Interesting stuff about the digital vs analog recording in this discussion, but as someone who has had stereos the size of dorm refrigerators in the past, i happily went to digital for these two reasons alone:
1. LP's crackle after repeated use.
2. Tapes hiss after repeated use.
Both 1 and 2 eventually sound much worse than sampling problems from digital recordings.
Indeed, and even the original analogue "Golden Master", from which all copies derive, may endure some loss of quality over time, as its components deteriorate...
I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.
Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples. But it's not the actual signal.
DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples - better interpolation.
Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4? It INTERPOLATES. If it had a 4 sample rate, it could sample at 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 3/4 second and 1 second. That gives it a MUCH better idea of what is at, say, 3/16 seconds.
Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.
Oh and thanks... I figured it was only a matter of time before someone had to resort to personal attacks.
Uh NO!
First, there is NO interpolation between data points, other than the analog output signal of the DAC "smoothly" transitioning from one data point to the next.
The sample rate and the frequencies captured are directly linked. Look up Nyquist. Basically in theory you can only reproduce frequencies up to 1/2 the sample rate. This is a theoretical maximum. In practice with digital music, we have timing issues referred to as "jitter" that mean you can not accurately recreate the music up to the full Nyquist frequency. It is a bit of a simplification, but if you push the sample rate up, you can push the jitter errors up above the range of human hearing.
Did you actually read ANY of that article (much less all of it) or just grab the first picture you saw?
As quoted above:
Quote:
We can now ask: under what circumstances is it possible to reconstruct the original signal completely and exactly (perfect reconstruction)?
A partial answer is provided by the Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem, which provides a sufficient (but not always necessary) condition under which perfect reconstruction is possible. The sampling theorem guarantees that bandlimited signals (i.e., signals which have a maximum frequency) can be reconstructed perfectly from their sampled version, if the sampling rate is more than twice the maximum frequency. Reconstruction in this case can be achieved using the Whittaker?Shannon interpolation formula.
Yes, it reconstructs the data between the points. But it's not guessing or estimating or averaging, it's (according to the page you just linked to) perfectly reconstructing the input signal. Of course the recording process itself isn't perfect (none is, analog recording has plenty of limitations as well), but the problem isn't having too few samples of the frequencies we're trying to record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
But it doesn't record the entire wave. If the frequencies are beyond what analog can record, those frequencies are lost. Meaning that the waveform is different from the original - you keep pretending that analog recording has the ability to somehow magically recreate any waveform but that's simply false.
You managed to find that article. Now if you want to continue discussing the topic, please actually read it. And bear in mind that it flat out contradicts what you keep repeatedly claiming (which I assume you just came up with off the top of your head based on a tiny bit of knowledge about sampling).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.
Exactly. In discussions like this when people say "interpolation" they mean that it doesn't have enough data so it's averaging or making a guess to fill in or whatever, but that's not the case at all - it's actually reconstructing the exact same waveform that was at the input of the sampling process.
This announcement may be that all of the upcoming McCartney remasters will be available on iTunes.
If you look at iTunes, they look like they're already available there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Well, relative to any other given artist on iTunes, making the Beatles available would instantly take them to number one for some amount of time.
And that wouldn't be a huge thing for iTunes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict
Uh NO!
First, there is NO interpolation between data points, other than the analog output signal of the DAC "smoothly" transitioning from one data point to the next.
The sample rate and the frequencies captured are directly linked. Look up Nyquist. Basically in theory you can only reproduce frequencies up to 1/2 the sample rate. This is a theoretical maximum. In practice with digital music, we have timing issues referred to as "jitter" that mean you can not accurately recreate the music up to the full Nyquist frequency. It is a bit of a simplification, but if you push the sample rate up, you can push the jitter errors up above the range of human hearing.
I can't tell you how nice it is to read someone actually totally getting it.
I REALLY hate to bring in wikipedia, but regardless...
Mindbender, please explain this:
Those vertical lines are where digital samples. Between those lines, digital does NOT record. It interpolates what is there.
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
No no no. Digital does not interpolate at all. When Digital is converted back to analog in the DAC it simply connects the dots with a curve, the curve being based on the physical capabilities of the DAC to change volatages, and the DAC design.
Analog does not capture the entire signal either. Just as there can be small wave changes in between the digital samples, there can be changes (high frequencies) that are too small to record on the tape or LP or whatever the analog medium. All the devices in the chain, from the instruments, to the microphones, to the recording medium, to the mixing panel, to the master, to the duplication machine, to the customer medea, to the playback devices etc. ALL have frequency response limitations. They don't capture the entire curve, but if they are high quality, they capture the portion of the curves we can hear.
Digital is the same way. No different except how the data is stored and read. For a digital source to be indistuinguishable from a very high quality analog source, you simply need high enough sampling rates and high enough bit depth, and equipment capable of turning the bits back into an analog signal that is accurate (including jitter free) at frequencies that humans can hear. On this point, BTW, the 20hz-20khz numbers are based on typical hearing at a certain db level. Many people can hear beyond this range at higher volumes, especially those younger than 25 who can often hear into the low to mid 20's (khz). Also, most people can "hear" a 10 hz signal if it is loud enough, and we certainly can feel it.
Not necessarily, no. If all of the other artists combined still outsell the Beatles by a thousand to one even during that initial frenzy (which I find likely) and if the frenzy eventually settled down...
Let's just say that years later, if you plotted the iTunes daily revenue, I suspect that you would be hard pressed to identify the day at which this event occurred (assuming you had forgotten it!).
I REALLY hate to bring in wikipedia, but regardless...
Mindbender, please explain this:
Those vertical lines are where digital samples. Between those lines, digital does NOT record. It interpolates what is there.
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
That's partially correct. Digital (CD digital anyway), records at 44,100 samples per second. People like you claim that's not enough and that's why analog is better. The Nyquist theorem states that the sampling rate has to be (a minimum of) twice the highest frequency you wish to record. Since human hearing (of an infant) extends to 22KHz, 44.1 KHz was chosen (for commercial CDs) as the sampling rate. In part, this was a compromise so that at least 70 minutes of stereo music could fit on a CD.
Analog does not "record" the entire wave any more than a Xerox machine makes an exact copy of a document. Analog reinterprets and reformulates the entire wave through electro-mechanical means. That's why each time you make a copy, you have severe generational loss. You also have errors that aren't generational. For example, how well does the stylus track an LP groove? If the stylus can't accurately track it, you get distortion of the original wave form. If the stamper used to press that waveform into the vinyl is worn, you get distortion. If the vinyl itself has flaws, you get distortion. (And by distortion, I don't just mean harmonic distortion, like when you turn the volume up too loud --- I mean any variant of the original wave form.) In analog recording, if the level is set too high, you get tape saturation - a distortion which some engineers will use for creative purposes, but distortion nonetheless.
There are digital systems with higher sampling rates. Some systems sample at 96,000 times per second instead of 44,100. For an original live recording, especially an acoustic recording, it can sometimes make a difference that can be perceived. I have a CD-recorder that is capable of recording 96/24, but frankly, when making copies from LPs, even LPs that were recorded in analog, I can't hear any difference whatsoever.
However, digital does interpolate in the Y axis of your diagram. CD digital is a 16 bit system. In a 16 bit system, there can be 65,535 different values of "level" (actually voltage). When an analog signal is converted to digital, one of those 65,535 levels must be chosen even if the actual level falls in-between. This process is called quantization. When the exact level isn't "chosen", there is what is called quantization error. If the process is upgraded from 16 bit to 24 bits, there is much higher resolution in the voltage domain - 1.67 million different values or 256x the voltage resolution as compared to a 16 bit system.
(There are other factors, such as what happens when not enough bits of the system is used and noise is generated. "Dither noise" is introduced to compensate, but I won't get into those issues for purposes of this discussion. Analog has its counterparts, such as Dolby noise reduction.)
There are plenty of people who swear that analog is a better recording process, but at least insofar as recorded content is concerned, if I playback a vinyl LP recorded by analog means and a CD-R of that same album in sync and switch between them, you will not be able to tell which is which, especially in a double-blind test. Now there are those "subjectivists" who don't believe in double-blind testing, but I don't want to get into that argument here.
I am a vinyl fan and still have several hundred vinyl LPs in my living room, but those who claim that analog is always superior to digital are fooling themselves, IMO. All I remember back in the 70s, before the advent of the CD, is how much we used to bitch about poor pressing quality and the lousy sound of LPs, especially in the U.S. Every time I hear a CD that to my mind, sounds inferior to the way I remember the vinyl, I go back to the vinyl and listen and inevitably, the vinyl sounds far worse. There are those who swear that the original British pressings of Beatles LPs, for example, sound far superior to the recent remasters on CD. I don't happen to think the remasters are as much as an improvement as was claimed, but I also don't think they sound worse than the original LPs.
Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions ($20,000 turntables, $50,000 speaker systems, perfect pressings), vinyl can sound terrific, but we have to deal with the real world.
I think what we're remembering when we think analog sounds better are those terrific tube-based amplifiers and original model loudspeakers from the peak of the hi-fi era, from such manufacturers as AR, Advent, McIntosh, Dynaco, etc. as well as our emotional response to hearing that music for the first time. There's nothing wrong with digital audio recording, except for the way it is used. Because every group wants to be the "loudest", the dynamic range of most CDs is far less than it was in the vinyl days, even though CD is capable of 96db dynamic range. We're usually using only about 25 to 35db of it.
The clock hand positions on the face kinda/sorta similar to the "Help!" cover ....
But why we would "never forget" it is beyond me.
40 years from now, little CaryMG III will be sitting on your lap and will ask his beloved pappi, “Grandpa, where were you when the iTunes Store got the Beatles catalog?” …and you’ll know.
40 years from now, little CaryMG III will be sitting on your lap and will ask his beloved pappi, “Grandpa, where were you when the iTunes Store got the Beatles catalog?” …and you’ll know.
It's official. It's the Beatles. Big deal. I have them all (09-09-09, mono, stereo, the whole catalog everything).
Apple. Will announce. That they've created an. Entirely new Language. Called iSpeak. Apple will. Promulgate. This new language. Maximum plus infiltration.
Once again, the hopes and dreams and every wishlist demand of thousands of people are projected onto Apple's plans. Many will be disappointed. We'll know soon enough.
Published: November 15 2010 22:48 | Last updated: November 15 2010 22:48
The Beatles look set to make their music available for the first time on Apple’s industry-leading iTunes digital entertainment store, the company behind the iPod and iPhone is expected to announce on Tuesday, signalling an end to the company’s disputes with the best-selling band.
Otherwise you have to register to read the article.
Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.
You guys are cracking me up on this topic. I went to school for this. Everyone who thinks they can hear the difference between analog and digital is completely correct. Now, I implore you, please go listen to say 'Muddy Waters' singing the "Good morning blues" which was recorded in analog, and then listen to "The sky is crying" from Stevie Ray Vaughn. I don't care what medium you even listen to it is. Lossless comes down to recording. Every mic has its limitations. I can understand audiophiles, but analog vs. digital... please go to school and learn about recording before you start talking about real "Lossless" audio.
I also have to add that I sat through hours and read countless articles stating many of the facts that Zoetmb is presenting. Consider yourself as getting as crash course.... He's right, at least from what I learned, as far as PRESENTATION goes. Recording is a different matter. Different engineers will choose either analog or digital to suit the situation or the sound they want to capture.
I'm also curious wether or not you're talking about sound that was captured using digital recording (i.e. any recent song or movie) or are you expressing your dissatisfaction over older analog recordings that seem different to you being presented digitally? I've very curious.
Comments
Interesting stuff about the digital vs analog recording in this discussion, but as someone who has had stereos the size of dorm refrigerators in the past, i happily went to digital for these two reasons alone:
1. LP's crackle after repeated use.
2. Tapes hiss after repeated use.
Both 1 and 2 eventually sound much worse than sampling problems from digital recordings.
