View Single Post
Old 19th May 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post

The eye is much easier to fool than the ear. Harmonics man. There are no harmonics with light. One can go in a create a digital picture of anything pixel by pixel and fool the human eye. Not true with a human ear. We can still tell a real orchestra from one made of synths. If we care or not is another matter. The best delivery methods is yet another matter too.
That's a false analogy, we're not comparing sampled instruments against real ones, we're comparing an orchestral performance recorded to analog tape vs to a digital format. Would you be able to tell the difference? With regards to the raw sound, or "file", that's debatable, but what isn't debatable is the digital file can be made to sound like the analog file (by adding harmonics), but the inverse isn't true - the analog can never be made to attain the fidelity of the digital capture.

In the film world, HD (high definition) capture can be made to look like film ( we call it 'film look'), but the inverse is a capture to film can never look as clean as a digital capture.

That's not subjective, that's objective fact.

Fooling the eyes vs fooling the ears? I think we fool the ears plenty; there's thread elsewhere running concurrently with this one which shows a test where some people hear the word "Laurel" as "Yanny", and IMO, no one should ever have to hear Yanni.

In summation: objectively speaking, digital has the highest fidelity (and I'd argue, no identifiable sound), but subjectively, you might like the (lower fidelity) sound of analog better.
23
Share