OK.This is a little weird and I should know this, but I really am not sure.
Now you've learned a valueable lesson. More people could answer their own questions and learn more by taking the time to apply that lesson.so, as usual, the answer seems to be... i dunno... do you hear a difference?
the more i learn the more it all seems to come back to that...
Nope, no mirrors here, but recording analog is sampling at a sample rate of infinity, much more accurate than digital will ever be. 192k, 384k? Bah.Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
I myself, prefer analog audio. To my ears, it sounds the best. I am not saying it is the most accurate, just that I prefer its sound.. I don’t think anything we have come up with at this point is a “mirror perfect” representation of real world audio.
This has no bearing on the practical discussion going on here but i thought that this statement is a little misleading. Analog tape (analog information) is just as limited by bandwidth restrictions as digital information is. If an analog recorder can record up to 45kHz (a good analog recorder at that) then that's what it can do... no more, no less. The same frequency can be captured digitally using a 96kHz sampling rate (with some to spare). That's what it can do, no more, no less. Call it discrete, call it continuous... that bandwidth restriction is the limit of possible information that can be captured.Originally posted by mitzelplik:
Nope, no mirrors here, but recording analog is sampling at a sample rate of infinity, much more accurate than digital will ever be. 192k, 384k? Bah.
When you sample a sound at discrete time slots, you lose everything in between those time slots.