Forum classism. Forums are a a lot about analog class feeling superior. Irrespective of whether it sounds good. Partly attributable to the fact that those on analog would have a wider and longer experience with systems
Digitalitis
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Forum classism. Forums are a a lot about analog class feeling superior. Irrespective of whether it sounds good. Partly attributable to the fact that those on analog would have a wider and longer experience with systems
i refer back to both face to face, and on line conversations we have had, where you repeatedly had a strong negative perspective on digital. and that perspective was threaded through your general postings.
you visited me some years back, i had just got my MSB Select II, and you had zero interest in hearing it. the only time you heard it was when i had it playing when you walked into the room.
you had talked yourself into a particular mind set and were not really open to considering anything different.
this was 3+ years ago. since that time i have seen a thaw in your perspective little by little. but only through clenched teeth. you still keep it at arms length.
all that brain effort to push it away has lingering effects even in spite of what your ears might tell you.
when i'm preparing for visitors i might have an Lp playing to warm up the cartridge, but typically digital is what is being heard.
None of this supports your theory that something at the origin of my digital experience -- at the time of my first exposure to digital -- "trained" me to associate digital with a negative physical reaction. After the origin of my exposure to digital, if I didn't like the sound of digital after that, that's not some sort of bias or training at the inception of exposure -- that's just on-going, experience-based subjective preference.
My first exposure to digital could have opened my ears to a sound I found more impressive and believable and realistic than vinyl.
I went into my first listening session with the DS Audio equipment with a completely open mind -- and I found it incredibly impressive from the first minute. Since for some reason you assume and impute various biases to me why wasn't I biased against an optical cartridge -- a whole new technology which threatened to obsolete a big part of my audio investment including three Io boxes and cartridges -- when I have enjoyed and owned moving coil cartridges for 34 years? Mike, it seems that you accuse me of bias only when I report hearing something different than what you report hearing.
The fact that I had no interest in listening to digital during my wonderful visit with you has always been a red herring. The only reason I did not want to hear digital at that time was because I was already immersed with you in elaborate and repeated comparisons: comparing carefully (i) three different amplifiers, and (ii) vinyl versus tape, and, I think, (iii) 1/4" tape versus 1/2" tape. I had enough stuff swimming around in my head without adding a third format to that mix at that time.
This past Sunday I spent the entire afternoon listening to digital, with a couple of digital versus vinyl comparisons. I reported that I thought, without a comparison to another DAC, that the Baltic 3 sounded great, and that I think it's a great value.
Last edited:
Ron the next time you visit Destin, Panama City, etc in the Florida panhandle come by for a visit. Unless I put on some vinyl from the 1950s (Simone, London, really old records, etc), you won’t hear any Rice Krispy sounds coming from our TT. Jose’ set it up using Analogmagic. It’s absolutely amazing what he did.
It seems like it would help if there was actually a consistent explanation of what "digitalitis" from the audio side. I think these are the main components to it:
1. Digital devices are complex and produce and accumulate a lot of low-level embedded noises that robs the overall sound quality (contrast, detail, etc), while analog formats have an audible noise floor that is separate from the important audio. It takes a lot of work to remove this digital noise, and it comes from power supplies, clocking, jitter, networks, USB, etc.
2. Brick wall or sharp digital filters used in ADCs and DACs flatten the image, remove spacial cues, and confuse transients which qualitatively makes music seem harder, less fluid, three-dimensional and open.
3. Digital formats have plenty of resolution on paper, but except for DSD, aren't able to capture the most subtle details that make sounds seem lifelike. This is a complex topic since it goes against the math, but DSD is a good example where the specs can be lower than a 24/192 PCM file, yet the level of detail is higher.
4. No matter how much correction you throw at a digital system for noise, jitter, filtering, DAC quality, file resolution, etc you are still at the mercy of the analog to digital converters used in the recording and/or mastering, that in most cases are going to be less resolving and classy than the
average WBF system. Virtually every professional ADC or DAC used in studios is build on off-the-shelf chips, and relatively cheap electronics.
5. Digital masters also push pretty hot levels, which can be fatiguing, whereas you just can't do that with a vinyl master.
I consider digital a work in progress, and because of my musical tastes very little that I listen to is on AAA vinyl pressings. Besides that, I think SACD/DSD are the best we've got, and with a good DAC/system that is enough for me. But if my tasted leaned more classical or jazz, and I favored a warmer sound, you still can't beat vinyl.
1. Digital devices are complex and produce and accumulate a lot of low-level embedded noises that robs the overall sound quality (contrast, detail, etc), while analog formats have an audible noise floor that is separate from the important audio. It takes a lot of work to remove this digital noise, and it comes from power supplies, clocking, jitter, networks, USB, etc.
2. Brick wall or sharp digital filters used in ADCs and DACs flatten the image, remove spacial cues, and confuse transients which qualitatively makes music seem harder, less fluid, three-dimensional and open.
3. Digital formats have plenty of resolution on paper, but except for DSD, aren't able to capture the most subtle details that make sounds seem lifelike. This is a complex topic since it goes against the math, but DSD is a good example where the specs can be lower than a 24/192 PCM file, yet the level of detail is higher.
4. No matter how much correction you throw at a digital system for noise, jitter, filtering, DAC quality, file resolution, etc you are still at the mercy of the analog to digital converters used in the recording and/or mastering, that in most cases are going to be less resolving and classy than the
average WBF system. Virtually every professional ADC or DAC used in studios is build on off-the-shelf chips, and relatively cheap electronics.
5. Digital masters also push pretty hot levels, which can be fatiguing, whereas you just can't do that with a vinyl master.
I consider digital a work in progress, and because of my musical tastes very little that I listen to is on AAA vinyl pressings. Besides that, I think SACD/DSD are the best we've got, and with a good DAC/system that is enough for me. But if my tasted leaned more classical or jazz, and I favored a warmer sound, you still can't beat vinyl.
Last edited:
Not quite true.
Brain Communicates in Analog and Digital Modes Simultaneously
David McCormick New Haven, Conn. — Contrary to popular belief, brain cells use a mix of analog and digital coding at the same time to communicate efficiently, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers published this week in Nature.
news.yale.edu
Neurons generate axon potentials which are all or none events ( i.e., a digital 1 or 0). However, the input to neurons is often regulated by many synapses which ultimately regulates firing (analog) of a post synaptic neuron generating an axon potential (i.e. nerve conduction). In the ear, the organ of Corti contains hair cells with that bend in response (analog) to mechanical stimulation/vibration. This regulates the basilar membrane which is attached to the auditory never which then fires (a "digital" action potential) to send a specific signal to the brain stem eventually resulting in perception.
Last edited:
In addition to careful cartride-table setup, optimal record cleaning along with physical handling care are necessary conditions for long term vinyl success.
Yup but, in addition, the contemporaneous occurrence of synaptic events can result in the modulation of one (or more) of them so that they are not "all-or-none" (which definitely applies to the conduction of them in axons).
Actually, it is the variation of membrane potential of the hair cells, themselves that is the direct result of bending of the cilia (hairs) and the consequence of that is the generation of action potentials in the auditory nerves. The rate of APs in the nerve is determined by the degree of depolarization of the hair cells.
TL/DR..... It is a complex process with digital-like and analog-like components.
Not quite true.
Brain Communicates in Analog and Digital Modes Simultaneously
David McCormick New Haven, Conn. — Contrary to popular belief, brain cells use a mix of analog and digital coding at the same time to communicate efficiently, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers published this week in Nature.
Neurons generate axon potentials which are all or none events, i.e., a digital 1 or 0). However, the input to neurons is often regulated by many synapses which ultimately regulates firing (analog) of a post synaptic neuron generating an axon potential (i.e. nerve conduction). In the ear, the organ of Corti contains hair cells with that bend in response (analog) to mechanical stimulation/vibration. This regulates the basilar membrane which is attached to the auditory never which then fires (a "digital" action potential) to send a specific signal to the brain stem eventually resulting in perception.
Interesting Marty.
From the news item you cite:
" Neurons receive input from other cells largely through synaptic contacts on their dendrites and cell bodies. The release of neurotransmitters at these synapses causes the voltage inside the cell receiving the transmitters to fluctuate continuously. Once this voltage passes a threshold, an action potential is generated. The action potential is a specialized waveform known to be able to travel down the axon, or output portion of the cell.
Due to its length and thinness, the nerve axon has been believed to be impassable to the smaller analog voltage deflections that gave rise to action potential. As this action potential reaches the synaptic terminals of the axon, it causes the release of a transmitter onto the next neurons in the chain. So, although signals in the cell body are represented in an analog fashion, they were thought to be transmitted between cells solely through the rate and timing of the action potentials that propagated down the axon, that is, in a digital fashion."
Reacting or not based on some threshold potential that yields a firing or not makes me wonder if the threshold itself is learned behavior. Is knowing when to pull the trigger a result of the brain or hearing system making itself more efficient through trial and error?
Ron, it's been a pleasure to know you (only) 9-10 years, so i can't know anything about your 'first digital'. my 'Aversion Therapy' comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek alluding to my observation about your perspective about digital a few years back. and the strong impression it made on me. it seemed like it was a big 'stop sign' in your mind. just my view of where you were.
i view your approach to vinyl as open and without baggage. no question. you are eager and always in pursuit of the best thing you can find.
sorry i brought it up. won't do it again.
today is a different day than back then. obviously you had all those digital compare sessions with PK, and the Lampi Horizon time at Steve's place.
my earlier point was when you are trying to make a case about some sort of 'digital sound pathology' you are not at all your best objective self. unless you can unknow your history.
which does not make you wrong.
