697

submitted 4 months ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

129 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 48 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

To think that analog mediums are superior to digital requires a fundamental misunderstanding of signals and the human range of hearing that you can only get from ~~placebo enthusiasts~~ "audiophiles"

(I am by no means shitting on actual audiophiles btw. I consider myself an amateur audiophile.)

Edit: should also clarify I'm not shitting on people who enjoy records. I'm shitting on people who strictly think analog is better than digital.

[-] techwithjake@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

A pure analog recording can be superior to digital recordings. But those are so rare these days, we don't have a good comparison.

There's things like "bass bleed" and cross talk that made analog so interesting to listen to.

As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it. Especially in the lower end.

[-] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it.

Someone hasn't heard of the Nyquist theorem :)

[-] techwithjake@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Yes. Yes I have. It's why I state 48kHz or higher due to the halving effect. 44.1kHz will only get you to 22kHz and 18Hz. Not a whole different than what ours can hear. 44.1kHz was the standard for CDs due to size limitations but we're well beyond that now.