Jump to content
IGNORED

IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Thanks, Alex, I'll give a read ...

 

Okay, found the key bit,

 

Quote

You won't read about this in these regulators' datasheets, but it has been documented in articles such as Erol Dietz' "Understanding and Reducing Noise Voltage on 3-Terminal Voltage Regulators", Electronic Design (issue unknown) , and Steven Sandler's "Spice Uncovers Regulator-Stability Problems", Personal Engineering, August 1998. From these you would also learn that an LM317's output inductance varies with its output current, and hence that the above noise peaking is load-variant to boot. Just what we needed: a signal-modulated noise generator!

 

I'll see if I can track these down, and what they add to the story ...

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Help! Arguing about whether digital is digital is a mighty big dead end - it's just a way of storing data about a musical performance ... it's how to get that data to the ear with minimum corruption on the journey, that matters ...

 

I agree but when it comes to computer-based audio, not everything matters so I think that having a correct understanding of the digital domain is important so that resources can be focused on what does matter: the digital/analog interface and the analog portion of the playback chain.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Are these commercially available (I looked at your profile and didnt find any links to recordings)?

Cheers

David

 

No. These are the property of the orchestra foundation made for the conductor to study and for archival purposes. Of course I have the masters but I'm not supposed to copy them or let them out of my possession. 

George

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Okay thanks. maybe they would consent to some samples released for demo purposes, needle drops, is that the term?

No matter. Something representative would be the PlayClasics you linked to before?

 

Oh. Perhaps I could send you something. After all, the symphony foundation that I had signed the agreement with is defunct and the same orchestra has since been reconstituted under a different name and with a different management company. I have no ties with them at all. Also, Since I'm not going to tell you what the Orchestra's name was or the conductor, I don't see how anyone could complain. Send me a private message with your real e-mail and name and I will send you something via "WE Transfer". Most of the stuff was transferred from Reel-to-Reel tape onto DAT and I don't see any way to get it into the computer without first burning it to a CDR on My TASCAM CDRW-700. But I do have some concerts already burned to disk and ripped into iTunes. I hope you can play Apple's lossless compression XX.m4a. 

George

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Most of the stuff was transferred from Reel-to-Reel tape onto DAT and I don't see any way to get it into the computer without first burning it to a CDR

 

 

 Hi George

 I don't suppose that your computer has an SPDIF input ?

 I used to be able to connect the Sony DAT player I had at the time, to my PC via Coax SPDIF.

 

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Oh. Perhaps I could send you something. After all, the symphony foundation that I had signed the agreement with is defunct and the same orchestra has since been reconstituted under a different name and with a different management company. I have no ties with them at all. Also, Since I'm not going to tell you what the Orchestra's name was or the conductor, I don't see how anyone could complain. Send me a private message with your real e-mail and name and I will send you something via "WE Transfer". Most of the stuff was transferred from Reel-to-Reel tape onto DAT and I don't see any way to get it into the computer without first burning it to a CDR on My TASCAM CDRW-700. But I do have some concerts already burned to disk and ripped into iTunes. I hope you can play Apple's lossless compression XX.m4a. 

 

you George,greatly appreciated. I will PM you. I believe JRiver plays .m4a files.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Most of the stuff was transferred from Reel-to-Reel tape onto DAT and I don't see any way to get it into the computer without first burning it to a CDR on My TASCAM CDRW-700

 

I would be cautious for the first few minutes of that DAT (any DAT) because the little pillar that fixes the tape in the spool sticks out a fraction of a mm and destroys the magnetic data after a few years of not using the DAT. You will perceive it as distortion, each tour of the upwinding spool.

 

As you can see, DAT tapes are the very best for computer backups (this is what they were widely used for until not so long ago).

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
18 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 Hi George

 I don't suppose that your computer has an SPDIF input ?

 I used to be able to connect the Sony DAT player I had at the time, to my PC via Coax SPDIF.

