Talk:Comparison of analog and digital recording

Suggest inclusion and (minimal) discussion of 2007 Moran/Meyer AESJ paper

Copy available at http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf. It debunks Stuart (cited in this page) and similar claims via blind testing of hi-rez passed through RBCD bottleneck; no one was able to detect this alleged degradation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.248.186 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is arguably off-topic for a comparison of analog and digital. The literature you cite is covered at High-resolution audio. ~Kvng (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Original research

Many of the unreferneced claims appear to be original research. Starting with the unreferenced information in the overview and the unreferenced notes, and most of every section after that. This should be obvious and shouldn't have to be explained. Bright☀ 08:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been slowly working thorough this article over the past year trying to address WP:OR and other issues. Let's start discussion with the most recent section I've reviewed and which you've tagged WP:OR - Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording#Digital_mechanisms. The final paragraph here is is a bit handwavy but the rest of it is a summary of digital audio theory that is explained and cited in the linked articles. I don't see anything made up or controversial here. What are you seeing? ~Kvng (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

cited in the linked articles then it should be cited in this article too. Citations don't carry over from article to article. Information like "Analog's frequency response may be variable due to limitations in the electronics." may be obvious to any electrical engineer but it's uncited and may be original research. Bright☀ 16:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose they should but the fact that this work has not been done does not, in my opinion, merit an WP:OR tag. We require citations on material that has been contested or is likely to be contested. I consider it disruptive to demand citations in cases where they can be found one click away in a linked article. If you think they need to be there, click over and copy them and paste them in.

I am already in agreement with you that the ""Analog's frequency response..." statement requires improvement. I don't think it is productive to argue about whether the flaw here is WP:OR or something else; Let's just make it better. If no one else gets to it first, I will take another crack on my next editing pass.

Back to the topic at hand, you've not convinced me that there's an WP:OR problem in the section we're discussing. In my brief review, I detected a similar pattern with the other WP:OR tags you've added. We can discuss them individually if you like or we can try to come to a more general understanding. ~Kvng (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The way forward is simple - if it's not original research, cite it; if it's original research, remove it. Bright☀ 08:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

And plaster {{original research}} tags on everything else until it meets these unimpeachable standards? ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've had this discussion before - place article tags, receive demand for section tags. Place section tags, receive demand for inline tags. Place inline tags, get accused of tag bombing. There is no consensus on Wikipedia for the right amount of tags, nor whether or not it is even helpful to use tags! The only relevant policy is WP:IMPERFECT. I believe that without tags articles languish, and have personally tagged and subsequently cleaned up articles that languished for years with no references. So tagging is the first step. Bright☀ 05:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate there is a range of acceptable tagging behaviors and I hope to stay above all that.

First off, please look at the edit history; This article is not languishing. I and others are actively working on it. My goal is to review and improve one section per month.

I have tried to understand what your specific WP:OR concerns are because the tags don't tell me. I have not yet succeeded at this. We've identified one paragraph that we agree needs improvement. Why don't you make a construction suggestion or edit on that. You've stated that everything needs to be cited. I disagree but you're welcome to add them - I've told you where to find them. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of the information presented here is obvious to an expert in the field, and as such does not need explicit sourcing. An essay about this is at WP:BLUE. I think it's disruptive to tag-bomb the article as if its information is not verifiably true. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the recently-added tags for now. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

obvious to an expert in the field, and as such does not need explicit sourcing This is contrary to WP:V. "Obvious to an expert in the field" does not remove the requirement to provide a citation. Bright☀ 10:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the idea that you don't need a citation to establish that the sky is blue. In the field of sound recording, it's patently obvious that the following statements are true:

Sound can be recorded and stored and played using either digital or analog techniques. Both techniques introduce errors and distortions in the sound, and these methods can be systematically compared.

However, you tagged these statements as a violation of WP:No original research. Please don't do that again. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

If the article is to improve you're going to have to source your statements. Do not restore unsourced statements without a providing a reference. Bright☀ 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also you're lying, I never tagged that particular statement that you quote. Bright☀ 17:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Two against one isn't exactly a strong consensus but that's what we have for now. BrightR, if you're not satisfied with Binksternet an my take on this, you're welcome to solicit input from other editors. I would suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production or doing an WP:RFC. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't need talk-page consensus to follow WP:V. Do not restore unreferenced information without providing a reference to a reliable source. Bright☀ 17:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

‎ Physical degradation

I removed the "citation needed" on "...digital copies are exact replicas that can be duplicated indefinitely and without generation loss." Stating "No citation needed because it is logically demonstrable that we can copy numbers any number of times... etc." Then my edit was reverted ie: "citation needed" was brought back, along with an explanation on the talk page about how digital media is not immune to data loss. Of course I am well aware of this, something we may call "bit rot", but felt that is not relevant. I do believe when we make a statement like "digital copies are exact replicas that can be duplicated indefinitely and without generation loss" we mean in principle. Like I said - it is just numbers, and numbers can be copied an infinite number of times - in principle. The key is the comparison with analog media, which degrades each time it is played/reproduced. Of course if you want to really, really complicate things, you could say, for example, a vinyl record could be copied an infinite number of times if you use some kind of optical reader instead of a needle to extract the information recorded in its grooves. Final note: I am to some degree an expert on the subject matter. I was impressed with the overall quality of the article. I found the excessive number of "citation needed" detracted from the experience. I speculate that the person who insisted on retaining the "citation needed" that I removed was not an expert. I will attempt to add "in principle" and once again remove the "citation needed" and see what happens. If it is reverted once more I give up with no further argument or interest. TropicalCoder (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That's quite long-winded but it still doesn't override Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 05:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations are needed where material is challenged or likely to be challenged. BrightR is sort of challenging things in this article so the tags stay for now. I would go ahead and make any improvements you are able to the article and don't worry about the presence or absence of tags for now. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)