[nick_charles]

Quote:

Quote:

Sound is not really analog though to start with.
 
Sound is simply a set of compressions and rarefactions in air. We hear by these by the effect of them vibrating our eardrums and sending a set of discrete nerve pulses (nerves have latency so there is no instantaneous generation nor recovery from pulsing) so it is not truly continuous even at the ears. An analog microphone contains a membrane that vibrates (like a speaker in reverse) and moves a magnet within a coil (or vice versa) generating a voltage, again these are discrete pulses and while they may look continuous they really cannot be by definition. So really sound is much less analog to start with and recordings (analog or digital) are by definition approximations of the source...
 

 
I do agree with you, but then , I don't!
Your first sentence is not right, analog is a continuous movement of air, transferring these movements to our ear which is analog by definition!
All the other possible sources of signal conversion management errors is there, always have and always will be!
Just now, in the recent years, another way of defining audio signals have been introduced.
Some programmers writing code defining "their" personal perception of how audio should be perceived.
So sound is from the start analog, I do disagree with you there!
But from there on, "approximations of the source", we do agree about.

What does the word analog mean ?
 

 

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5101414_analog-audio.html
 
I am trying to show, but cannot find the definitions I am looking for!
But in my feeble minded approach, I would define analog as a continuous no-stepped way of presenting a wave-formed sinus signal out to an amplifier.
From there we are not discussing it here!
A digital way of presenting this sinus signal, is by a defined, computer processed program to show the sinus signal as much life-like to the original but in steps defined by the conversion program's defined parameters and presented at the out-put as a recreated sinus wave.
I am trying as best as I can to define this!

You need to think what is meant by continuous and what is not meant by continuous. You have an image of a perfectly smooth analog of a sound wave represented by a smooth sinewave on a graph. This is an illusion, only at a gross level of zoom is this illusion maintained, once you start subdividing time the metaphor breaks down and it has too because it is not perfectly smooth it cannot be as there are laws of physics involved and things are finite. Analog is a metaphorical term.
 

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[JerryLove]

Quote:

You are now defining the life in a perfect, no errors, digital, dream world! But I do not know how to get there!
Yes, if perfect, no loss, digital processing systems did exist, this would be the perfect way of processing and distributing audio.
But it does not!
Today, the best audio recording and processing equipment available is analog.
Maybe later, the availability of no limited storage, no limitations on processing power, analog can be easily available as digitally processed signals to the common man.
But today, it is not!

For which process?
I make copies of digitial audio (and video) all the time with zero generational loss. The copy is perfect. That cannot be done in analog.
 
As a side effect of the same fact above, I can move a sound from my usb drive to my hard drive, into my audio editor, back to my harddrive, and off to CD with zero transit loss (what I may or may not loose in editing I'll discuss in a moment). The same is not possible in the analog world. When you read the analog recording, there is noise added, when it travels down the wire: noise. When the wires meet: noise. Everywhere there is anything other than a superconductor at 0k, there's noise. Yes, on good gear this is low noise: but in digital the noise never becomes part of the signal.
 
Yes, the resolution of a digital signal is not infinite. Honestly: neither is the resolution on an analog recording (as the accuracy of the equipment is not infinite). The difference is that those innaccuracies compound in the analog world.
 
Other than the ADC and DAC, which if done right should each happen only once: I just don't see how it's possible for anything other than bad algorithims to result in anything but perfect modification... though the bulk of my experience with anything more than audio NLE, tone control, and volume matching is in the video world.

 

[poikkeus]

This discussion is kind of interesting, but I wonder...
 
Is this subject relevant to headphones? 
If it's not relevant to headphones, why mention it here? There are other internet forums that cover this material.
 
Or is Sound Science a general forum for floor speakers, turntables, etc?

 

[JerryLove]

Quote:

This discussion is kind of interesting, but I wonder...
 
Is this subject relevant to headphones? 
If it's not relevant to headphones, why mention it here? There are other internet forums that cover this material.
 
Or is Sound Science a general forum for floor speakers, turntables, etc?

There's a funny meta-argument to be had whether the topic of a forum is an appropriate topic for this forum.
 
I believe the purpose of "Sound Science" is to discuss, from the perspective of science (as opposed to from the perspective of superstition) of, well, sound.
 
That would seem to put this on topic... but you are welcome to just not read the post if you don't want to discuss it.

 

[poikkeus]

Okay, since we've established that we don't need to talk about headphones in a headphone forum, let's run with it.
 
Digital media requires a different approach to rendering sound than analog; with the same recording, two "identical" digital tracks can sound significantly different. I can't tell you which recording is more "accurate," but I do know what seems to sound better for me. Rendering a digital track requires a certain experience (or maybe skill). 
 
Complicating the issue: I have listened to analog tracks (on vinyl), which also ended up sounding noticeably different - and the same thing with CD or digital tracks. The difference in the initial mix was as important sometimes as that between analog vs digital. 
 
For me, the initial mix has the greatest effect on sound. 

 

[JerryLove]

The performance and choice of mixing (emphasize the trumpet, run the backup singers on the left channel) are reasonably outside the scope of the topic (for me: music has the least flaws when there's a pretty girl in my lap).
 
Done well: I would be surprised if either method introduced audiable changes from the original performance.

 

[D. Lundberg]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by labrat /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That is the whole point I am trying to tell!
Sound is analog from the start, and up to today no commercial digital equipment is available that can do the recording more detailed that an analog, high-end recording equipment can!
Neither is equipment for replaying!

 
What do you base those claims on? Tape recorders are technically inferior to good digital recording systems in every aspect (THD, IMD, SNR, frequency response, etc.).
And once the signal is in the digital domain you can transfer and process it with minimal loss. Transfers in the analog domain are always lossy.
 
It's obviously true that sound is analog, but that doesn't mean that keeping the signal in the analog domain is the best way to preserve it.
Not that tape (or vinyl) is horrible in any way, and many people like the way it "colors" the sound, but it is not more accurate than digital recording (or playback) systems.

 

[poikkeus]

 
 
Quote:

And once the signal is in the digital domain you can transfer and process it with minimal loss. Transfers in the analog domain are always lossy.
 

 
Given this argument, transfers in the analog domain are always lossy, but signal processed in the digital domain can be processed with "minimal loss." Minimal loss concedes that digital signal is basically lossy. 
 
Whether there's significant loss is another issue entirely. Theoretically, there should be no signal loss with digital transfer; in reality, I've heard digital recordings that vary considerably in sound. Analog, too. The difference has more to do with the measures needed, on both, to make the sound ideal for each medium. This is the mix.

 

[jcx]

News flash from 20th century: the shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave are quantized

 
"Analog" is as strictly limited in "information capacity" as digital - and hi res digital audio formats beat all analog recording chain components at audio frequencies
 
Shannon–Hartley theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if for comparison the amplitude is limited to relatively safe SPL levels and we assume audio bandwidth is also limited then the noise and distortion of the system limit the information the channel can convey

source and amplifier noise establish a limit - even with dynamic transducers

for practical headphone listening higher limiting noise includes room noise, microphonics from cup, cable motion

 

 

[JerryLove]

Quote:

Given this argument, transfers in the analog domain are always lossy, but signal processed in the digital domain can be processed with "minimal loss." Minimal loss concedes that digital signal is basically lossy.   
Whether there's significant loss is another issue entirely. Theoretically, there should be no signal loss with digital transfer; in reality, I've heard digital recordings that vary considerably in sound. Analog, too. The difference has more to do with the measures needed, on both, to make the sound ideal for each medium. This is the mix.

Regardless of his poor choice of language, many events (transfers) occur in the digital domain with zero loss. The same is not true for analog: some noise will always be introduced.
 
Will it be significant? With good equipment, care, and reasonable limits on modifications I would think no... at least not for a while. Analog media also degrades with play-back, and though you can fight degridation with write-back: that introduces generational loss. Analog is not a good media for distribution (there's no consumer-level analog with the fidelity and durability of DVD-A or even CD.
 
So analog:
No good for distribution (no appropriate media)
No good for archiving (incremental loss as media degrades, no ability to make perfect copies)
No good for listening (media degradation again)
 
Might be good for mastering and limited mixing... except because of the statements above, you are gonna go digital at some point.
Since you will go digital at some point: it makes sense to do so as early as possible and DAC as late as possible.
 
 

 

[jcx]

no need for the weak argument that digital is so practical - in theory and practice todays best hi res digital audio beats microphones, most amplifiers in that it can capture all of the audio frequency "analog information" coming from a real world recording recording session
 
the poster is only echoing the Audiophile Sophomoric misunderstanding of signal theory and today's technology

 

[poikkeus]

While today's best hi-res digital recording may be state of the art, a real world recording session may or not be hi-res. That's why not all digital is equal, though theoretically it should be. Older digital recordings in fact do not subscribe to current standards. The fact that the discussion references high res recordings suggests that there are different standards or recordings - analog and digital.