Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (
More info?)
TIm Martin intoned:
>Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
You want to bet on that? If you do, consider who's going to be
wagering against you:
Blesser, B.A., "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive
Examination of Theory, Implementation, and Current
Practice," JAES, vol. 26, no. 10, October, 1978.
"Elementary and Basic Aspects of Digital Audio," AES
Digital Audio Collected Papers, Rye, 1983.
Nyquist, H., "Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed,"
Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, April, 1924.
"Certain Topics in Telegraph Transmission Theory," Trans.
AIEE, vol. 47, no. 2, April, 1928
Shannon, C.E., "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, vol. 27, October, 1948.
Vanderkooy, J., and S.P. Lipshitz, "Dither in Digital Audio,"
JAES, vol. 35, no. 12, December, 1987.
"Resolution Below the Least Significant Bit in Digital Audio
Systems with Dither," JAES, vol. 32, no. 3, March, 1984,
Erratum, JAES, vol. 32, no. 11, November, 1984.
There are probably 12-15 other articles that you'll want to study
before you lose your hard earned money betting on an ill-advised
position.
>That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits,
>it is possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits
>which can be used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the
>original analog signal.
Your assertion directly infers that you can measure any signal
with arbitrary accuracy. To do that requires a system that has
infinite bandwidth and infinite dynamic range. The practical
requirements for that is the necessity of infinite time and
energy.
Beyond what may seem to be a philosphical discussion (it isn't:
it's a direct and inevitable consequence of the your basic
assertion and is proven rigorously in work cited above by Nyquist
and Shannon), the simplem fact is that ANY system of a finite
bandwidth and limited dynamic range can be EXACTLY represented
by a quantized system of finite accuracy.
Nyquist and Shannon show that for a bandwidth of Fb, a sample
rate in excess of 2*Fb is necessary AND sufficient to sample
the signal in the time domain with NO loss in information. In
a similar fashion, they rigorously showed that to fully capture
with NO loss, a signal with a dynamic range of x dB, a sample
size of x/6.02 bits is required (since in binary representation,
the resolution is 6.02 dB/bit.
Assume that a bandwidth of 20 kHz, a sample rate in excess of
2*20 kHz is sufficient to capture the information in the time
with NO loss. Assume a dynamic range (noise floor to maximum
possible level) of 80 dB (VERY generous for LPs), 80/6.02 or
13.3 bits is needed to sufficiently sample in the amplitude
domain with NO loss of accuracy. Increasing the sample rate
or the word size, contrary to your assertion, will NOT produce
any more accuracy.
Thus, a sample rate of 44.1 kHz and a word size of 16 bits can
be shown to be more than sufficient to encode LPs with no loss
or compression at all.
Them's the facts. Do with them what you will.
But I would recommend you not bet against them and I would
also recommend that you not continue to spread misinformation
of the sort:
"Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it."