|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 9, 2014 9:44:30 GMT -5
I'm not the moderator here but folks please this conversation is going pretty far off the reservation. Can we get back on track and with the discussion of "digital is better", or Not. I purposely did not get into the subject of DBT for this reason alone knowing how heated the argument can become. So please lets move on.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 9, 2014 10:21:25 GMT -5
About the 24 bits being unnecessary, I like those extra bits and my wife and I can both hear them and like what we hear. I do not care if we hear them because of increased head room, better mastering, or the placebo effect! Now not all 24 bit files I have purchased sound better than 16 bit equivalents. But most of my 24 bit files kick ass, whatever the reason.
And remember, the Nyquist theorem is 100 years old. 8)
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 9, 2014 12:02:00 GMT -5
An explanation of radiation may come with an expanded theory of the Strong Force. Or may be we need to wait for String Theory, or the successor to String Theory. It's going to take decades. We know what happens that leads to radioactivity. What you're asking, since we're being rather specific here, is why do atoms become unbalanced, not why does radioactivity occur. Every explanation will lead to exponentially more questions. That's the way science works. I get the impression you're well aware of that. I'm not exactly sure what this line of thinking really proves (even if I find it interesting). Radiation cannot be detected by our noses or ears. We know that experientially because we can be put into a room which has radiation and we cannot smell it, hear it, see it, feel or taste it. (The people who discovered radiation in the early 20th century went through all this - at great cost to their own health.) But audio, is by definition, something that we can hear.Just because we can hear audio doesn't mean our brains are equipped to objectively evaluate every nuance. Any number of cognitive biases play into what people *think* they hear. Despite the suggestion below, Bose is a perfect example of how people's lead them to chose a more expensive, technical inferior product over a less expensive, technically superior product. None of this is to suggest you shouldn't listen to things. All of our ears work differently. A high E probably sounds different to me than it does to you. The point is that we should focus on the differences that are in the audible spectrum of our hearing. Most science would argue that the differences between quality cables and quality DACs are beyond the threshold of hearing. I also hope Audio System A isn't a Bose system. They have a lot of theory and measurements to prove that their system is the "best". I'm sure you're aware that Bose only measure well if the tests are cooked. Take a look at an objective review of Bose, along with objective measurements: nyet.org/bose/My point is that the ultimate arbiter is..... your ears. So yes, when it comes to audio, our subjective experience trumps theory and measurements. The theories and measurements are very incomplete. And the whole point of an audio system is to provide "enjoyment". Science, by the nature of the very rules that govern it, is always incomplete. There's plenty we don't know about audio, and the way our brain interprets audio signals. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of meaningful science out there that can serve as a guide along the way. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 9, 2014 12:16:32 GMT -5
And remember, the Nyquist theorem is 100 years old. 8) Pythagoras' theorem is even older. Age doesn't invalidate a theorem, math does. Is there a mathematical problem or theorem that disproves Nyquist-Shannon? |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 9, 2014 13:32:23 GMT -5
Nah, my ears do! The map is not the territory, no matter how accurate the map. And folks who quote math on an audio site are boring. 8)
So what have you been listening to or what piece of audio gear have you purchased that made your system better?
I have been listening to a lot of Ella, mostly 24 bit, and I just cannot get enough. That lady had some serious chops and is probably my very favorite female singer.
