Re: ARNY says only digital can record difficult signals
> Mr Kreuger said if my gear was so great, then how come I couldn't
> make a perfect record playback on cassette of his low level test
The signal in question is not a low level signal. As recorded its peak
levels are -1 dN. In 44/16 format, the peak levels are still -5 dB.
You're just bitter because this signal shows up the failings of your analog
recording devices when it comes to recording a clearly audible signal based
on a unmodified recording of a natural sound.
> The test signal is a metallic impact sound of keys recorded at a max
Nope, any anybody who analyzes the signal will find out that its peak levels
are between -5 and -1 dB, depending on format.
Here are the URLs: anybody who wants to can download them and analyze them
as they well:
> and filtered so that all the energy is above 10khz.
Ths signal was not filtered at all. It is exactly as it was recorded.
Think I'm making this up? Anybody who wants to who has a microphone with
resonably flat response can record their own keychain, and see what they
>He then goes on to say that only digital can handle difficult
> signals. Maybe. Maybe not.
Prove me wrong Carl, I gave you step-by-step instructions on how to prove me
wrong. No tricks, no test tones.
> I can however provide an analog signal which cannot be recorded by
> conventional consumer CD recorders. (44.1/16)
That was your choice of a technically (but not sonically) limited format,
Carl. I have a consumer sound card that can record and play 24/192 format
audio. That means it can handle your 26 KHz test tone with no problem at
all, and continue on up to over 90 KHz.
The digital sound card an also record high frequency information at high
(or low) recorded levels. In contrast, you can't record evern your
pathetically-limited 26 KHz tone at anything like peak recorded levels. You
admitted that you can only record your 26 KHz singal at -30 dB. That's only
about 30 dB above the noise floor of your noise-bucket analog recorder. In
contrast my sound card can record 26, 36, or even 90 dB at levels that are
more like 85 dB over the noise floor.
But Carl, your 26 KHz test tone is not an audio signal. It's at an
ultrasonic frequency. It's even one of those test tones that you just
recently falsely accused me of basing my conclusions on.
> It is recorded at (180nwb/sec) -30db and the frequency is a sine tone
> at 26 kHz recorded on a consumer analog recording deck.
So what? Carl, if you want to make a contest out of recording test tones, I
can record a 90 KHz tone with a consumer audio sound cards that costs under
$100. I can record it at something like 85 dB over the noise floor.
Carl, thanks for showing your disregard for the idea that audio is about
hearing sound. Thanks for basing your conclusion on a artificial test
> It is as stupid a signal as the one he challanged me with and thus
> proves nothing at all...
Varl, show me an redulate audio analog recorder that will record 0 dB
signals at 20, 26, 40, or 80 KHz. Consumer audio sound cards can do this.
But of course this sort of thing proves nothing about sound quality, since
all of these frequences can be removed from musical and natural sounds
without any audible effects.