PDA

View Full Version : limits of perfection



pfarrell
2005-07-28, 13:18
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:45 -0400, ron thigpen wrote:
> These bits everyone is so fond of characterizing with pure perfection
> are an abstraction.

I don't believe that I ever said that. Or at least I never intended to
even imply that we are at perfection.



> Amplified and sent to an imperfect transducer and pumped into a
> non-ideal acoustical space.

Oh, there is much more to go wrong than just this.
I've got over thirty professional microphones for my recording studio.
None are linear. Neither are any of the mic preamps. Let
along A-to-D convertors, effects, etc. Then there is studio
acoustics and ...

> What could go wrong? Everything. "Perfect Sound Forever" was, is and
> shall continue to be another case of marketing fluff.

Again, not what I've said.
All I was talking about is getting the best sound possible from the bits
in a Red Book CD. That is all you can get.

We've been talking about how good EAC and similar programs are at
extracting the data, and compression.



> FLAC encoder input = FLAC decoder output, certainly. But extending that
> to a statement that a system processing identical bitstreams will
> produce identical sound is to ignore an awful lot of real world complexity.

What are you trying to say here? I don't understand.
It is easy to move bits arround. It is a lot harder
to talk about converting bits to music

> Before attributing the strength of a mathematical proof to your
> understanding of a physical system, it is best to be sure that you have
> modelled the entirety of that system.

There is no such thing as a isomorphic mapping of a mathematical
model to the real world. Again, what are you trying to say here?



--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

fuzzyT
2005-07-28, 13:33
Pat Farrell wrote:

> What are you trying to say here?

Just that there is more to this than bits and bytes. Getting the data
representation correctly to the DAC is a big part of the it, but hardly
the whole game.

Apologies if I've attributed certain concepts or beliefs to you that you
don't in fact hold. Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

It's just that I seem to hear a lot of ideas tossed around that
basically boil down to "it's digital, so it's perfect, right?". It's a
bad meme that seems to have begun around the same time as, and that
identifies conceptually with, the "Perfect Sound Forever" marketing
phrase that accompanied the rollout of CD Audio.

Of course, being able to perfectly record, reproduce and replay a stream
of bits does not mean that the original bitstream fully encoded the
acoustic phenomenon in the source environment, or that we have the means
to fully recreate these phenomenon by replaying this bitstream at a
later date.

> I don't understand. It is easy to move bits arround. It is a lot
> harder to talk about converting bits to music

Exactly.

--rt

pfarrell
2005-07-28, 13:47
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:33 -0400, ron thigpen wrote:
> Apologies if I've attributed certain concepts or beliefs to you that you
> don't in fact hold. Perhaps I've misunderstood you.

No problem. I think you have me confused with others.


> It's just that I seem to hear a lot of ideas tossed around that
> basically boil down to "it's digital, so it's perfect, right?".

Again, not said by me.

This is the line of BS that the XM and Sirius folks say,
its digital, so it has to be just like CD. Ah, no, not at
the data rates that they send. Of course, in a car,
Red Book is overkill. Even my Lincoln has 65 or 70 dB of
road noise at speed.

> Of course, being able to perfectly record, reproduce and replay a stream
> of bits does not mean that the original bitstream fully encoded the
> acoustic phenomenon in the source environment, or that we have the means
> to fully recreate these phenomenon by replaying this bitstream at a
> later date.

High rate and wider than 16 bit bitstreams are much closer, but
DVD-audio and SACD are dead. Too bad. Of course the main
reason the labels wanted it was the mistaken belief that
the new formats were copy protected. And to sell me a third
or fourth copy of Led Zeppelin IV


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

fuzzyT
2005-07-28, 14:17
Pat Farrell wrote:

> No problem. I think you have me confused with others.

Or, more likely, just a general Zeitgeist sort of thing. Apparently
this had been building and for whatever reason this thread tipped the
boat. Nothing to do with you at all as it turns out.

> This is the line of BS that the XM and Sirius folks say,
> its digital, so it has to be just like CD. Ah, no, not at
> the data rates that they send. Of course, in a car,
> Red Book is overkill. Even my Lincoln has 65 or 70 dB of
> road noise at speed.

Yeah, the satellite and cable TV companies are playing this game as
well. Acting like their precious "all digital" signals are the cat's
meow when I can clearly see compression artifacts from across the room
on my decidedly non-spectacular, 27" set.

> High rate and wider than 16 bit bitstreams are much closer, but
> DVD-audio and SACD are dead. Too bad.

Well, these died in the market but despite the obvious improvements.
suffered from PSF problems similar to RedBook. Consider what you are
really buying when you know how much resampling typically occurs in the
path from the source studio and on through mixing and mastering.
Another confusion between ideals, real-world potential and actual
implementation.

--rt