Trey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 9, 2014 15:01:04 GMT -5
I agree entirely with the way you started out - but not with your conclusion. Neither digital nor analog can prevent someone from making a poor sounding master - and neither will make a poor sounding master magically sound better. (In fact, assuming that the master is decent, it's not that difficult to screw up a cheap vinyl pressing, made with poor quality vinyl and badly maintained presses, but all but the absolute worst digital copy will remain identical to the original.) There are two factors at work here: It is certainly true that you can master and distribute a digital album for far less cost than a vinyl one... and I'm sure that this has encouraged people to put out some really awful digital audio content (where maybe, with vinyl, they couldn't have afforded to). However, it also means that someone who was barely able to press a few vinyl albums, and didn't have any budget to spare for proper mastering to go with them, can now spend that money on mastering - and get more quality engineering for their dollar when they do. Perhaps, at some very low level, the cost of pressing vinyl did act as a "barrier to entry" for real low-rent amateur productions. (Although I'm still not sure whether to count that as a "plus" - since I've heard a few VERY good low-budget basement-mastered digital productions as well as many bad ones - and I've heard some pretty awful vinyl as well.) When you discuss whether one format is "better" than another, you're usually referring to the technical limitations of the format. There are some great painting masterpieces that were done in oil paint, but there are also some pretty poor ones (I'll be glad to paint you one if you like.) There may also be a few really great pieces of art that were drawn with plain old crayons. However, most of us probably agree that, as a medium that is capable of producing great art, oil paint is better than crayons. All in all, I'm pretty certain that, if digital recording had never been invented, but the market was still what it is now, we'd be listening to horribly compressed and over-engineered vinyl recordings that would sound every bit as bad as the worst current digital recordings - and the industry would be controlled by the same people - the ones who put profits over music - as it is now. We need to be careful not to conflate changes in the sensibilities of the recording industry, and in the needs of the market, with technical limitations or capabilities. Perhaps digital audio has "helped grease the skids of the decline in the general quality of music" - but all it really did was enable the industry to go in the direction it was already headed. When the skids get greased, you get to go faster, but still in the direction in which you steer. (Are you honestly suggesting that the record industry wasn't "controlled by people who care more about money than music"? If so, then I guess you missed all the drama about record companies bribing DJs to play their albums, and all the reality show worthy shenanigans that went with it.) I'm not at all sure that you can assign a cause-and-effect relationship to digital audio and the general decline of music (and some people would even disagree that it has declined rather than simply evolved.) Agreed.... I've got 24/192 recordings that sound significantly better than their CD equivalents - but we'll never know whether that's because 24/192 is really audibly better than 16/44, or because, when they were being produced, someone said "we'd better make SURE that the $12 CD sounds WORSE than the $29 "audiophile high-res recording". Likewise, if I were mixing a CD and the "audiophile vinyl pressing" to go with it, I most certainly would EQ them differently. I'd make sure that the CD sounded "sharp and clear" - just like people expect from a digital recording, and I'd mix the vinyl version to sound "smooth and mellow" - because I'm pretty sure that's what vinyl fans would want. The last thing I would be doing would be to try and make them sound the same. My point is more that the question is misguided. Digital can be better as can modern webpages when they try to do fancy things like advanced quoting. Unfortunately, as you see here, I can't even get out of the quotes on this website because whoever implemented this forum tried to get way too fancy. The net result of digital in music has been negative. Poorly mastered recordings that use dynamic compression being compressed and sold via companies who have used digital to destroy alternative distribution methods. Could digital be better? Yes. Is it? No. It's controlled by people who care about money and not music. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 9, 2014 16:39:30 GMT -5
Nah, my ears do! The map is not the territory, no matter how accurate the map. And folks who quote math on an audio site are boring. 8)  Point taken! So what have you been listening to or what piece of audio gear have you purchased that made your system better? The XMC-1 has made a huge difference in my system. The PEQ as allowed me to correct for issues in my room that I was just living with before. TI have a separate 2 channel system, but because of the XMC-1, I've started listening to music in my theater room every night. I'm rediscovering my music collection, and I love it. Last night I spent quite a bit of time mesmerized by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's album Devotional and Love Songs. The melodies are quite hypnotic. Here's a link to first song on the album: tune.pk/video/45594/mk-allah-hoo-allah-hoo-nusrat-fateh-ali-khan-lyrics-in-discription |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 11, 2014 11:01:15 GMT -5
Wow, that is a great endorsement of the XMC-1! I am stoked for you! It is such a great feeling when you get an upgrade that sends you to the collection to hear stuff NOW.
This is my first exposure to Khan, that is some intense and freaky stuff to my Western ears! The closest I have gotten to that style of music was on some Dead Can Dance cds. I have not been listening to anything in particular lately, just enjoying this and that. I am looking forward to checking out the Blu-ray of The Book of Eli with my eldest daughter who is home from college for a couple of days. I am eager to see how the Blu-ray looks and sounds as I watched it on Netflix in bad stereo previously, so I am stoked to see how good it is. Have a great rest of the weekend!
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 11, 2014 23:55:34 GMT -5
This is my first exposure to Khan, that is some intense and freaky stuff to my Western ears! I'm a big fan of spirituals, both Western and Eastern. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan did a number of pretty cool East meets West collaborations with musicians such as Eddie Vedder and Peter Gabriel. One of my favorite albums is a collaboration he did with Canadian producer Michael Brooks. Very chill and hypnotic stuff set to laid back and resampled electric guitar riffs and keyboards, with traditional Qawwali harmonium thrown in for good measure. It's very soothing and a bit more accessible: We're way off topic now, aren't we? |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 12, 2014 14:10:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Oct 14, 2014 10:48:18 GMT -5
So I was reading Sound & Vision last night about the Beatles mono set. As it turns out, Ortofon released special new mono cartridge just for this set. I'm only posting this because while I can sort of understand the difference the way it was explained, the entire thing cracks me up. No wonder vinyl faded into the back depths of closets for so many years. Everything about it is so damned difficult. The more I read and learn about it, the more difficult it becomes. Nothing is set it and forget it. Listen to stereo use your $400 stereo cartridge. Listen to mono, use your $350 mono cartridge. Want convenience, buy 2 $500 turn tables. Classic. Just thought this was a good place to post this since it sort of backs the Digital Is Better motif. ortofon.com/hifi/products/cartridges/2m-series/2m-mono-se |
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Oct 14, 2014 11:26:56 GMT -5
This is my first exposure to Khan, that is some intense and freaky stuff to my Western ears! I'm a big fan of spirituals, both Western and Eastern. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan did a number of pretty cool East meets West collaborations with musicians such as Eddie Vedder and Peter Gabriel. One of my favorite albums is a collaboration he did with Canadian producer Michael Brooks. Very chill and hypnotic stuff set to laid back and resampled electric guitar riffs and keyboards, with traditional Qawwali harmonium thrown in for good measure. It's very soothing and a bit more accessible: We're way off topic now, aren't we? I purchased one of this guys album base on one song I heard on Youtube, and was pleasantly surprise he collaborate a few songs with Massive Attack, very cool. Great music there. DJoel |
|
insightfulman
Minor Hero
Have you seen the 6 fingered man?
Posts: 48 
|
Post by insightfulman on Oct 21, 2014 0:07:24 GMT -5
Check out VH1 live with Nusrat, Peter Gabriel and others singing In Your Eyes- quite fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by sct on Oct 21, 2014 8:20:53 GMT -5
Way to stay on-topic, fellas....
SCT
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 21, 2014 9:30:04 GMT -5
You bring up an interesting point - and one of my favorites. The map is indeed NOT the territory (thank you Alfred).... but neither is what you hear. When you "listen" to music, what you end up with is a model of the sound, created by your brain, for its own use in determining "what's going on outside". Little vibrations (or changes in air pressure) wiggle some hardware pieces in your ear around; that, in turn, causes some nerves associated with them to send certain signals to your brain. (Incidentally, the actual nerve signals going from your ear to your brain sure seem more digital than analog in nature from what I've read.) Your brain then uses this information to construct a model of what you're hearing. My point here is that nobody is even suggesting that we can reproduce "the music"; what we're trying to do is to reproduce the appropriate signals reaching your brain - by reproducing the variations in air pressure that reach your ears. (Neither an LP nor a CD stores a "reproduction of an orchestra"; both simply store a reproduction of some vibrations in the air; all the rest is "in your head" anyway.) It's sort of a tautology. If I were to hang a picture of your front yard outside your window, it wouldn't BE your front yard. However, if it was a good enough reproduction to fool the limited abilities of your eyes and brain, it could be - to you - indistinguishable from your front yard. The tautology is that, if the reproduction was indeed perfect, you couldn't tell the difference; and, of course, if you CAN tell the difference, then the reproduction is NOT perfect. So, what we're really trying to do in hi-if is to create a situation where we can trick our brains into producing the same internal model when it listens to a recording as it would have when it was listening to the real thing. (Interestingly, we never actually do that either. The last time I heard my favorite singer in person, the air was hazy with smoke, and smelled like smoke and stale beer, and the floor was sticky... oddly I have no desire to reproduce that part of the experience accurately. Obviously, if we want to be sticklers, that was all part of the original experience, and would contribute to the accuracy of its reproduction. Considering this new information, perhaps what we're really trying to do, rather than to accurately reproduce the original performance, is to create an illusion that produces, in our brains, something better than the original performance - an idealized version of what the original performance "should have been like". This brings up a whole slew of new possibilities...... What if the digital recording really does sound more like the actual original performance, but the vinyl recording sounds more like what you would prefer to imagine it would have sounded like? What if the memory you hold in your mind is nothing like the original at all? (Have you ever finally found a copy of a recording you loved years ago, or watched an old movie, only to realize that, while it obviously was the same copy you heard or saw years ago, it "just wasn't the same" - because you, as the observer, were now different? Sometimes "you just can't go back" - and the technology is not the limiting factor.) And how about modern multi-track recordings, where the original tracks may have been laid down by musicians in different locations, and at different times, and the entire "combined performance" is simply an illusion built by the mixing engineer? Even worse, when you listen to a lot of "live" music these days, what you're really experiencing is a bunch of electronic instruments, and the output of some microphones, played through whatever audio equipment the venue happens to have. (The last time I heard my favorite band "live", they didn't sound nearly as good as their studio albums do in my living room. So which is "right"?) Nah, my ears do! The map is not the territory, no matter how accurate the map. And folks who quote math on an audio site are boring. 8) So what have you been listening to or what piece of audio gear have you purchased that made your system better? I have been listening to a lot of Ella, mostly 24 bit, and I just cannot get enough. That lady had some serious chops and is probably my very favorite female singer. Trey |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 21, 2014 10:10:45 GMT -5
Just for the record, there is very well known "science" that explains why different DACs sound different.  Most good quality DACs have very flat frequency response, and produce very low levels of THD, IM distortion, and noise. However, virtually all modern DACs use digital filters, and the response of those digital filters to non-steady-state signals varies pretty widely. In other words, if you play a continuous sine wave through them, you get the same very low distortion sine wave back out - and it will sound identical. Likewise, if you measure their frequency response using similar continuous sine waves, you will find that they are all admirably flat (arguably far beyond any difference you could reasonably expect to be audible). However, if you play a signal through them that is NOT steady state - like a short pulse, or the crash of a cymbal, then what you get out will NOT be at all identical. You can measure this pretty easily (if you have the right equipment), and, with a little practice, you can learn to correlate the measurements (and scope traces) with what you hear. Another factor which affects the way DACs sound is called jitter - which is simply a fancy technical way of saying that "the signal jumps around a bit, so the numbers don't always arrive at the DAC at exactly the right times, and this error gets into the analog output as a type of distortion". Jitter is much trickier to measure, and to interpret, because it can be considered in different ways. What really matters is how much jitter is present in the signal when the numbers are presented to the DAC chip itself. The details become very convoluted because this is affected by how much jitter is present on the signal to begin with, how much of that jitter is removed (or how much more is added) by the circuitry in the DAC, and how sensitive the particular DAC design is to the jitter that makes it through (certain types of DACs are more sensitive than others). Also, some of we humans find the audible effects of jitter to be very annoying, while others of us hardly notice them - and that also depends on what you're listening to. When describing a connection, the amount of jitter present can be described more or less accurately by a single number; when describing the effect it has on the sound, it is typically described by showing a spectrum plot - where the desired frequency looks like a central "mountain peak" - and any extra little "foot hills" are sidebands due to jitter (although predicting the audible effects of extra peaks of specific frequencies can get complicated - less, and lower, are better). Since there