Talk:Comparison of analog and digital recording

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of analog and digital recording article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 30. The result of the discussion was keep.

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Suggest inclusion and (minimal) discussion of 2007 Moran/Meyer AESJ paper

Copy available at http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf. It debunks Stuart (cited in this page) and similar claims via blind testing of hi-rez passed through RBCD bottleneck; no one was able to detect this alleged degradation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.248.186 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is arguably off-topic for a comparison of analog and digital. The literature you cite is covered at High-resolution audio. ~Kvng (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‎ Physical degradation

I removed the "citation needed" on "...digital copies are exact replicas that can be duplicated indefinitely and without generation loss." Stating "No citation needed because it is logically demonstrable that we can copy numbers any number of times... etc." Then my edit was reverted ie: "citation needed" was brought back, along with an explanation on the talk page about how digital media is not immune to data loss. Of course I am well aware of this, something we may call "bit rot", but felt that is not relevant. I do believe when we make a statement like "digital copies are exact replicas that can be duplicated indefinitely and without generation loss" we mean in principle. Like I said - it is just numbers, and numbers can be copied an infinite number of times - in principle. The key is the comparison with analog media, which degrades each time it is played/reproduced. Of course if you want to really, really complicate things, you could say, for example, a vinyl record could be copied an infinite number of times if you use some kind of optical reader instead of a needle to extract the information recorded in its grooves. Final note: I am to some degree an expert on the subject matter. I was impressed with the overall quality of the article. I found the excessive number of "citation needed" detracted from the experience. I speculate that the person who insisted on retaining the "citation needed" that I removed was not an expert. I will attempt to add "in principle" and once again remove the "citation needed" and see what happens. If it is reverted once more I give up with no further argument or interest. TropicalCoder (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite long-winded but it still doesn't override Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 05:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are needed where material is challenged or likely to be challenged. BrightR is sort of challenging things in this article so the tags stay for now. I would go ahead and make any improvements you are able to the article and don't worry about the presence or absence of tags for now. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LP dynamic range

I have restored the {{fv}} tag that I added in December 2024. The dynamic range discussed by the source is in the context of preamplifier performance and does not include the performance of the vinyl itself. This is not what a listener hears when playing a record or even when the equipment is idle. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-aliasing filter ringing

About "However, the digital anti-aliasing filter may introduce degradations due to time domain response particularly at lower sample rates [21] [22].", in the section on "Frequency response --> Aliasing". The problem is that the references for this are junk science. Ohgddfp (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [21] dicusses how anti-aliasing filters at relatively low sampling rates create a "ringing transient response", resulting in "Energy Dispersion ...". While this is correct, this reference is used as evidence of a kind of degradation in digital that is not inherent with analog. (Remember the title of this Wiki article.) The cited paper is only making claims without evidence that these ringing artifacts are audible. To not be in the fake news or junk science catagory, such evidence must be supported with rigourous scientific experimental studies that can be replicated. Ohgddfp (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good reference will discuss the rigourosly scientific exeperiments that address exceptions to the following idea: The hairs in the cochlear are resonant, making the ear a spectrum analyzer in the frequency domain. With a sharp transient with ultrasound entering the ear, each hair will individually ring. If that sharp transient is replaced by a transient with the ringing version caused by anti-aliasing, it is a mathematical certainty that as long as the sound amplitude allows the ear to be in its linear range, the cochlear hairs will vibrate and ring in exactly the same manner and timing with either test sound. And since these hairs are the only way to convery sound informtion to the brain at sane sound levels, not changing the manner of how the hairs vibrate make it impossible for a human to discern an audible difference in any way. Ohgddfp (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [22] is similar, saying (just below Figure 1) "These ‘ringing tails’ act to spread out the signal’s energy over time — often referred to as ‘temporal blurring’ — and it is thought that our sense of hearing may be sensitive to this side-effect." Okay, "thought"? That amounts to zero experimental evidence presented by this paper that humans can perceive a difference. This puts this reference paper squarely in the fake news or junk science catagory. Ohgddfp (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the article's sentence I initially quoted be removed until a scientific reference can be found. Ohgddfp (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]