@prof
You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? It’s called “sampling” for a reason, that it takes a representative sample of the original analog signal, and then on playback, it reconstructs a likeness of the original analog waveform, using the recorded samples, and synthesizing the information between the samples.
The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”
For some people, the answer is “yes, and I don’t need to worry about the process” for other people the answer is “yes, and I believe the process is sufficiently capable of reproducing sound quality within the range of tolerances that my ears need”. For still other people, the answer is “no, because I dislike the concept of digitizing an analog signal, no matter how convincing the playback result is”. Finally, there are some who say “I just can’t accept that the sampling process is faithful enough to produce playback that is perfectly the same as the original analog source, and they are therefore predisposed to not want to be satisfied by digital.
There are probably as many perspectives as there are hifi enthusiasts. All that matters is that each individual has the freedom to pursue the medium that suits their predisposition.
For the record, my predisposition is that digital has a specific time and place, where I do non-critical listening. Those digital formats include CD, satellite radio, podcasts and streaming. One day, I hope to add 4xDSD to that format one day, for archiving my extensive vinyl collection. After I’ve experienced 4xDSD in my application, I’ll evaluate it and I hope, it will fit the bill for my expectations in critical listening.
(And if that is a refrain of the tired old "analog captures the sound continuously, digital chops it up and misses parts" then that’s just a myth and a misunderstanding).
You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? It’s called “sampling” for a reason, that it takes a representative sample of the original analog signal, and then on playback, it reconstructs a likeness of the original analog waveform, using the recorded samples, and synthesizing the information between the samples.
The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”
For some people, the answer is “yes, and I don’t need to worry about the process” for other people the answer is “yes, and I believe the process is sufficiently capable of reproducing sound quality within the range of tolerances that my ears need”. For still other people, the answer is “no, because I dislike the concept of digitizing an analog signal, no matter how convincing the playback result is”. Finally, there are some who say “I just can’t accept that the sampling process is faithful enough to produce playback that is perfectly the same as the original analog source, and they are therefore predisposed to not want to be satisfied by digital.
There are probably as many perspectives as there are hifi enthusiasts. All that matters is that each individual has the freedom to pursue the medium that suits their predisposition.
For the record, my predisposition is that digital has a specific time and place, where I do non-critical listening. Those digital formats include CD, satellite radio, podcasts and streaming. One day, I hope to add 4xDSD to that format one day, for archiving my extensive vinyl collection. After I’ve experienced 4xDSD in my application, I’ll evaluate it and I hope, it will fit the bill for my expectations in critical listening.
