4 ms·
The fact that it’s digital, and not analog, means it’s (more) lossy in comparison to the original sound source. It’s not so much the compressed part, but the di
by nvrspyx 7y ago
The fact that it’s digital, and not analog, means it’s (more) lossy in comparison to the original sound source. It’s not so much the compressed part, but the digital part. If it’s digital, it’s approximating points on the sound waves with “steps” (looks more like stairs than a smooth wave) and missing the nuance between those steps, where as analog, in this case vinyl, is a closer representation of the actual, continuous sound waves.
At least, that’s how I understand it.
- mc32 7y agoThat’s a misconception. Monty from xiph.org explains it well. see https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM
- dilippkumar 7y agoWhat a fantastic demo! This is engineering education of the highest quality. I was about to take up arms and start explaining Nyquist to the parent comment, but I’m glad I chose to watch this video instead. Thank you for posting it. How are the Xiph guys doing? I followed them closely during the early days of their new video codec attempt. I’ve fallen out of the loop since then.
- ddingus 7y agoI agree. I had no idea just how many errors I had in my understanding of digital signals. Excellent, and in my view mandatory viewing for anyone interested in audio and signal processing.
- Arubis 7y agoThat’s a common explanation, and it’s true at low sampling rates. However, we can fairly provably sample at greater rates than the human ear can perceive. A lot of the actual difference between vinyl and more recent digitized recordings is different decisions made during production, most notably performing volume compression to increase perceived loudness, which definitively reduces the nuance of the final product (but also leads to higher ratings for singles).
- layoutIfNeeded 7y agoYou understand it wrong. Read up on reconstruction filters.