Warren and Robbin - who is Left and who is Right?

[Rupe]

Hey buddy boy and cupcake, its me, your little marshmallow peep!

[straycat]

Whats the point? Why argue about it this isn't the My Les Paul forum.
Oh God I hope this place doesn't start getting like that shit hole of a forum.

[leftykingv2]

Whats the point? Why argue about it this isn't the My Les Paul forum.
Oh God I hope this place doesn't start getting like that shit hole of a forum.

+1 And I hope Jackson's don't start sounding, playing and costing like the new Gibson's do.

[veemagic]

+1 And I hope Jackson's don't start sounding, playing and costing like the new Gibson's do.

Seriously? Again?

[FloydRose4Prez]

How about we go back to Warren and Robbin instead of arguing analog tape vs CD?

[leftykingv2]

Seriously? Again?

Sorry bro but Straycat said the magic word.

[Devotee]

I called that shit from jump street!! I knew you were an engineer because you write like my buddy Chris Lorre talks and he's one of the best engineers in Pittsburgh.

Thanks for the compliment, i'm no Professor Cupcake but i still know a thing or two about audio.

I keep telling myself to stay out of these discussion, but I can't help myself Anyways, Devotee is correct. You can, in principle, get as accurate a description of a continuous signal as you'd like (or are willing to pay for) with a digital representation. It is mathematical fact. The practical limitations are basically due to the analog hardware involved in A/D or D/A conversion. However, you can of course do bad digital hardware just as you can do bad analog hardware, so one piece of digital hardware may sound poorly compared to your favorite analog unit (just think Behringer). Anyways, the basic question in relation to sampling and quantization is at how high a frequency you need to sample and how many bits you need to use per sample. That's it. On that matter, I would like to point the curious this paper http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf. In the paper, they basically demonstrate that the higher sampling frequencies and word lengths of super audio CD and DVD audio are a waste of ressources compared to regular CDs. People cannot hear the difference in blind tests. The reason that people hear differences in SACDs and regular CDs is that the material has been altered, for example remastered. Also, as I've pointed out in other threads on similar matters, there are auditive equivalents of the placebo effect, so you can get fooled into thinking your hear differences where there are none.


/Mads (full professor in audio processing)

Eloquently put but you said the dreaded word - Behringer! Thanks for the link to that paper, i've been looking for it!

[leftykingv2]

How about we go back to Warren and Robbin instead of arguing analog tape vs CD?

So what do you guys think of 8 track tapes?

[pianoguyy]

So what do you guys think of 8 track tapes?

No f'n fast forward or rewind!

[CowboyFromHell]

Maybe not but you can't kill those things!

[leftykingv2]

Maybe not but you can't kill those things!

I was joking when I asked that question but you make a valid point. Eight tracks are damn near indestructible.