 

Regards

Alex

 

No it does not have an SPDIF input of which I'm aware . Seems to me that some Macs used to have a combo 3.5mm phone plug/Toslink SPDIF input, But I do not believe that they have included that for quite a while. I don't remember my late 2011 Mini having that. 

George

Link to comment
12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I would be cautious for the first few minutes of that DAT (any DAT) because the little pillar that fixes the tape in the spool sticks out a fraction of a mm and destroys the magnetic data after a few years of not using the DAT. You will perceive it as distortion, each tour of the upwinding spool.

 

As you can see, DAT tapes are the very best for computer backups (this is what they were widely used for until not so long ago).

 

I haven't seen that problem but I will be on the lookout for it. Thanks for the heads-up. I have DATs that were recorded 20 years ago and still play perfectly. They really sound good through the Yggy too!

George

Link to comment
On 11/8/2017 at 1:23 PM, gmgraves said:

 

Oh. Perhaps I could send you something. After all, the symphony foundation that I had signed the agreement with is defunct and the same orchestra has since been reconstituted under a different name and with a different management company. I have no ties with them at all. Also, Since I'm not going to tell you what the Orchestra's name was or the conductor, I don't see how anyone could complain. Send me a private message with your real e-mail and name and I will send you something via "WE Transfer". Most of the stuff was transferred from Reel-to-Reel tape onto DAT and I don't see any way to get it into the computer without first burning it to a CDR on My TASCAM CDRW-700. But I do have some concerts already burned to disk and ripped into iTunes. I hope you can play Apple's lossless compression XX.m4a. 

 

Thank you George, Petrouchka comes alive on your recording.

 

After cranking up the volume (compared to compressed tracks) the full dynamics swing into action and there is lovely clarity and tone.

 

I had previously talked about diffuse distant sound and lack of imaging in some concert recordings but this has a very natural sense that you are there listening to a real orchestra in a real space. There was localization of instruments on the stage, no not like some studio recordings with envelopes of 'air' around each instrument but instruments  well localized in an orchestra.

 

The piece becomes quite busy in parts but it never congests. The soundstage did not extend far beyond the sides of my speakers at the level of the speakers but had considerable depth which seemed to widen as you went further backwards, behind the speakers, drawing you in. Again very natural. I could close my eyes and imagine I was there. Pretty much the highest praise. Oh and those drums were cracker!

 

Bravo.

 

 

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
On 11/8/2017 at 1:06 AM, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Seems not everybody is getting the message, so here it is again.  [my emphasis]

 

Ah, but the physical representation does matter… just must less so than with analog.

 

The beauty of digital communication is that since the data can have only one value or state at a time from a small, finite number of values, it can made far less sensitive to noise and linearity requirements can be dramatically loosened.

 

With analog there is a (theoretically) infinite number of values, and we have to recognize that 1.001V is different from 1.000V. This is no problem as long as all previous circuitry is sufficiently linear (easy!) and the noise is at least 60 dB down (again easy). But distinguishing 1.000001V from 1.000000V requires care in the design of the circuits.

 

With digital, we replace exact (or nearly exact ) values needed for analog with ranges of acceptable values:

table.thumb.jpg.e93853bc2533290a4d8e05bd30ddda71.jpg 

 

So with TTL, 2.8V is the same as 4.2V, i.e. it represents “High” or 1 or True. Also, we should notice the any analog voltage between 2V and (nominally) 5V, is fine, according to the table above. Actual datasheets for specific circuits must be checked for certainty.

 

This makes transfer, storage and distribution of digital data (e.g. music) must less prone to error, compared to analog. Since we add error detection and correction to these methods, errors are truly rare. But this assumes all designs stay within spec, and therefore the physical representation DOES matter!

 

So what’s the big deal? If we can guarantee that no noise from the digital side, of any kind, infiltrates the analog circuity anywhere from the DAC and beyond, there is no big deal. It does not even need to be “no noise”, simply an inaudible amount.