Indeed, and even the original analogue "Golden Master", from which all copies derive, may endure some loss of quality over time, as its components deteriorate...
Digital rules!
Thompson
I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.
Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples. But it's not the actual signal.
DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples - better interpolation.
Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4? It INTERPOLATES. If it had a 4 sample rate, it could sample at 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 3/4 second and 1 second. That gives it a MUCH better idea of what is at, say, 3/16 seconds.
Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.
Oh and thanks... I figured it was only a matter of time before someone had to resort to personal attacks.
Uh NO!
First, there is NO interpolation between data points, other than the analog output signal of the DAC "smoothly" transitioning from one data point to the next.
The sample rate and the frequencies captured are directly linked. Look up Nyquist. Basically in theory you can only reproduce frequencies up to 1/2 the sample rate. This is a theoretical maximum. In practice with digital music, we have timing issues referred to as "jitter" that mean you can not accurately recreate the music up to the full Nyquist frequency. It is a bit of a simplification, but if you push the sample rate up, you can push the jitter errors up above the range of human hearing.
Mindbender, please explain this
Did you actually read ANY of that article (much less all of it) or just grab the first picture you saw?
As quoted above:
We can now ask: under what circumstances is it possible to reconstruct the original signal completely and exactly (perfect reconstruction)?
A partial answer is provided by the Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem, which provides a sufficient (but not always necessary) condition under which perfect reconstruction is possible. The sampling theorem guarantees that bandlimited signals (i.e., signals which have a maximum frequency) can be reconstructed perfectly from their sampled version, if the sampling rate is more than twice the maximum frequency. Reconstruction in this case can be achieved using the Whittaker?Shannon interpolation formula.
Yes, it reconstructs the data between the points. But it's not guessing or estimating or averaging, it's (according to the page you just linked to) perfectly reconstructing the input signal. Of course the recording process itself isn't perfect (none is, analog recording has plenty of limitations as well), but the problem isn't having too few samples of the frequencies we're trying to record.
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
But it doesn't record the entire wave. If the frequencies are beyond what analog can record, those frequencies are lost. Meaning that the waveform is different from the original - you keep pretending that analog recording has the ability to somehow magically recreate any waveform but that's simply false.
You managed to find that article. Now if you want to continue discussing the topic, please actually read it. And bear in mind that it flat out contradicts what you keep repeatedly claiming (which I assume you just came up with off the top of your head based on a tiny bit of knowledge about sampling).
Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.
Exactly. In discussions like this when people say "interpolation" they mean that it doesn't have enough data so it's averaging or making a guess to fill in or whatever, but that's not the case at all - it's actually reconstructing the exact same waveform that was at the input of the sampling process.
Sorry,
But if it is the Beatles I assume she is missing?
One can only hope. One can only hope.
This announcement may be that all of the upcoming McCartney remasters will be available on iTunes.
If you look at iTunes, they look like they're already available there.
Well, relative to any other given artist on iTunes, making the Beatles available would instantly take them to number one for some amount of time.
And that wouldn't be a huge thing for iTunes?
Uh NO!
First, there is NO interpolation between data points, other than the analog output signal of the DAC "smoothly" transitioning from one data point to the next.
The sample rate and the frequencies captured are directly linked. Look up Nyquist. Basically in theory you can only reproduce frequencies up to 1/2 the sample rate. This is a theoretical maximum. In practice with digital music, we have timing issues referred to as "jitter" that mean you can not accurately recreate the music up to the full Nyquist frequency. It is a bit of a simplification, but if you push the sample rate up, you can push the jitter errors up above the range of human hearing.
I can't tell you how nice it is to read someone actually totally getting it.
I REALLY hate to bring in wikipedia, but regardless...
Mindbender, please explain this:
Those vertical lines are where digital samples. Between those lines, digital does NOT record. It interpolates what is there.
