A K Bhattacharjee
Active Member
Although, it is a matter of debate but just have a look on the article written by Mr.Paul B.Wiggins, a Studio Engineer(1988-present).
“No, and it's almost physically impossible.
Ever since the dawn of the CD in the early eighties, there have been people stating that they thought that analogue (vinyl) was better and they pointed at the limits of digital recording as proof for their statement. Indeed, a CD only records sounds up to 22kHz whereas, in theory, an analogue recording virtually has no limits if the recorded track isn't overly compressed. 33rpm albums sound much worse than 45rpm singles because on an album the vinyl track loops much closer together to fit all of the music on a 12″ disc, compressing the track and hence the sound.
But if you consider that the human ear can only detect sounds from about 50Hz to roughly 16kHz, you'll understand that the CD has more than frequency range to spare to fit all of the perceivable audio signal. It is true that we “hear" lower frequencies through our diaphragm and higher through our eyeballs, but even the best speakers will give you no more than 20Hz to 20kHz, again well within the CD range.
Another argument is that digital audio isn't recorded at straight curves like analogue, and the digital signal is broken down in amplitude information bits that follow the signal curve.
Yet, the 16-bit CD recording is precise enough to become indistinguishable from the original analogue signal, especially when you consider the limits and errors of your amplifier and speakers. Most digital recordings are now done at 24-bit and even 32-bit (studio quality) which is actually far superior to any analogue recording.
Many have claimed to hear the difference and many have done a blind listening test in order to prove they were right, but 95% of them failed and the other 5% probably got lucky guessing more than 6 out of 10”
“No, and it's almost physically impossible.
Ever since the dawn of the CD in the early eighties, there have been people stating that they thought that analogue (vinyl) was better and they pointed at the limits of digital recording as proof for their statement. Indeed, a CD only records sounds up to 22kHz whereas, in theory, an analogue recording virtually has no limits if the recorded track isn't overly compressed. 33rpm albums sound much worse than 45rpm singles because on an album the vinyl track loops much closer together to fit all of the music on a 12″ disc, compressing the track and hence the sound.
But if you consider that the human ear can only detect sounds from about 50Hz to roughly 16kHz, you'll understand that the CD has more than frequency range to spare to fit all of the perceivable audio signal. It is true that we “hear" lower frequencies through our diaphragm and higher through our eyeballs, but even the best speakers will give you no more than 20Hz to 20kHz, again well within the CD range.
Another argument is that digital audio isn't recorded at straight curves like analogue, and the digital signal is broken down in amplitude information bits that follow the signal curve.
Yet, the 16-bit CD recording is precise enough to become indistinguishable from the original analogue signal, especially when you consider the limits and errors of your amplifier and speakers. Most digital recordings are now done at 24-bit and even 32-bit (studio quality) which is actually far superior to any analogue recording.
Many have claimed to hear the difference and many have done a blind listening test in order to prove they were right, but 95% of them failed and the other 5% probably got lucky guessing more than 6 out of 10”
