The Sound of Analog, the Sound of Digital

[morricab]

The Weiss Dac includes a vinyl emulation filter. Jump to measurements to read what it actually does.https://www.stereophile.com/content/weiss-engineering-dac502-da-processor
You can have the best if both worlds now

Great...worst of both worlds most likely...

 

[morricab]

You should read the many papers of the 60's and 70's on the intrinsic problems of tape and vinyl. It will show how childish is this kind of argumentation - which has more defects?

Which has more audible defects is a more appropriate question. When jitter can be heard down to picoseconds because it is such an unnatural effect...for example

 

[PeterA]

Which has more audible defects is a more appropriate question. When jitter can be heard down to picoseconds because it is such an unnatural effect...for example

Followed by which of the audible effects is musically detrimental or the most harmful and causing emotional distress culminating in a departure from naturalness.

 

[morricab]

Followed by which of the audible effects is musically detrimental or the most harmful and causing emotional distress culminating in a departure from naturalness.

Exactly

 

[morricab]

And it reconstructs those samples into the original analog wave which is fully represented, in a continuous manner upon analog reconstruction, in those samples as long as the signal is bandwidth-limited, as it is in digital (at a frequency above the threshold of human hearing).

See:
Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.

There is no discontinuity in the way of "stair steps" or the like, as it is often suggested in false representations of digital.

Here are two very good videos on the subject. It is really worth watching them in their entirety, with an open mind, to gain better understanding:

Why do you bore us with the basics Al? The devil always is and has been in the practical execution and with both digital and analog they are both far from theory.

 

[Al M.]

Why do you bore us with the basics Al?

Because some don't even know and understand the basics, as is obvious also in this discussion.

I would say, probably many don't, and even though I only listen to digital at home, I myself have not sufficiently understood the theory until a few years ago. Some of it just seems counterintuitive. But that is the case also with other things that are correct.

The devil always is and has been in the practical execution and with both digital and analog they are both far from theory.

This is precisely what I have never been tiring of saying myself, especially when it comes to digital. Yet at the same time, 40 years or so later, digital has come at least so far that in its better implementations also the audible result now inspires confidence that the theory is correct after all -- even though there is still some gap between practical result and theory.

 

[microstrip]

I know little about the practice of statistics, Al, but what I read about sampling theory is that it takes samples.

You need a little more than that do discuss digital sound reproduction ...

Besides, this is a semantics debate. No one seems really interested in digital technical aspects or learning anything new, just to get ammunition to support his preferences.

Why some people prefer to pick Paul McGowan among the many others who share his views and explain them is much more clearly, is still a mystery to me. Probably they feel betrayed because PS Audio is a very successful modern audio company and "PS Audio's first product was a standalone phono preamplifier, sold direct to consumers for $59.95. " (quoted from Wikipedia)

 

[Al M.]

No one seems really interested in digital technical aspects or learning anything new, just to get ammunition to support his preferences.

Oops. You said it .

 

[microstrip]

Which has more audible defects is a more appropriate question. When jitter can be heard down to picoseconds because it is such an unnatural effect...for example

Well, this just shows how resolving can be the digital media and the human hear.

Followed by which of the audible effects is musically detrimental or the most harmful and causing emotional distress culminating in a departure from naturalness.

Wow, great sounding sentence. A pity that after being analyzed is just a repetition of what many people who loved tubes say about solid state. Or many SET lovers say about pushpul. Or many horn lovers say about box speakers ...

 

[ack]

I would say, probably many don't, and even though I only listen to digital at home, I myself have not sufficiently understood the theory until a few years ago. Some of it just seems counterintuitive. But that is the case also with other things that are correct.

Al, do you believe human hearing just stops over 20kHz or so and that's it? And if so, and given that it seems to me that you think redbook is adequate to reproduce frequencies up to that point, is redbook adequate for music reproduction, at least from a frequency reproduction perspective?

 

[Al M.]

Al, do you believe human hearing just stops over 20kHz or so and that's it? And if so, and given that it seems to me that you think redbook is adequate to reproduce frequencies up to that point, is redbook adequate for music reproduction, at least from a frequency reproduction perspective?

Yes, it stops there. Any scientific evidence to the contrary is controversial and anecdotal at best, not supported by a wider systematic body of evidence.

Human hearing stops at 20 kHz (in newborn babies, going downhill from there), just like we obviously cannot see UV light, unlike bees, for example. As to the latter, it is very instructive to look at images of what they actually see when they look at flowers, with details only visible in UV light shifted for us into the visible range. There is just a hard stop for us.

I don't consider the CD medium perfect, but frequency reproduction is not the problem, in my view. It does cut it awfully close to the theoretical limits of transparency, in terms of practical demands on filtering (a 48 kHz format would have been better), and in terms of bit depth. A more 'generous' format makes proper practical implementation easier and more forgiving, and may even add some theoretical gain in transparency, when it comes to bit depth.

On the other hand I am constantly astonished about the incredible and realistic resolution of fine detail from the CD format. And it can be on just a mindboggling level if reproduction through the rest of the chain allows it, as I also recently witnessed in Madfloyd's system especially on orchestral music (and from the same DAC that we have). The purity and ease of tone there was just astonishing as well. All from a plain Redbook CD file.

 

[ddk]

You need a little more than that do discuss digital sound reproduction ...

Besides, this is a semantics debate. No one seems really interested in digital technical aspects or learning anything new, just to get ammunition to support his preferences.

Why some people prefer to pick Paul McGowan among the many others who share his views and explain them is much more clearly, is still a mystery to me. Probably they feel betrayed because PS Audio is a very successful modern audio company and "PS Audio's first product was a standalone phono preamplifier, sold direct to consumers for $59.95. " (quoted from Wikipedia)

He's accessible and entertaining, not everyone cuts it in front of the camera.

I don't see the necessity for consumers to be versed in the technical aspects of digital sound recording and reproduction to know what they enjoy or dislike. You're stuck with it's nature or lack of.

david

 

[morricab]

Because some don't even know and understand the basics, as is obvious also in this discussion.

I would say, probably many don't, and even though I only listen to digital at home, I myself have not sufficiently understood the theory until a few years ago. Some of it just seems counterintuitive. But that is the case also with other things that are correct.



This is precisely what I have never been tiring of saying myself, especially when it comes to digital. Yet at the same time, 40 years or so later, digital has come at least so far that in its better implementations also the audible result now inspires confidence that the theory is correct after all -- even though there is still some gap between practical result and theory.

I think if you went back and listened to some top DACs from the 90s (of the ladder sort) you would be very surprised at how little has been gained.

 

[Al M.]

I don't see the necessity for consumers to be versed in the technical aspects of digital sound recording and reproduction to know what they enjoy or dislike. You're stuck with it's nature or lack of.

david

Fine, but then they also should politely refrain from succumbing to the temptation of bolstering their dislikes with nonsense pseudo-technical arguments based on misunderstandings of digital theory.

 

[ddk]

Fine, but then they also should politely refrain from succumbing to the temptation of bolstering their dislikes with pseudo-technical arguments based on misunderstandings of digital theory.

Why?

david

 

[PeterA]

Wow, great sounding sentence. A pity that after being analyzed is just a repetition of what many people who loved tubes say about solid state. Or many SET lovers say about pushpul. Or many horn lovers say about box speakers ...

Thank you Fransisco. You forgot to mention the effects of different types of distortion and their effect on how we perceive realism, naturalness, or the sound of music. I do not think different types of distortion and their effects on us is a controversial subject. And many people seem to agree that analog and digital produce different kinds of distortions, some more harmful toward our perception of musical realism than others.

And you are right: I am not claiming to add new knowledge to the understanding of digital artifacts. I am not so qualified. I simply listen and share my thoughts, like others here.

 

[ack]

Human hearing stops at 20 kHz (in newborn babies, going downhill from there), just like we obviously cannot see UV light, unlike bees, for example. As to the latter, it is very instructive to look at images of what they actually see when they look at flowers, with details only visible in UV light shifted for us into the visible range. There is just a hard stop for us.

A “hard stop”... in the digital sense I assume, and same for UV light. You do not believe the drop is tapered, it’s just a hard stop. It just switches off, just like that.

 

[Al M.]

A “hard stop”... in the digital sense I assume, and same for UV light. You do not believe the drop is tapered, it’s just a hard stop. It just switches off, just like that.

That is what typical measurements of human hearing indicate, yes. Same for human vision and UV light.

 

[ack]

That is what typical measurements of human hearing indicate, yes. Same for human vision and UV light.

If you think research showing hearing over 20kHz is controversial, I think your statements are up there too. You seem to think that the eardrum just stops vibrating beyond a certain frequency. You do not seem to believe in gradual loss of high frequency hearing. You also do not seem to recognize that light and sound are fundamentally different in terms of the sensors they excite - the eye and the ear. I am having a very hard time coming up with any mechanical device that just comes to a complete sudden stop by itself, after a certain threshold, excluding utter destruction of the same. Feels like you are looking at it like slamming a door shut, or something, where resistance and blockage cuts off its movement. Perhaps I am wrong.

PS: Peter Green has died

 

[Al M.]

You do not seem to believe in gradual loss of high frequency hearing.

This does not follow. The human hearing appears to have a hard upper stop at birth, and slowly deteriorates from there.

You also do not seem to recognize that light and sound are fundamentally different in terms of the sensors they excite - the eye and the ear. I am having a very hard time coming up with any mechanical device that just comes to a complete sudden stop, after a certain event, excluding utter destruction of the same. Perhaps I am wrong.

I go by what the main body of scientific data indicates.

PS: Peter Green has died

That is sad to hear. I remember fondly my copy of "In The Skies" in (Peter) Green colored vinyl when I was a teenager.