are so many factors involved, describing the jitter at one point (like the clock crystal) is of limited use in predicting how the whole device will perform - or sound. For example, replacing an internal clock with a super-low-jitter "super clock" may have a dramatic effect on one design, while having no effect whatsoever on a different design. Arguably, DACs are a great example of "choosing the correct things to measure". The particular differences I mentioned as making a significant difference in how different DACs sound are not things which are normally measured when testing analog amplifiers or preamps - because, in the context of the types of circuits used in analog amps and preamps, they don't matter much. (Transient response is important in analog circuits, but it needn't be measured separately, because analog circuits that otherwise "measure well" rarely have audible problems with transient response. Likewise, analog circuits aren't especially sensitive or prone to jitter and, if it were present in sufficient quantities to be a problem, it would show up as poor performance on the more common measurements.) (Incidentally, the purpose of the ASRC that we include in many of our Emo DACs is to filter out jitter... which can dramatically improve the sound in some situations - and make no difference at all in others.) Sure, I'll look into it. If there is not a reasonable explanation of why one would sound different (Measurements, Double Blind Study, well documented and published theory) I may quickly lose interest though. As for digital cables sounding different, that is pure myth. Erm... well... From a philosophical/logical point of view, a "reasonable explanation" is not necessary for a phenomenon to exist. We have a phenomenon called "radioactivity" - where a heavy atom splits into lighter atoms, with a release of some energetic particles. No one knows why, or when, an atom will split. The fact that we don't have an explanation does not mean that radioactivity does not exist - it only means that we don't have an explanation of the phenomenon. Now as for whether the phenomenon of "DACs sound different" exists or not.... if you don't hear the difference between DAC's, then you don't hear it. If you hear it, then you hear it. Either way, the "explanation" is not central to the issue. Trust your ears and that's your reality. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Oct 21, 2014 10:33:56 GMT -5
Keith, you left no comment of your own, only other peoples previous post. Could be wrong but doubt this is what you had in mind.
thanks
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 21, 2014 10:44:45 GMT -5
Yah... I hit save while I was still writing... corrected... thanks.  Keith, you left no comment of your own, only other peoples previous post. Could be wrong but doubt this is what you had in mind. thanks |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 21, 2014 13:01:57 GMT -5
Great posts Keith. Thanks for sharing the thoughts and information. Hope your day is great.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Oct 21, 2014 18:58:44 GMT -5
Just for the record, there is very well known "science" that explains why different DACs sound different. Most good quality DACs have very flat frequency response, and produce very low levels of THD, IM distortion, and noise. However, virtually all modern DACs use digital filters, and the response of those digital filters to non-steady-state signals varies pretty widely. In other words, if you play a continuous sine wave through them, you get the same very low distortion sine wave back out - and it will sound identical. Likewise, if you measure their frequency response using similar continuous sine waves, you will find that they are all admirably flat (arguably far beyond any difference you could reasonably expect to be audible). However, if you play a signal through them that is NOT steady state - like a short pulse, or the crash of a cymbal, then what you get out will NOT be at all identical. You can measure this pretty easily (if you have the right equipment), and, with a little practice, you can learn to correlate the measurements (and scope traces) with what you hear. This is really interesting, and something I didn't know about. Can you (or anyone else in this thread) recommend some reading I can do on this phenomena? A co-worker and I were discussing the differences between the UMC-1 and XMC-1 recently. We received our XMC-1s at the same time, and both replaced UMC-1s. At the time I commented that I found the uncalibrated sound of the XMC-1 to be superior. Over the last few months, I've started to doubt my assessment, assuming I was just getting carried away with the joy of new gear. My recent assessment has been that the main difference between the two (as far as sound quality goes) must be limited to the awesome PEQ included in the XMC-1. Your post lends credence to my initial assessment. I'd love to know/read more about it, as most of the technical stuff I've read suggests that well designed DACs shouldn't make a difference. These are from (admittedly well informed) forum users around the web, and not audio engineers. I'd like to read more about the science and technique involved in measuring the differences. |
|
Point taken!
