> Over a long enough distance (~30 m), it's better to use ADC <-HDMI-> DAC usually than send line-level signals due to losses involved unless one wishes to spend zillions on the most perfectly engineered and widely-incompatible shielded coaxial cable imaginable.
This is something I ask every audiophile I ever meet. Why not use digital audio at all times and convert to analog as late as possible in the audio pipeline instead lf buying ten thousand dollar cables? No one ever gave me a good answer...
> If you can't hear over 8 kHz, then you don't need 256-bit @ 96 kHz sampling.
> Further is the belief that lossless codecs cannot be replaced compressed lossless or sufficient parameters of some lossy formats.
The added precision is good for archival purposes and audio production though. It's easy to reduce quality later if necessary but the reverse is not true. Artist performances are unique, singular points in time. I think they should be captured with as much precision and quality as possible.
> Obsession with vacuum tubes and/or vinyl. I get the ceremony of vinyl, but it's not going to improve over perfect digital reproduction.
Isn't this due to the fact that older vinyls were mastered differently compared to modern releases? Nothing stops a digital audio recording from sounding just as good but the loudness war in the music industry resulted in masters with less dynamic range. Older music certainly has a different quality to my ears.
> This is something I ask every audiophile I ever meet. Why not use digital audio at all times and convert to analog as late as possible in the audio pipeline instead lf buying ten thousand dollar cables? No one ever gave me a good answer...
If they want to keep the signal pure analog, that is enough of a reason.
> If they want to keep the signal pure analog, that is enough of a reason.
Why would they want that? It's possible to perfectly reconstruct the original signal. The sampling theorem states that analog and digital audio are equivalent given a high enough sampling rate.
> If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, then it can be completely determined from its ordinates at a sequence of points spaced less than 1/2B seconds apart.
I don't see the point of analog signals anywhere in the pipeline other than in a DAC whose output drives the actual speakers.
There's no crime in simplifying the signal chain to reduce complexity. Theorems are great, but implementations are what matter and usually where things fall apart.
This is something I ask every audiophile I ever meet. Why not use digital audio at all times and convert to analog as late as possible in the audio pipeline instead lf buying ten thousand dollar cables? No one ever gave me a good answer...
> If you can't hear over 8 kHz, then you don't need 256-bit @ 96 kHz sampling.
> Further is the belief that lossless codecs cannot be replaced compressed lossless or sufficient parameters of some lossy formats.
The added precision is good for archival purposes and audio production though. It's easy to reduce quality later if necessary but the reverse is not true. Artist performances are unique, singular points in time. I think they should be captured with as much precision and quality as possible.
> Obsession with vacuum tubes and/or vinyl. I get the ceremony of vinyl, but it's not going to improve over perfect digital reproduction.
Isn't this due to the fact that older vinyls were mastered differently compared to modern releases? Nothing stops a digital audio recording from sounding just as good but the loudness war in the music industry resulted in masters with less dynamic range. Older music certainly has a different quality to my ears.