"It sounds digital"

[dincz]

[quote name='EdwardHimself' timestamp='1339693806' post='1692915']
I don't want to sound as if I am trying to make out that you are wrong or anything, but surely if that were the case, power amp distortion wouldn't exist?
[/quote]

Instead of being limited by the supply rail voltages, in PWM you're limited by 0% and 100% pulse duty factor - which is really analogous to clipping.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='dincz' timestamp='1339699442' post='1693027']
Instead of being limited by the supply rail voltages, in PWM you're limited by 0% and 100% pulse duty factor - which is really analogous to clipping.
[/quote]

Ok I see what you're saying now:



Makes sense. As I say, I am not some kind of expert, just curious.

Edited June 14, 2012 by EdwardHimself

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339699711' post='1693040']
Of course they can.

as long as they see it or are told it's being used
[/quote]

Or are using it.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339709726' post='1693309']
Or are using it.
[/quote]
But that was their CHOICE to use it over other means of producing the sounds they like and need. It doesn't matter as long as the end result is acceptable to the user.

[Mr. Foxen]

Not quite sure how that statement relates. Choosing different things is down to them being different, not because there isn't a difference.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339712612' post='1693347']
Not quite sure how that statement relates. Choosing different things is down to them being different, not because there isn't a difference.
[/quote]
Well go and have a beer and a sit down, and think about how my POD X3 is different to your 37 vintage valve amps and 22 speaker cabs, and what both of us are trying to achieve in terms of sound, character, indulgence, passion, image, flexibility, reliability, transportability, cost ..

[Mr. Foxen]

Becoming even less related to topic.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339714101' post='1693369']
Becoming even less related to topic.
[/quote]

What was the question again?

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1339743273' post='1693496']
What was the question again?


[/quote]

I was saying that the user experience differs significantly. You appear to want to argue, citing differences in user experience as support.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339753672' post='1693681']
I was saying that the user experience differs significantly. You appear to want to argue, citing differences in user experience as support.
[/quote]

Nope, still don't understand. User experiences of what? Different between what?

[Earbrass]

"Windy isn't it?"
"No it's Thursday"
"So am I - let's have a cup of tea"

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='dood' timestamp='1339669037' post='1692219']
Coming back to the audio amplifier, unless it involves some sort of DSP circuit, such as the preamplifier in the TC RH450, there is no analogue to digital conversion and thus the signal stays in the analogue domain. Effects units, such as those by Line 6 are digital as they rely wholly on A/D, DSP and D/A conversion. It's pretty safe to call them digital.
[/quote]
[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1339673089' post='1692361']
But still no-one can tell the difference between those and analogue
[/quote]
[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1339699711' post='1693040']
Of course they can.

as long as they see it or are told it's being used
[/quote]
[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339709726' post='1693309']
Or are using it.
[/quote]
[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1339754278' post='1693699']
Nope, still don't understand. User experiences of what? Different between what?
[/quote]

I hope this way no new data will have to be assimilated.

[molan]

I must admit that I can often hear the difference with a live guitarist who's using a, mostly digital, multi-effects unit rather than natural distortion )or clean sounds for that matter) from an amp.

To my ears it sounds 'processed' and a little unnatural. I can totally see why a small floor effects pedal or rack unit into a modern light weight power amp & cab is more preferable to lugging around a beast of a valve amp & heavy 2x12 or 4x12 stack

It's certainly something I've heard people describe as sounding 'digital' although, of course, this isn't really very accurate

[51m0n]

So how many of you listen to your favourite bands on a really great hi-fi?

And, how many of you want to try and get tones like they do, for the drums, guitar, bass, singer, glokenspiel?

And just how often is that tone coming off a CD?

Yeah, thought so......

[bremen]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1339757057' post='1693768']
So how many of you listen to your favourite bands on a really great hi-fi?

And, how many of you want to try and get tones like they do, for the drums, guitar, bass, singer, glokenspiel?

And just how often is that tone coming off a CD?

Yeah, thought so......
[/quote]

Some time ago Radio 3 FM live broadcasts were widely regarded by audiophiles (ie gentlemen who wouldn't allow a CD in the house) as being the 'best', 'purest', 'most analog' signal available this side of a concert hall. I've just learned from an engineer who was there that for a long time the signal was digitised into 12 bits (unsure of sample rate, sorry) to be piped from the OB van to the transmitter. And no-one knew, so they didn't hear it.

My point being...erm, don't know Sir. Probably what 5im0n said.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1339755085' post='1693722']
I hope this way no new data will have to be assimilated.
[/quote]

+1 Great post.

[51m0n]

In any radio broadcast from the BBC the amount of broadcast multiband compression/limiting would mean 12 bits was enough - ergo it isnt truly 'audiophile' which would suggest the most precise and natural of representations of the live gig, with no attenuation of the dynamic range allowed.

[Commando Jack]

Here is what I would like to know: What is the sampling rate of the human hearing system? Anyone know? Disregarding the feeling phenomenon (such as actually feeling very low frequencies in our bodies), surely there must be a rate at which the nervous system can transmit information to the brain for processing. We already some answers for vision (in terms of resolution etc) so why not hearing?

Of course on this forum I've heard lots of talk about sub-harmonics etc so I know its very complicated and not definitive but I just thought it would be interesting to know what resolution we roughly hear at.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Commando Jack

[51m0n]

Sample rate is irrelevant, since the transducer can not go higher than 20KHz, and rapidly wears out such that by middle age you are doing well if it handles above 16KHz.

