed regulated, noise dealt with and
voila, these recordings are amazingly good. With acetates recoded with
electronic microphones, you can often get amazing quality if you can
find an untouched groove surface.
Considering that it is likely that very very few important historical
digital recordings from individuals or non-corporate sources will
survive 50, 60, 70 years from now, I think that's is a pretty
compelling reason to look to old recording technologies and take
lessons from them...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Dernie"
> <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:38 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers (was Re: Re: Rollei
> -Singapore) now analogue versus digital
>
>
>> The fact that several (no more) prominent people still use film is not
>> evidence that it is better.
>> In all practical ways digital has exceeded the capability of film for
>> some time. Certainly if there is an effect which one wishes to achieve,
>> using a vintage LF lens for example, film may have to be the choice but
>> that does not make film better, just an appropriate choice in some
>> circumstances.
>> Analogue sound is the same. The fact that some people prefer the sound of
>> analogue is not evidence that it is better (I am one by the way) but that
>> it matches their taste in sound. My Mum likes her old valve (tube) radio -
>> "lovely tone" and it does sound nice, but there are no high frequencies at
>> all, along the same lines as LPs in real world systems but more extreme.
>> When Meridian, the digital specialists, were looking at the frequency and
>> amplitude of the "music data" on LP records the -highest- dynamic range
>> they found was equivalent to 11-bit IIRC, though many "experts" attribute
>> the inferiority of digital as they hear it to the inadequacy of 16 bit
>> recording, which it almost certainly can't be. The shortcoming of the
>> 44.1kHz sampling frequency is a different story in real engineering
>> implementation though.
>> I designed high end HiFi equipment for a while. I have never seen so many
>> ridiculous pseudo-technological explanations for real phenomena in any
>> other field of work I have done.
>> cheers,
>> Frank
>>
> In the long ago I did a lot of custom recording. At the time we used
> mostly 15 IPS tape, mostly on Studer machines with Dolby A. As a back-up we
> began to use a Sony digital adaptor running on a VTR. This was an early
> device and had problems but worked pretty well. The general opinion was that
> the digital recordings sounded "harsh" compared to the tape. However, what I
> found was that digital sounded more like what I heard in the monitors during
> recording, the harshness came from the microphones being used and their
> positions. Both mics and techniques had evolved to overcome the mushiness of
> tape.
> Disc recoding has a set of vices all its own. Among them are some inherent
> distortions which are very hard to reduce plus the fact that the "scanning"
> errors become worse toward the inside grooves due to the reduced goove
> velocity. Oval rather than round needles help reduce scanning errors at all
> speeds but still can not completely overcome the odd order harmonic
> distortion of the system. Typical disc systems have harmonic distortion on
> the order of a few percent and can have lots of intermodulation distortion.
> Analogue tape recording using biased direct recording has other types of
> distortion plus the lateral print effect that causes loss of high
> frequencies over time, especially the first few hours after a recording has
> been made.
> Digital has none of these plus it has absolute timing, meaning no flutter
> or wow. The greatest problem with digital as it is practiced is that the
> sampling frequency was chosen to accomodate the bandwidth limits of what is
> now very old analogue recording technology. The problem comes not from the
> sampling frequency itself but rather the anti-aliasing filters. Because the
> sampling rate is close to the Nyquist minimum the filters must of necessity
> be very sharp which can cause all sorts of problems with phase shifts and
> ringing. Raising the sampling frequency would probably eliminate this
> completely.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
