XPost: rec.arts.drwho   
   From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 16:16:19 +1300, Your Name wrote:   
      
   > On 2026-02-15 02:23:32 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:   
   >>   
   >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:47:06 +1300, Your Name wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The recording studios also use a much better digital equipment   
   >>> than home music players or what is released on the CD or online /   
   >>> streaming services, so what you're hearing has been downsampled.   
   >>   
   >> Are you admitting that digital technology can possibly be good   
   >> enough to serve as source material for your precious vinyl?   
   >   
   > I didn't say whether it was "good enough" or not, simply what   
   > happens.   
      
   You used the term “downsampled” to refer to consumer delivery formats   
   like vinyl.   
      
   > For a CD, the sounds are downsampled to CD-quality from teh higher   
   > quality studio digital recordings. Similarly with various streaming   
   > qualities.   
      
   Streaming and file formats can be in any sample rate and depth   
   desired. No need for any “downsampling” at all.   
      
   > For vinyl, it will depend on how exactly the vinyl master is made,   
   > but it still won't be a purely digital recording, even though the   
   > studio source was. There will be minute changes and differences.   
   > Together, that *could* mean some people hear (or more precisely   
   > *feel*) a difference in quality.   
      
   So analog losses actually *improve* the perception in quality?   
      
   Does this go for the dust and groove wear as well?   
      
   >>> But the on and off bits of digital audio and video can never match   
   >>> the near-infinite uniqueness of analogue.   
   >>   
   >> Quantum theory says no.   
   >   
   > Multiverse theory says every peice of music exists in every format   
   > and quality ... somewhere. :-p   
      
   Regardless of your attempt to distract from it, your original   
   statement remains nonsense.   
      
   >>> Even if you were digitally recording at a bazillion samples per   
   >>> second, you'd still be missing things between each sample.   
   >>   
   >> Fun fact: your nervous system is basically digital (nerve impulses   
   >> either fire or don’t fire). So you already do.   
   >   
   > Yes and no (and depends on who you ask). The human systems, including   
   > the nervous system, are not really strictly analogue nor digital. They   
   > are basically a mix of / somewhere between the two.   
      
   Nevertheless, it is a fact that nerve impulses either fire or don’t   
   fire, there is no in-between. That doesn’t depend on whom you ask; go   
   ask any expert.   
      
   (No doubt you’ll get the typical contrarian answers from audiophiles   
   and other non-experts, so don’t bother ...)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)