It also doesnt work below 20Hz, although the rest of your body will supply other information to tell you stuff is going on down there if it is very loud.

On top of whicvh it is an analogue system, so sample rate is a really dodgy phrase to use at all....

Edited June 15, 2012 by 51m0n

[flyfisher]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1339759156' post='1693819']
On top of whicvh it is an analogue system, so sample rate is a really dodgy phrase to use at all....
[/quote]

Exactly. If analogue systems had an 'effective' sampling rate then there really couldn't be any sensible debate about the differences between analogue and digital systems.

The anti-digital view is generally based on the fact that any digital representation of an essentially analogue thing cannot, by definition, be a perfect equivalent of the analogue thing.

In practice, of course, this takes things to a ridiculous theoretical extreme and can therefore be mostly ignored - unless you're the sort of person who would also pay a few thousand pounds for a 'kettle lead' in the pursuit of the 'perfect' system.

Besides, there is no such thing as an analogue audio system that doesn't introduce its own distortion and colouration, which is probably why such things are referred to as 'high fidelity' rather than 'absolute fidelity'.

[51m0n]

Yes, but they just dont really work like that do they, they do have variations of 'on-ness' whereas digital doesnt. There is the number of and frequency of neurones firing to maintian a given level of 'on-ness'. Which may seem similar but I'm not sure that it is quantifiable with a simple sample rate analogy.

This is not the same as the maximum resolution of the human eye for instance, which is definable as a product of the number and size of rods/cones in the retina and the quality of the lens and the distance from the object viewed.

[Commando Jack]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1339767072' post='1694018']
Yes, but they just dont really work like that do they, they do have variations of 'on-ness' whereas digital doesnt. There is the number of and frequency of neurones firing to maintian a given level of 'on-ness'. Which may seem similar but I'm not sure that it is quantifiable with a simple sample rate analogy.
[/quote]

Yeah I was going for the collective rate of action potentials limiting our hearing resolution, which being in the temporal domain brings us right back to frequency and this is probably more mechanical than electrochemical. I think everything you're saying is bang on - the analogy falls apart if a fly lights on it and I agree its probably not quantifiable at all.

I guess I was wondering out loud about the old assertion that Flyfisher touched on:

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1339764598' post='1693956']
The anti-digital view is generally based on the fact that any digital representation of an essentially analogue thing cannot, by definition, be a perfect equivalent of the analogue thing.
[/quote]

i.e. there is a loss of information. So if there was a point where the digital gear could sample better than our ears could pick up, there would be no noticable loss of information. It's probably physiologically unquantifiable, and not really relevant when considering the other differences between digital and analogue, but whatever keeps us from our day jobs, right?

I remember computer monitor/ video card manufacturers not so long ago boasting about SVGA, High Colour,True colour, at which point they stopped because "True colour" supposedly contained all the colours we could see the difference between. Apparently.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1339767072' post='1694018']
This is not the same as the maximum resolution of the human eye for instance, which is definable as a product of the number and size of rods/cones in the retina and the quality of the lens and the distance from the object viewed.
[/quote]

Well, if we're going to get into the psychology of perception (audio or visual) then most bets are off because who knows how we really 'hear' or 'see' things?

The point about the human eye structure is a good example but it's interesting to note that the image sensor in a decent DSLR has a higher resolution than the eye. But a lot of what we 'see' is made up by the brain anyway. Colour, for example, is something we construct from the limited response from three types of cones. Indeed, the response of digital video systems has to be tweaked to match the eye's response, which is an odd thing to have to do when striving for hi-fidelity if you think about it. Also, we only see a tiny portion of our field of view in high resolution. Our peripheral vision is not nearly as acute as our central vision, but the brain compensates for us.

These are only some of the things I've learned from working a lot with video engineering. I'm less sure about the ear but I'd be surprised if similar things didn't apply.

I'm in no way doubting that some people prefer analogue recordings to digital recordings but, as I think you've previously and rightly pointed out, a lot of this could be down to the immense amount of signal processing involved (in both domains) and, frankly, I really don't care one way or the other. People know what they like and that's fine.

What amuses me is when they start arguing that something is 'more real' than something else.

[51m0n]

Absolutely agree.

192KHz 24bit through a banging monitor system (B&W Nautilus, PMC MB-2s, whatever, driven with appropriate amps and cabling blah blah blah) in a great room sounds fantastic, I'd never be able to tell it was 'digital' in a double blind test against a 1/2" analogue master tape of the same music at the exact same volume. Not a chance, and I would love to see any digital naysayer in the world do this with anything beyond statistical average accuracy. In fact I wouldnt be able to tell them apart at all if the volumes were the same.

[Count Bassy]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1339771551' post='1694119']
Absolutely agree.

192KHz 24bit through a banging monitor system (B&W Nautilus, PMC MB-2s, whatever, driven with appropriate amps and cabling blah blah blah) in a great room sounds fantastic, I'd never be able to tell it was 'digital' in a double blind test against a 1/2" analogue master tape of the same music at the exact same volume. Not a chance, and I would love to see any digital naysayer in the world do this with anything beyond statistical average accuracy. In fact I wouldnt be able to tell them apart at all if the volumes were the same.
[/quote]

Except the analogue in any realistic system, would have more hiss, crackle and pop.