 

But we know that such perfect noise isolation does not always exist. Many try to throw in disclaimers that the DAC (or subsequent analog circuits) must be a “reasonable” DAC, a “modern” DAC, a “well-designed” DAC or any “half-way decent” DAC. But just because the methods for creating such DACs are “known”, it does not mean all that are produced use these methods. There are easy-to-find counterexamples.

 

I’m sure most of the “bits are bits” crowd know all of this already. I find their argument that the “physical representation doesn’t matter” to be hyperbole.
 

 

Link to comment

I also wanted to add that the terms "digital electronics" and "analog electronics" relate more to the intended use than the way the components and sub-circuits work. Sure the transistors are optimized for the needed function in terms of speed, gain and size.

But I can build logic gates from analog op-amps and I can build a low-level amplifier from "digital" gates, the easiest being a digital CMOS inverter.

Link to comment
Just now, SoundAndMotion said:

I also wanted to add that the terms "digital electronics" and "analog electronics" relate more to the intended use than the way the components and sub-circuits work. Sure the transistors are optimized for the needed function in terms of speed, gain and size.

But I can build logic gates from analog op-amps and I can build a low-level amplifier from "digital" gates, the easiest being a digital CMOS inverter.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I suggest you read a primer on electronics instead.

 

Well that was predictable! You are being lazy, because I know you are not stupid.

 

Okay, I already have read such books... several, and built many relatively simple analog and digital circuits still in use.

 

What are you having a problem with? Op-amps as gates or CMOS inverters as amplifiers? Should I find and paste some schematics for you? ... or you can google it yourself. Give me some time and I'll find a nice primer for you. I think you can find this stuff in Horowitz and Hill, but I'd have to check...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Well that was predictable! You are being lazy, because I know you are not stupid.

I'm not lazy, but being your private tutor isn't my job.

 

2 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Okay, I already have read such books... several, and built many relatively simple analog and digital circuits still in use.

 

What are you having a problem with? Op-amps as gates or CMOS inverters as amplifiers? Should I find and paste some schematics for you? ... or you can google it yourself. Give me some time and I'll find a nice primer for you. I think you can find this stuff in Horowitz and Hill, but I'd have to check...

Horowitz and Hill is a good introduction. Are you saying you've read it and still don't understand the difference between analogue and digital circuits?

Link to comment

SoundAndMotion is saying that a circuit that is normally considered to be digital can also display analogue behaviour; and that parts normally used to perform analogue functions can be connected to behave as a digital component. No more than that. Using the particular electronic parts in that "perverse" way may not be the smartest way to achieve the result - but it demonstrates that there is no inherent difference between the two "modes" - as far as electrons, etc, are concerned.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm not lazy, but being your private tutor isn't my job.

 

Horowitz and Hill is a good introduction. Are you saying you've read it and still don't understand the difference between analogue and digital circuits?

 

I don’t need a tutor, but if I did, no worries, I won’t ask you. I’m doing just fine with my work.

But I do ask that your posts have content, not just empty, lazy swats at me. Either point out that I’m mistaken (and where!) or state that you disagree (and why!)

 

If you have no content to add other than just “nope” (admittedly, you usually do add useful content), either don’t answer me or I, too, can lazily just answer you “yup”.

 

I understand “digital” and “analog” pretty well. The different components used to construct a circuit with a specific intended use are pretty much the same. Or maybe you can tell us which transistors are digital-only and which are analog-only. Sure chips have been created and marketed for specific uses, but if reasonable sub-circuits are available, a smart and creative person (like you, I think, maybe I’m wrong) can “break the rules” and use them otherwise, as needed. But once you get to more complex chips or complete, specific circuits, torturing them to do something else becomes more difficult. But the labels “digital” and “analog” are the least of your worries.

 

Using an FPGA alone as a voltage regulator is tough, but not because it is “digital”.
Using an old-style analog computer as a binary to BCD decoder is tricky, but not because of the word “analog”.

 

EDIT: Yes, I have and have read H&H and agree with what FAS42 wrote above.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...