Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 162

post #2416 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seifer01 View Post


Yeah a good impersonation but are there undefinables when listening to anologue? A certain essence that is missing from digital?

 

What essence? Describe the improvement sound. Then figure out why it sounds better by isolating the variables. Sound reproduction isn't magic. It's pretty easy to understand. You just need to ask the right questions and follow the path of facts to their correct conclusion. Too many people leap from premise to conclusion and ignore every fact that doesn't connect the two.

post #2417 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seifer01 View Post

I could be wrong but isn't analogue "real", and digital a really good "impersonation"?

According to Nyquist, Shannon, and a whole host of other pioneers of information theory, no.

se
post #2418 of 3125
Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
Analogue flows, while digital stabs?

Analogue is more natural?

I've heard it said that digital recordings hurt some people's ears. Perhaps that's where all the talk of listening fatigue comes from, all that digital "stabbing".

I'm just pondering smily_headphones1.gif

I haven't listened to vinyl for about 23 years or so.
post #2419 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seifer01 View Post

Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
Analogue flows, while digital stabs?

Analogue is more natural?

I've heard it said that digital recordings hurt some people's ears. Perhaps that's where all the talk of listening fatigue comes from, all that digital "stabbing".

I'm just pondering smily_headphones1.gif

I haven't listened to vinyl for about 23 years or so.

Assuming you're being serious with these questions here, you should watch this video. It demonstrates digital audio very nicely, and why that kind of perception (that so many people seem to have) is incorrect.

 

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

post #2420 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seifer01 View Post

Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
Analogue flows, while digital stabs?

Analogue is more natural?

I've heard it said that digital recordings hurt some people's ears. Perhaps that's where all the talk of listening fatigue comes from, all that digital "stabbing".

I'm just pondering smily_headphones1.gif

I haven't listened to vinyl for about 23 years or so.

Even the air which transports the sound has 'digital' steps (based on gas content, temperature, etc.). "True analog" does not exist (anywhere in the universe!), it just happens that the resolution of the steps are much smaller than the resolution of our ears to hear them. Analog is recorded using mechanical means onto mechanical devices, which also have resolution limits just like our mechanical ears and the mechanical speakers.
Analog can (can, not does) sound "smoother" because of naturally higher noise floor and harmonic distortion effects. Because digital does not suffer from these it can reproduce the recording EXACTLY, which for some recordings can potentially sound harsh or digitized....but that is information from the recording

When's the last time you went to a live event and thought that it didn't sound real because there were no surface pops/clicks or tape hiss? Analog can be a preference which is fine, but it is not superior for any false reasons of accuracy or natural response, etc
post #2421 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seifer01 View Post

Isn't analogue audio a sound wave, and digital audio jagged steps?
Analogue flows, while digital?

No. The output of a properly implemented digital system is just as "analogue" as what's coming out of a phono cartridge. The whole "jagged steps" thing comes from a very naive understanding of how digital works. Read up on "reconstruction filter."

se
post #2422 of 3125

I think people get hung up on quantization error for A/D and D/A conversion and other details of essentially what is "error" or "noise" added to the original. Yes, it happens, but so it happens that error is introduced by all the analog parts of the signal chain too. What's important is the quality and quantity of these issues and how that relates to how we hear things.

 

With respect to jagged steps (that's not how it works; it's just an easy and misleading ways of visualization), it's covered in this video, among other related topics:

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

post #2423 of 3125
Ugh. Why couldn't they have done the video in something a little more universal instead of this WebM and Ogg stuff?

se
post #2424 of 3125
post #2425 of 3125
Thanks, Ethan.

I was able to watch it, just had to go load it up on my PC. Unless I need to check my company email or do CAD/graphics work, I'm on my iPad these days.

se
post #2426 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Ugh. Why couldn't they have done the video in something a little more universal instead of this WebM and Ogg stuff?

se

 

He eats his own dog food (I believe he is one of the developers).

post #2427 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by upstateguy View Post
 

 

Great quote!  Do you mind if I use it in my Sig?


Be my guest .. I don't claim copyright on things I write on the internet ..

 

re : -90 and -100dB crosstalk and listening to/for it for extended time :

I to am seriously concerned for the hearing of people who do that -

In fact, You have probably already done some damage, get it checked !

 

Somebody once wrote a great article titled something like :

'Want better sound ? - Turn down the volume !!'

The 'idea' being that when you expose your hearing to excessive levels, it will 'defend' itself by lowering it's sensitivity.

That will obviously NOT lead to better sound and if it happens to often, the sensitivity-lowering becomes permanent .

 

I'll see if I can find the link and post it if I do ..

 

BTW : regarding 78's etc and adding some 'hiss' :

http://www.aphex.com/products/exciter/


Edited by bufferoverflow - 3/8/14 at 4:55pm
post #2428 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bufferoverflow View Post
 

Somebody once wrote a great article titled something like :

'Want better sound ? - Turn down the volume !!'

The 'idea' being that when you expose your hearing to excessive levels, it will 'defend' itself by lowering it's sensitivity.

That will obviously NOT lead to better sound and if it happens to often, the sensitivity-lowering becomes permanent .

This is an important point. Higher volume (even below dangerous levels) also increases the effect of masking.

post #2429 of 3125
post #2430 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by EthanWiner View Post

Here it is on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Wow.  What a fantastic video. Very informative.

 

I've never stressed over bit-rates because I've never been able to tell the difference between my Nora Jones - Come Away With Me SACD and the standard redbook. Now I have a solid explanation of why that is, I mean other than the fact that I don't have superduperuberaudiophile hearing.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths