IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

I understand “digital” and “analog” pretty well.

That's where we disagree.

 

2 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

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.

Where did I ever suggest anything of the sort?

 

The difference between analogue and digital is not in the individual components, it is in the function of the complete circuit. Consider the bipolar transistor. When used as an analogue amplifier, it is operated in the linear gain region, and the collector current tracks the base current, noise and all. If the input goes too high or too low, there is distortion and possibly clipping. In a digital application, however, the aim is to keep the transistor either off or in saturation. In these states, a little noise on the input has no effect whatsoever on the output. This circuit has highly non-linear characteristics, far removed from those of the amplifier application even if the same transistor is used.

 

You also mentioned opamps, so let's consider those too. A typical analogue application of an opamp is the inverting amplifier. Here negative feedback is used to set the gain, and the output becomes a linear function of the input. If the feedback circuit includes capacitors or inductors we get a filter. Contrast this with a digital circuit where the opamp is deployed with positive feedback ensuring that the output stays firmly at one of its extremes until the input crosses the transition threshold. Again, a highly non-linear behaviour.

 

What about this is so difficult for you people to grasp?

[SoundAndMotion]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's where we disagree.

 

So your opinion is that I don't understand digital and analog differences pretty well, but you really don't say why. Should I take a test? (No, I'm not asking you to ask a lengthy essay question saying "Explain XYZ") Your opinion is noted, but I find you to be wrong. So does my success in designing, building and using digital and analog circuits.

 

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where did I ever suggest anything of the sort?

 

You didn't, but you also didn't find anything I said that was wrong... other than having an opinion different from mine. I was fishing for an understanding of your criticism, and explaining where some misunderstandings could occur...

 

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

What about this is so difficult for you people to grasp?

 

I understood and already knew all you wrote before you wrote it, i.e. I agree and learned nothing from the repetition. I think this explains a lot about your replies to me. Who is "you people"? And what  do you think "we" don't grasp? All you've explained does not contradict anything I've written. What is not grasped? Except perhaps semantic choice of word usage, that has little to do with understanding. We disagree on when/how to apply the labels "digital" and "analog". Is that the whole thing? Surely you don't support the idea that one find 0's and 1's running through digital electronics.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

I understood and already knew all you wrote before you wrote it, i.e. I agree and learned nothing from the repetition.

Then why do you keep pushing this ridiculous notion that digital is really analogue?

 

14 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Surely you don't support the idea that one find 0's and 1's running through digital electronics

What does that even mean?

[SoundAndMotion]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Then why do you keep pushing this ridiculous notion that digital is really analogue?

 

Apologies if I have failed, but I try to use “analog” and “digital” as modifiers, not as free-standing concepts. And in the context of this forum, we ALWAYS want to end up in an analog domain to hear the music. Therefore the presence of noise voltages (I hope we can agree this is an analog signal) anywhere in the system (yes, even on top of digital signals), that subsequently find their way to the final analog signal is a problem, if audible.

 

Although noise so large that it takes the analog voltage out of the range defined to represent particular digital encoding is typically either detected and corrected, or it results in gaps. And happily this is rare. 
I don’t have personal experience with noise so large that it invades the final analog pathways of my system through some form of coupling (ES, MS or EM or through the common power supply connections), but this is certainly not only possible but has been measured in other systems. Maybe I’m deaf.

 

So when people say:

Quote

 

Digital communications and computers work because the physical representation of the digital data doesn't matter.

 

 

I have a problem with the inaccuracy of “doesn’t matter”.

That is all I meant to say.
 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

What does that even mean?

 

It means that some people condescendingly say “doesn’t matter” cuz it’s all only 0’s and 1’s, implying analog noise is irrelevant. And I’m saying you can find voltages representing 0’s and 1’s, but I agree with you that talking about 0’s and 1’s has no meaning, without understanding that analog voltages or magnetic fields or capacitive charge or ... must be in the correct range so the value or transition happens at the right time.

 

[beerandmusic]

This is not addressed to anyone, just trying to put in a different way.

 

All information is stored on a hard drive in a binary value (magnetized or not, on or off)  This is equivalent to a logical 1 or 0.

1s and 0s have no meaning of themselves.  Even a microsoft word document is stored in "logical 1s and 0s".  That doesn't mean the document is 1's and 0;s or can even be correlated to 1's and 0's.  It is simply the way the information is stored. These "logical" 1s and 0s are just pulses as they are transferred and converted into something meaningful....

 

Think of everything that exists, is nothing more than positive, negative, and neutral charges....we don't think of it that way, but when you break it down to it's simplest form, that is all it is....well everything that is not spirit anyway (grin).

 

It may not be a good correlation, but the logical binary value is arbitrary and meaningless in of itself...but it exists and the way everything is stored on a HDD....meaning 1 of 2 states, on or off, magnetized or not.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=digital&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[beerandmusic]

I am ok with the term binary.

I am less enthusiastic with the word "noise".

When people refer to noise, really what they are talking about is imperfections in the signal.

Fortunately when dealing with binary, when there is only 2 states, even "imperfectons in the signal" should have little meaning, because of the substantial differences in the on or off state.  any circuitry "should" be able to resolve properly to be able to attain a "relatively perfect" signal prior to processing.  That is why we have "reclockers now", but this should have been done long ago, even before it was processed by the dac...it is just poor design, and I am surprised here we are sitting in the year 2017, and people are just now addressing this.

 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Apologies if I have failed, but I try to use “analog” and “digital” as modifiers, not as free-standing concepts. And in the context of this forum, we ALWAYS want to end up in an analog domain to hear the music. Therefore the presence of noise voltages (I hope we can agree this is an analog signal) anywhere in the system (yes, even on top of digital signals), that subsequently find their way to the final analog signal is a problem, if audible.

 

Although noise so large that it takes the analog voltage out of the range defined to represent particular digital encoding is typically either detected and corrected, or it results in gaps. And happily this is rare.

So we're talking about signals with noise that isn't enough to alter their digital interpretations. The proposition is that such low-level noise inside a hard drive, say, can somehow propagate through thousands of logic gates and make it onto the USB wire and further into the analogue side of the DAC. I say this is preposterous because the output of a logic gate is not influenced by minor fluctuations on the inputs; it is held firmly in one position or the other. Cascade a few thousand, or even million, such stages, and whatever impurities were present on the input signal will be long gone. Obviously, all outputs have some noise, but this noise is not correlated with noise on the inputs. That is the reason why digital circuits can produce perfect results even though the constituent physical components are imperfect.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, SoundAndMotion said:

 

Apologies if I have failed, but I try to use “analog” and “digital” as modifiers, not as free-standing concepts. And in the context of this forum, we ALWAYS want to end up in an analog domain to hear the music. Therefore the presence of noise voltages (I hope we can agree this is an analog signal) anywhere in the system (yes, even on top of digital signals), that subsequently find their way to the final analog signal is a problem, if audible.

 

Although noise so large that it takes the analog voltage out of the range defined to represent particular digital encoding is typically either detected and corrected, or it results in gaps. And happily this is rare. 
I don’t have personal experience with noise so large that it invades the final analog pathways of my system through some form of coupling (ES, MS or EM or through the common power supply connections), but this is certainly not only possible but has been measured in other systems. Maybe I’m deaf.

 

So when people say:

 

I have a problem with the inaccuracy of “doesn’t matter”.

That is all I meant to say.
 

 

It means that some people condescendingly say “doesn’t matter” cuz it’s all only 0’s and 1’s, implying analog noise is irrelevant. And I’m saying you can find voltages representing 0’s and 1’s, but I agree with you that talking about 0’s and 1’s has no meaning, without understanding that analog voltages or magnetic fields or capacitive charge or ... must be in the correct range so the value or transition happens at the right time.

 

 

I was the one who said:

 

Quote

Digital communications and computers work because the physical representation of the digital data doesn't matter.

 

Please note two things in this statement:

 

1. It is not referring to the playback of music and the required conversion of the digital data to analog signals.

 

2. It is not saying that analog noise doesn't exist or that it is irrelevant.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

That is why we have "reclockers now", but this should have been done long ago, even before it was processed by the dac...it is just poor design, and I am surprised here we are sitting in the year 2017, and people are just now addressing this.

 

I am sorry, but more cr*p than this does not exist. So now, light years prior to when you get an understanding of all this, you are going to explain to "us" ?

It is not only total cr*p but also not true at all. Reclocking exists as long as DACs exist.

 

Quote

I am surprised here we are sitting in the year 2017

 

I wonder where you learned this BS. Was it on the sotm thread you refer to regularly ?

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

So we're talking about signals with noise that isn't enough to alter their digital interpretations.

 

Well well. So you can be more long winded than two words for a response.

What happened ?

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I am sorry, but more cr*p than this does not exist. So now, light years prior to when you get an understanding of all this, you are going to explain to "us" ?

It is not only total cr*p but also not true at all. Reclocking exists as long as DACs exist.

 

why then, the need to create such a thing as a reclocker to feed a dac?  and why with such high praise?

[PeterSt]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I am sorry, but more cr*p than this does not exist. So now, light years prior to when you get an understanding of all this, you are going to explain to "us" ?

It is not only total cr*p but also not true at all. Reclocking exists as long as DACs exist.

 

why then, the need to create such a thing as a reclocker to feed a dac?

 

I don't understand what you want to say here ?

The need might be there, but you are happy that "we" (manufacturers) in 2017 finally get it. And that makes no sense.

[davide256]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

I am ok with the term binary.

I am less enthusiastic with the word "noise".

When people refer to noise, really what they are talking about is imperfections in the signal.

Fortunately when dealing with binary, when there is only 2 states, even "imperfectons in the signal" should have little meaning, because of the substantial differences in the on or off state.  any circuitry "should" be able to resolve properly to be able to attain a "relatively perfect" signal prior to processing.  That is why we have "reclockers now", but this should have been done long ago, even before it was processed by the dac...it is just poor design, and I am surprised here we are sitting in the year 2017, and people are just now addressing this.

 

Noise  basically means signal added that doesn't belong. Analog suffers with tape hiss, groove noise. Digital suffers with D/A anomalies from trying to smooth a square wave into a voltage. The amplitude of analog noise is usually higher than digital noise.  However digital noise is systematic and if the filters aren't right lends itself to a "fingernails across a chalkboard" type of listening experience. Gotta respect that magic from the best DAC builders

 

Clock error is a different beast... the worse it is for accuracy the more boring the music gets... like watching a movie  from the back row of the theater with wrong prescription glasses

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

why then, the need to create such a thing as a reclocker to feed a dac?

 

That's a very good question.

 

[wgscott]

Summary:  Audiophile Ethics Monksplained

 

(1) Everything is debatable.

 

(2) It is uncivilized behavior to debate anything.

[PeterSt]

Just now, wgscott said:

(2) It is uncivilized behavior to debate anything.

 

We should debate that, right ?

[wgscott]

That is the objective.

[mansr]

Just now, wgscott said:

That is the objective.

That's subjective.

[PeterSt]

Just now, mansr said:

That's subjective.

 

I say you're right. But that is only my opinion.

[wgscott]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I say you're right. But that is only my opinion.

 

That's ok.  All opinions are inherently equal in terms of merit.  It says so in the Declaration of Independence.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

That's ok.  All opinions are inherently equal in terms of merit.  It says so in the Declaration of Independence.

 

And if not, second amendment is there to help resolve any differences.

 

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

Summary:  Audiophile Ethics Monksplained

 

(1) Everything is debatable.

 

(2) It is uncivilized behavior to debate anything.

 

"When the fight was over, nothing was solved, but nothing mattered."  --- Fight Club

 

"It is a tale told by an idiot...signifying nothing." 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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.

 

 

 Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated. That's the kind of sound for which I have strived all the years that I have been doing  location recording. My three years recording the Royal Livermore Philharmonic under Maestro Ozzie Sejawa* taught me just how to obtain that kind of sound and frankly, I've never understood why classical music producers ever did it any other way. In the early days of stereo, Bob Fine of Mercury Living Presence fame, Lewis Layton at RCA Victor Red Seal division, and even Bert Whyte of Everest all insisted on spaced omnis; one on the left side and one on the right. Later in the sixties, most record companies abandoned the two or three mike spaced array in favor of either a microphone for each section, or a microphone for each instrument! Talk about every kind of wrong.

 

 

*Obvious fake names, but if you play this for others, you can tell them that's the orchestra and conductor's identities!  

[fas42]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

why then, the need to create such a thing as a reclocker to feed a dac?  and why with such high praise?

 

Because designers of digital playback gear are very, very slow learners ... while mainstream manufacturers spat out cheap CD players with "fabulous" spec's, and everyone who was fussy in the listening thought that they all sucked, nothing particularly interesting happened. Finally, the general public, and those manufacturers got bored with the exercise - and interest in high quality sound lapsed. Now there is a resurgence of people who genuinely want to create components that deliver true high quality, and it's getting interesting again.

 

For the first time, playback of recordings in the digital domain are demonstrating the potential that was always there ...  a lot of people do struggle with the concept that in some areas one has to be very, very careful with implementation - it's not by the way stuff, it's of make or break importance ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated. That's the kind of sound for which I have strived all the years that I have been doing  location recording. My three years recording the Royal Livermore Philharmonic under Maestro Ozzie Sejawa* taught me just how to obtain that kind of sound and frankly, I've never understood why classical music producers ever did it any other way. In the early days of stereo, Bob Fine of Mercury Living Presence fame, Lewis Layton at RCA Victor Red Seal division, and even Bert Whyte of Everest all insisted on spaced omnis; one on the left side and one on the right. Later in the sixties, most record companies abandoned the two or three mike spaced array in favor of either a microphone for each section, or a microphone for each instrument! Talk about every kind of wrong.

 

 

*Obvious fake names, but if you play this for others, you can tell them that's the orchestra and conductor's identities!  

 

Hi George, IMO you achieved your goal. I did not read your posted description prior to listening or posting my impressions.If anything I had slightly negative expectations if I'm entirely honest.Having searched back this morning for you description of the recording I see how we heard similar things, then again, not that hard to hear.Kudos.