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
No no no. Digital does not interpolate at all. When Digital is converted back to analog in the DAC it simply connects the dots with a curve, the curve being based on the physical capabilities of the DAC to change volatages, and the DAC design.
Analog does not capture the entire signal either. Just as there can be small wave changes in between the digital samples, there can be changes (high frequencies) that are too small to record on the tape or LP or whatever the analog medium. All the devices in the chain, from the instruments, to the microphones, to the recording medium, to the mixing panel, to the master, to the duplication machine, to the customer medea, to the playback devices etc. ALL have frequency response limitations. They don't capture the entire curve, but if they are high quality, they capture the portion of the curves we can hear.
Digital is the same way. No different except how the data is stored and read. For a digital source to be indistuinguishable from a very high quality analog source, you simply need high enough sampling rates and high enough bit depth, and equipment capable of turning the bits back into an analog signal that is accurate (including jitter free) at frequencies that humans can hear. On this point, BTW, the 20hz-20khz numbers are based on typical hearing at a certain db level. Many people can hear beyond this range at higher volumes, especially those younger than 25 who can often hear into the low to mid 20's (khz). Also, most people can "hear" a 10 hz signal if it is loud enough, and we certainly can feel it.
And that wouldn't be a huge thing for iTunes?
Not necessarily, no. If all of the other artists combined still outsell the Beatles by a thousand to one even during that initial frenzy (which I find likely) and if the frenzy eventually settled down...
Let's just say that years later, if you plotted the iTunes daily revenue, I suspect that you would be hard pressed to identify the day at which this event occurred (assuming you had forgotten it!).
Thompson
Steve Jobs is going to raise John Lennon and George Harrison from the dead!
The clock hand positions on the face kinda/sorta similar to the "Help!" cover ....
But why we would "never forget" it is beyond me.
I REALLY hate to bring in wikipedia, but regardless...
Mindbender, please explain this:
Those vertical lines are where digital samples. Between those lines, digital does NOT record. It interpolates what is there.
Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.
That's partially correct. Digital (CD digital anyway), records at 44,100 samples per second. People like you claim that's not enough and that's why analog is better. The Nyquist theorem states that the sampling rate has to be (a minimum of) twice the highest frequency you wish to record. Since human hearing (of an infant) extends to 22KHz, 44.1 KHz was chosen (for commercial CDs) as the sampling rate. In part, this was a compromise so that at least 70 minutes of stereo music could fit on a CD.
Analog does not "record" the entire wave any more than a Xerox machine makes an exact copy of a document. Analog reinterprets and reformulates the entire wave through electro-mechanical means. That's why each time you make a copy, you have severe generational loss. You also have errors that aren't generational. For example, how well does the stylus track an LP groove? If the stylus can't accurately track it, you get distortion of the original wave form. If the stamper used to press that waveform into the vinyl is worn, you get distortion. If the vinyl itself has flaws, you get distortion. (And by distortion, I don't just mean harmonic distortion, like when you turn the volume up too loud --- I mean any variant of the original wave form.) In analog recording, if the level is set too high, you get tape saturation - a distortion which some engineers will use for creative purposes, but distortion nonetheless.
There are digital systems with higher sampling rates. Some systems sample at 96,000 times per second instead of 44,100. For an original live recording, especially an acoustic recording, it can sometimes make a difference that can be perceived. I have a CD-recorder that is capable of recording 96/24, but frankly, when making copies from LPs, even LPs that were recorded in analog, I can't hear any difference whatsoever.
However, digital does interpolate in the Y axis of your diagram. CD digital is a 16 bit system. In a 16 bit system, there can be 65,535 different values of "level" (actually voltage). When an analog signal is converted to digital, one of those 65,535 levels must be chosen even if the actual level falls in-between. This process is called quantization. When the exact level isn't "chosen", there is what is called quantization error. If the process is upgraded from 16 bit to 24 bits, there is much higher resolution in the voltage domain - 1.67 million different values or 256x the voltage resolution as compared to a 16 bit system.
