T
Trevor Wilson
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
I think it can be taken as read in context that the sampling rate (and
number of bits sampled) will be high enough that the will be nothing
left of the quantisation noise that is capable of being heard by the
ear. The ear itself is not an analogue device.
**I take NOTHING as read. Unless the precise specs of the digital system
are specified, there can be no blanket claim that the effects of that
digital system are inaudible.
For instance: There is abundant evidence to prove that a (say) 24/96
digital audio system is preferred by some listeners (in a blind test)
over a 16/44 (CD quality) in a suitably high resolution system, using
otherwise identical material. I would also add that there is
considerable evidence to suggest that many listeners can easily pick the
difference between DACs (Digital to Analogue Converters). In fact, some
of the best DACs are considered to be those manufactured by Philips back
in the late 1980s.
The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.
For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape
(15ips, played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and
vinyl, through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred
over the vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further
testing revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).
FWIW: I have not purchased a (new) vinyl recording since 1988. Recording
companies lst interest in manufacturing quality LPs long ago.