I've been reading that professional analog tape has a frequency range of 10Hz ~ 30kHz(+)

What does that mean? That tape has that frequency band or that a tape recorder has that frequency band including the tape? At what dB -/+? Further the assumption that "we" are all after that sound would be incorrect. 

Resolution is used in graphics when discussing at what point two things can be distinguished from one another meaning resolved. This is used in optics but has no real meaning in audio. One needs to understand what the "circle of confusion" is as it relates to fine detail in an optical system. This has nothing to do with audio.

John

I've been reading that professional analog tape has a frequency range of 10Hz ~ 30kHz(+)

What does that mean? That tape has that frequency band or that a tape recorder has that frequency band including the tape? At what dB -/+?

What I read referred to the tape. "High quality open-reel tape frequency response can extend from 10 Hz to well above 20 kHz." It also goes on to say that some LP's had frequencies up to 50kHz encoded on them. Click here for the full article.

Resolution is used in graphics when discussing at what point two things can be distinguished from one another meaning resolved. This is used in optics but has no real meaning in audio. One needs to understand what the "circle of confusion" is as it relates to fine detail in an optical system. This has nothing to do with audio.

I gave you a link where other folks use the term resolution when explaining properties of digital audio. I'm not sure where they are getting their information. Here's a quote from a second article, "So far, actual jitter in consumer products seems to be too small to be detected at least for reproduction of music signals. It is not clear, however, if detection thresholds obtained in the present study would really represent the limit of auditory resolution or it would be limited by resolution of equipment."

I personally don't care about the use of the term, I'm just trying to show you that others do use it in regard to audio.

Thanks,

Bub.

I personally don't care about the use of the term, I'm just trying to show you that others do use it in regard to audio.

I have no control over what others say.  I am just saying that it is not a meaningful use of the word with audio. Just because others use a term doesn't mean it is understood by them or appropriate. They may have read it somewhere and thus decide they will use it too. Who knows. It still is not meaningful with audio.

bitflipper

How does bit depth (dynamic range) and sample rate (frequency range) in the digital domain compare to the analog domain? I've been reading that professional analog tape has a frequency range of 10Hz ~ 30kHz(+) so to be able to emulate analog (which is what we're all striving for isn't it?), wouldn't you need to be recording in the digital domain at at least 88.2/24?

Where this logic goes off track is in the presumption that recording inaudible frequencies is actually beneficial.

They are all going to be filtered out at some point, whether it's during MP3 encoding, SRC to 44.1 for CDs, or simply due to the limitations of your playback system. And even if you do manage to turn 30KHz content into acoustical energy by playing 88.2KHz files through speakers equipped with ultrasonic transducers, you still won't be able to physically hear it!

There is just one thing that higher sample rates can accomplish: they relax the need for anti-aliasing measures within the signal chain. But there are other ways to do that which are far more efficient, such as oversampling within plugins that are prone to aliasing (e.g. limiters).

It is important to note that the nyquist theorem applies to signals that are sampled for infinite time and any time-limited signal cannot be perfectly bandlimited.

It is important to note that the nyquist theorem applies to signals that are sampled for infinite time and any time-limited signal cannot be perfectly bandlimited.

What does that mean?

bitflipper

SvenArne: Comparisons to images/video are confusing at best. They do not help anyone better understand how digital audio works.

jyeager11: Only to people who have no inclination of how images/video work. To those of us that do, Loptec's metaphor was spot-on, and would help many newbies coming in here with more knowledge of image than audio.

I just wanted to repeat these quotes for the benefit of any actual newbies who might be trying to follow along. The former paragraph is correct. The latter is absolutely bogus and a great disservice to struggling noobs.

Well it seems that I came back here to write again, after all.. :)
(Whiii! More popcorn to the people!) 

For some people the only important thing is to compare the technical aspects of a digital image and digital audio. If it’s ANYTHING in this world that gets confusing for a newbie, it’s this kind of talk!

My metaphor had only one purpose and that was to give an easy-to-understand description of why it’s better to use higher quality.

To best get to understand something that you haven’t been in contact with before you sometimes have to make comparisons to things where, even though they’re totally different, you still have to think in similar ways to get the best result.

Like in my example, when working with digital visual art and with digital audio: Use high quality because if you do you have more control over what you’re working with.

To even start talking about the technical things just make things sooo pathetic.. This isn't what it's about!

It’s like taking your 3 year old child to a soccer field and start lecturing him about all rules and strategies of the game... What he’s allowed to do and what he’s not... “Nonono!!! No hands, child! No hands! ..Now you’ll have to sit outside the field for 2 mins. and watch dad play! Well, off you go then!!! NO CRYING!! These are the rules of the game!!”
..When all he wants to do is try and kick the ball..

For god’s sake, just let him kick the ball and develop from there in his own f**** pase..

And also... How can someone complain about a metaphor regarding digital audio and a digital image and then later in the thread compare Swedish with Dutch?! Should I start complaining about this comparison now? Should I tell everyone over and over how totally different these two languages are?  I could but I won’t, since 1) it’s details that won’t be interesting, since it’s not what we’re actually talking about and 2) I’m no jerk

John

It is important to note that the nyquist theorem applies to signals that are sampled for infinite time and any time-limited signal cannot be perfectly bandlimited.

What does that mean?

Audio signals that we work with do not meet the criteria for application of the theorem therefore there is no reason to believe that the theorem's expected results would apply. Sampling at the nyquist frequency may not offer the accurate signal sampling "the can be perfectly reconstructed part of the theorem" that people choose to believe it does. Over sampling could have benefits in these regards and of course drawbacks. Just because most of us can not quantify the difference with current playback technology does not mean there is not a difference that has value.

Audio signals that we work with do not meet the criteria for application of the theorem therefore there is no reason to believe that the theorem's expected results would apply.

You are kidding right? The only problem with that is we see it doing just that every time we play digital audio or record digital audio.

"the can be perfectly reconstructed part of the theorem"

Maybe maybe not. It can be quickly tested by created a 20 kHz sine wave.

Just because most of us can not quantify the difference with current playback technology does not mean there is not a difference that has value.

I have no idea what this means.

Some more links to examples of high resolution audio.

1. http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
2. http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm
3. http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats/DTS-HD_High_Resolution_Audio.aspx
4. https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=staticpage&pagename=audiophile_96khz
5. http://www.voxengo.com/product/redunoise/
6. http://www.resolutionmag.com/
7. http://www.amazon.com/M-AUDIO-Transit-Resolution-Mobile-Upgrade/dp/B0000CDHP5
8. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_audio_resolution
9. http://www.lessloss.com/high-resolution-audiophile-recordings-c-68.html
10. http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileDSM2.html

You are kidding right?

absolutely not the theorem is clear on the type of signals that it applies to.