Article: The Denafrips Design Philosophy Part 1

[fas42]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Not so impressed. There mostly isn't an "original analog recording". There's a digital recording. So there's no analog record to reproduce, just a digital one to undergo D/A conversion.

 

 

 

 

What is meant by "original analog recording" is actually, "original analog signal" - that is, what emerges as the output from a microphone diaphragm responding to vibrations in the air - it may be immediately turned into digital, within the microphone, but what was 'recorded' was an analogue behaviour of the world, by an analogue mechanism.

 

Probably the only true digital recording is that of digital synthesizers and similar, where the output of the processing circuit is captured as numbers.

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Unfortunately the delicate analog signal is often destroyed in the A to D or mastering process. The question is, can hardware/software fix the damage. I don't think so. 

 

I would disagree ... of course, 😜. The 'delicacy' is in fact fully captured, in the A/D step - the information is completely available, in the stored numbers. What goes awry is that the playback chains allow too much self-induced, and other interference noise to intrude - and the 'delicacy' is completely absent, in the listening.

 

It only takes competent playback of a recording given up as a disaster, to appreciate how much damage is done to the SQ by inadequate reproduction setups, 🙂.

[fas42]

In the article,

 

Quote

If we change a capacitor, a resistor, an interconnect, or a power cord, the sound we hear has changed. But do these changes affect the measurement of the equipment? Truth is, the measurements remain vastly unchanged, but the sound quality changes tremendously. Do the measurements really have a lot to do with the sound? If so, why is the sound greatly changed, but not the measurements?

 

This is the heart of the matter, and relates to something that those of an objectivist stance won't, or aren't able to understand - the vital significance when we listen to reproduced sound of our, human, hearing systems to be able to compensate for some anomalies, or deficiencies in the sound field, and not to others. Changes in frequency response? Easy peasy ... if it were not so, then listening to, say, a live piano would be a nightmare - every time you turned your head, moved around, or something came between you and the instrument, the sound of the playing would be yo-yoing in a very disturbing degree - which of course it doesn't; your mind, automatically, compensates for all these variations - and the sense of the instrument in action retains its smoothness, and integrity.

 

The same applies to audio replay ... if the integrity of the sound heard is adequate, then this automatic, internal compensation kicks in - and the integrity of what is heard is maintained - this, "internal illusion", is key to the experience of a heightened, subjectively satisfying SQ.

 

Changing of a single, tiny part of a system - like a capacitor, or a power cord - may be just enough to nudge the integrity of the system as a whole into the zone where the anomalies that disturb our hearing systems are low enough in level to be safely ignored, discarded - completely unconsciously. This is why it can work as a literal switch, and the "tremendously" adjective does indeed apply, to the sense of change in the presentation.

 

This was made obvious to me over 30 years ago, by the behaviour of my rig at the time - and this is still exactly how it works today, with the current state of audio design - one thing 'wrong' with an otherwise perfectly measuring component will mean that it will be a failure as a means of conveying what's been captured in a recording in a satisfying way - and there's no way around this, except by tracking down the issue by whatever means you prefer, and resolving it.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

Interesting. Would love to see a more precise characterization of digital noise, I assume some of it is quantization noise (critical for low level signals), jitter, etc. It is interesting the point about vinyl noise and that the brain is able to separate it out, that is indeed my experience.

 

 

Digital noise is much harder for the listening brain to ignore - it contaminates the entire sense of the musical thread; and this is why there is a general belief that so many digital recordings are 'bad'. If, and this is a mighty big if, a digital replay chain is finally of a high enough integrity that the remaining noise is attenuated enough, then the brain can also separate out what it wants to concentrate on, the music.

 

The trouble for makers of components is, that so much noise originates from poor implementation of the overall system; things like cable and their connections that are too flawed, and inferior resistance to exterior electrical noise. Only products which use OTT methods are usually good enough to be unaffected by the issues; and of course these are very expensive ...