Interesting. I knew this was true about photography but only because there are more photosensitive grains in one frame of film than pixels on a digital recording device (albeit this is changing). But I did not think that the medium used in sound recording, especially vinyl (although the tape might be different, especially at higher speeds), can record that much detail.
Another point - the high level of noise that you mention greatly reduces the
amount of "usable" or retrievable information. The medium might accept the
signal, but if that signal cannot be later distinguished from noise
generated by the medium, it is pretty much lost even if it is "physically"
there. I think this principle applies to any data storage.
>
> Also the basis of MPEG recording and playback (DVD's, MP3's, etc) is
> a data compression/decompression program (a codec)which largely depends on
"getting
> something out of nothing". Rather than recording each bit of a sound
and/or visual source -
> only select frames are recorded. The job of the codec is to fill in
between these frames,
> inventing them on the fly based on what precedes and follows each.
Because of this
> process, file sizes are relatively small while the quality of the
recording can be quite good.
Exactly. That was the point I tried to convey by saying that we should be comparing recordings at the maximum media capacity rather than those whose quality has been compromised for economic considerations.
Wojtek