(There are other factors, such as what happens when not enough bits of the system is used and noise is generated. "Dither noise" is introduced to compensate, but I won't get into those issues for purposes of this discussion. Analog has its counterparts, such as Dolby noise reduction.)
There are plenty of people who swear that analog is a better recording process, but at least insofar as recorded content is concerned, if I playback a vinyl LP recorded by analog means and a CD-R of that same album in sync and switch between them, you will not be able to tell which is which, especially in a double-blind test. Now there are those "subjectivists" who don't believe in double-blind testing, but I don't want to get into that argument here.
I am a vinyl fan and still have several hundred vinyl LPs in my living room, but those who claim that analog is always superior to digital are fooling themselves, IMO. All I remember back in the 70s, before the advent of the CD, is how much we used to bitch about poor pressing quality and the lousy sound of LPs, especially in the U.S. Every time I hear a CD that to my mind, sounds inferior to the way I remember the vinyl, I go back to the vinyl and listen and inevitably, the vinyl sounds far worse. There are those who swear that the original British pressings of Beatles LPs, for example, sound far superior to the recent remasters on CD. I don't happen to think the remasters are as much as an improvement as was claimed, but I also don't think they sound worse than the original LPs.
Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions ($20,000 turntables, $50,000 speaker systems, perfect pressings), vinyl can sound terrific, but we have to deal with the real world.
I think what we're remembering when we think analog sounds better are those terrific tube-based amplifiers and original model loudspeakers from the peak of the hi-fi era, from such manufacturers as AR, Advent, McIntosh, Dynaco, etc. as well as our emotional response to hearing that music for the first time. There's nothing wrong with digital audio recording, except for the way it is used. Because every group wants to be the "loudest", the dynamic range of most CDs is far less than it was in the vinyl days, even though CD is capable of 96db dynamic range. We're usually using only about 25 to 35db of it.
"Just Another Day" ....
The clock hand positions on the face kinda/sorta similar to the "Help!" cover ....
But why we would "never forget" it is beyond me.
40 years from now, little CaryMG III will be sitting on your lap and will ask his beloved pappi, “Grandpa, where were you when the iTunes Store got the Beatles catalog?” …and you’ll know.
40 years from now, little CaryMG III will be sitting on your lap and will ask his beloved pappi, “Grandpa, where were you when the iTunes Store got the Beatles catalog?” …and you’ll know.
It's official. It's the Beatles. Big deal. I have them all (09-09-09, mono, stereo, the whole catalog everything).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bdf08e2-f...#axzz15Oj8pRHe
But why we would "never forget" it is beyond me.
I agree. I hope apple explains the tease.
It is a big deal to get those songs into itunes. but a day you will never forget? Us beatle fans are so old we don't remember what happened last week.
Beatles finally for sale on iTunes store
By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York
Published: November 15 2010 22:48 | Last updated: November 15 2010 22:48
The Beatles look set to make their music available for the first time on Apple’s industry-leading iTunes digital entertainment store, the company behind the iPod and iPhone is expected to announce on Tuesday, signalling an end to the company’s disputes with the best-selling band.
Otherwise you have to register to read the article.
It's official. It's the Beatles. Big deal. I have them all (09-09-09, mono, stereo, the whole catalog everything).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bdf08e2-f...#axzz15Oj8pRHe
I just ripped my 62-66 and 67-70 cds bought recently, waiting for iTunes to finally recognize them as albums with cover art work.
Oh and check this:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...eatles+catalog
2,190,000 references. as of time of posting.
BEATLES.
Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.
You guys are cracking me up on this topic. I went to school for this. Everyone who thinks they can hear the difference between analog and digital is completely correct. Now, I implore you, please go listen to say 'Muddy Waters' singing the "Good morning blues" which was recorded in analog, and then listen to "The sky is crying" from Stevie Ray Vaughn. I don't care what medium you even listen to it is. Lossless comes down to recording. Every mic has its limitations. I can understand audiophiles, but analog vs. digital... please go to school and learn about recording before you start talking about real "Lossless" audio.