Last edited:
Well the article I quoted stated differently.Not quite true.
Brain Communicates in Analog and Digital Modes Simultaneously
David McCormick New Haven, Conn. — Contrary to popular belief, brain cells use a mix of analog and digital coding at the same time to communicate efficiently, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers published this week in Nature.
Neurons generate axon potentials which are all or none events, i.e., a digital 1 or 0). However, the input to neurons is often regulated by many synapses which ultimately regulates firing (analog) of a post synaptic neuron generating an axon potential (i.e. nerve conduction). In the ear, the organ of Corti contains hair cells with that bend in response (analog) to mechanical stimulation/vibration. This regulates the basilar membrane which is attached to the auditory never which then fires (a "digital" action potential) to send a specific signal to the brain stem eventually resulting in perception.
Not a surprise Joe. One of the things we learn early in med school is that only half of what we are taught is true. The problem is that often don't know which half!
I'm no expert in the auditory system, but the visual system certainly uses learned behavior as a part of visual development from infancy to adulthood. The most obvious example is amblyopia or lazy eye that leads to poor vision in some children with eye muscle imbalance issues. The solution is often to patch the good eye and force the child use the bad eye. This is thought to force the development of synaptic connections from the eye to the brain and there is no question it works, especially if it is done in young childhood. Some kids can go from legally blind to almost 20/20 vision with such treatment. Forcing the eye brain connection is therefore a learned adaptive response in these kids. I am unaware if such an analogous pathology and treatment exists in the auditory system.
It is hard to understand why people think very seriously about "digitalitis" and the pseudo non natural aspects of digital in its current specifications and are not disturbed by the nature of stereo. A true physical vectorial sound field created by many point sources in space is sampled at several positions, all these channels are mathematically processed and convoluted in a two channel information, stored , decoded and played using two speakers creating an illusionary non physical soundstage with the help of room reflections - surely there is not such thing in nature. Does anyone suffer from "stereolitis"? 
And yes, I know that some people listening to binaural stereo consider regular stereo an inferior format.
And yes, I know that some people listening to binaural stereo consider regular stereo an inferior format.The problem I am referring to goes far beyond these first order effects. The underlying issue is noise and distortion caused by nonlinearities of the quantization process which adds a constant source of ear mutilating fatigue to the high frequencies.
I have been having little intolerance to solid state in general. Well, I have condition called "solid statitis".
It is hard to understand why people think very seriously about "digitalitis" and the pseudo non natural aspects of digital in its current specifications and are not disturbed by the nature of stereo. A true physical vectorial sound field created by many point sources in space is sampled at several positions, all these channels are mathematically processed and convoluted in a two channel information, stored , decoded and played using two speakers creating an illusionary non physical soundstage with the help of room reflections - surely there is not such thing in nature. Does anyone suffer from "stereolitis"?
Sorry, Francisco, but I do not understand the relevance of this post to the instant question. We have two ears, and our ears are listening to two loudspeakers. When listening to our stereos our brains are focused on sound coming primarily from two locations in front of us. Listening to two or more sources of sound at the same time seems very consistent with what humans have dealt with for eons.
Ah but how much transmitter an action potential will release can be modulated by the action of other contemporaneous inputs directly on the synaptic terminal. As a result, the fixed punctate signal of the AP can produce variable outputs.
That procedure is based on reinforcing the nerve-muscle activity at the extraocular muscles (possibly by affecting their synaptic connections) rather than changing or causing development of synaptic connections from the eye to the brain. Amblyopia leads to visual problems but it is a muscular deficiency.
Aren't we going rather far afield?
Similar threads
Members online
- jazzdude99
- Holli82
- thedudeabides
- cal3713
- Audiocrack
- Barry823
- rob
- Emorante
- audiobomber
- SlapEcho
- Basillus7
- thase13
- jaycoh47
- sbnx
- 3rdRock
- Rdk777
- dbeau
- Duke LeJeune
- onur
- slowGEEZR
- moby2004
- rgmd11
- SoupRKnowva
- alwayslearning
- V-Squared
- F208Frank
- Nathanu
- LarryK
- DLS
- UncleE
- gleeds
- ecwl
- jadedavid
- Hiroshi
- jahatl513
- Opabin
- soliver
- kyoya78
- marty
- Mikeylee
- DonH50
- oldvinyl
- Young Skywalker
- andyo
- jbazz
- dennis h
- luthcol
- WLP3
- MRJAZZ
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |