|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 21, 2018 8:17:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Sept 21, 2018 10:17:05 GMT -5
Wait ... I thought βtwo channel rules!β ... so βdigital two channel rules!β ?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 21, 2018 10:35:58 GMT -5
I watched the video, it's very good, but it's point is of course that, based on Nyquist Theory and conventional understanding of the limits of human hearing, 44.1Khz sampling and a 16 bit word (o.k. maybe 24 bit) is enough to totally capture and faithfully reproduce a natural sound such that the human ear could not differentiate the real from the reproduced. Although I am perfectly happy with CD quality, I am not convinced that human hearing does not have sensitivities beyond steady state sinusoidal pressure waves even up to 20khz. In particular I think transients cause hearing reactions that the reproduced transient, being very inaccurate due to the 20khz limited bandwidth, does not.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,222 
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 21, 2018 11:09:39 GMT -5
Then its settled! You listen to digital and myself and the rest of the world, not excluding animals, will continue to hear analog!  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 21, 2018 14:03:25 GMT -5
Wait ... I thought βtwo channel rules!β ... so βdigital two channel rules!β ? My friend you are running the risk of infringement.π |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 21, 2018 23:09:02 GMT -5
Note nobody "listens to digital"; the output of a DAC is analog and then filtered to remove images. DAC stands for digital-to-analog converter after all...
But IME there is no convincing anybody of the science behind digital if they don't believe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Sept 22, 2018 9:16:33 GMT -5
It is digital packaging and processing and after translated to analog. Nobody listens digitally. That is a rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 22, 2018 10:01:47 GMT -5
Note nobody "listens to digital"; the output of a DAC is analog and then filtered to remove images. DAC stands for digital-to- analog converter after all... But IME there is no convincing anybody of the science behind digital if they don't believe it. So, you presume to know how the brain translates sounds? It could well be digital as far as we know; after all, some think the brain is a biological computer. As to the science behind digital, I understand it quite well, but like any mathematical solution to a real world phenomena, the solutions falls within defined assumptions and parameters and it is these that I question, not the particular elegant solutions that represent the present status of DAC technology. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 22, 2018 11:20:24 GMT -5
It is digital packaging and processing and after translated to analog. Nobody listens digitally. That is a rule. Uh, maybe your system just isn't resolving enough. Or your ears are not trained properly. Or you need to upgrade your ear canals to a higher awg. |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 22, 2018 12:32:32 GMT -5
Note nobody "listens to digital"; the output of a DAC is analog and then filtered to remove images. DAC stands for digital-to- analog converter after all... But IME there is no convincing anybody of the science behind digital if they don't believe it. So, you presume to know how the brain translates sounds? It could well be digital as far as we know; after all, some think the brain is a biological computer. As to the science behind digital, I understand it quite well, but like any mathematical solution to a real world phenomena, the solutions falls within defined assumptions and parameters and it is these that I question, not the particular elegant solutions that represent the present status of DAC technology. Not sure how you got from D/A conversion to how the brain processes sound, but being a simple engineer I'll pass on the philosophical and/or physiological discussions... My comment related solely to the output of DAC (after filtering and all that jazz) in response to "listening to digital" from the post above (which was not yours FWIW). Many audiophiles do not understand Nyquist, quantization in amplitude and time, and the science behind it. Sorry to have offended, did not even have your post in mind when I responded. - Don |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Sept 22, 2018 12:47:18 GMT -5
That's o.k. - I'm used to my posts being ignored!
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 22, 2018 13:03:42 GMT -5
Note nobody "listens to digital"; the output of a DAC is analog and then filtered to remove images. DAC stands for digital-to- analog converter after all... But IME there is no convincing anybody of the science behind digital if they don't believe it. I am very confident all members here are well versed about audio and do know we do not listen to digital. |
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,222
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 22, 2018 13:25:04 GMT -5
That's o.k. - I'm used to my posts being ignored!  π |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Sept 22, 2018 13:36:48 GMT -5
So, what I got from the video is that there are two things, in our current market, that determine the quality of digital audio. Lossless vs. lossy, and the quality of your hardware.(DACs especially).
I still say that it's the digitization process that does the most damage to the recording process. Can we say MQA?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Sept 22, 2018 14:29:38 GMT -5
I listen to music πΆπ
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Sept 22, 2018 15:07:33 GMT -5
It is digital packaging and processing and after translated to analog. Nobody listens digitally. That is a rule. Uh, maybe your system just isn't resolving enough. Or your ears are not trained properly. Or you need to upgrade your ear canals to a higher awg. Sorry Rickie only got what the good Lord gave me. But hey Digital is nice. You don't thread it, or flip it over. But you'll flip over the convenience. Oh yeah, no needles worn out in this production. Cheers! ππππππππππππππππ |
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,222
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 22, 2018 15:32:07 GMT -5
Uh, maybe your system just isn't resolving enough. Or your ears are not trained properly. Or you need to upgrade your ear canals to a higher awg. Sorry Rickie only got what the good Lord gave me. But hey Digital is nice. You don't thread it, or flip it over. But you'll flip over the convenience. Oh yeah, no needles worn out in this production. Cheers! ππππππππππππππππ Wait a second! Wheres that guy thats the authority on wires and cables? Heβll fix it! LOL Wait,,,,What? π€ |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 22, 2018 16:56:53 GMT -5
Sorry Rickie only got what the good Lord gave me. But hey Digital is nice. You don't thread it, or flip it over. But you'll flip over the convenience. Oh yeah, no needles worn out in this production. Cheers! ππππππππππππππππ Wait a second! Wheres that guy thats the authority on wires and cables? Heβll fix it! LOL Wait,,,,What? π€ With today's higher resolution you are going to need a much fatter digital cable to conduct all the 0's and 1's otherwise you will have 0/1 overload. Or 1/0 overload. |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Sept 22, 2018 18:08:22 GMT -5
Read in a TT review: "I quit using digital when I learned to count to 2."
|
|
