bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Of course all digital equalizers sound different! But it isn't because of the filters. You have them all set to different curves and different output levels!
Last edited:
the filter curves are all the same while i tested, so "nope", why even bother to argue with such a dumb argument you think i havent noticed it ? there is no difference in filter curves if we compare FIR/IIR/FFT/SPM.... however, the filter curves are indeed different if you compare the filter types like RLC/APOOf course all digital equalizers sound different! But it isn't because of the filters. You have them all set to different curves and different output levels!
You have this backwards. There is no musical information loss, especially in the high frequencies, or at least none anywhere near audible levels within the audible spectrum, due to the sampling rates and bit depth. This is in contrast to analogue with all kinds of tape hiss, distortion, saturation and other “macerations” at high freqs which are audible!
Again, no. It’s a highly accurate mathematical representation with no data losses, distortions or aliasing that are audible.
The digital system has not macerated the music in the first place and does not macerate it again. Again, this is in contrast to analogue, which does add distortion, noise, etc., in the first place and adds more with each subsequent process.
No it doesn’t, the “toll” occurs at bit depths way beyond anything that can even be reproduced downstream, let alone at audible levels, again, unlike analogue.
There is no loss in resolution and no such thing as “digital grunge”, especially in the high frequencies and therefore it does not affect the naturalness of massed strings. And, the human ear does not have “great sensitivity to time-related distortions” compared to the time related distortions which actually occur with digital audio. If the human ear were so sensitive, you would easily hear all the time-related distortions of analogue, which are magnitudes greater!
Of course it doesn’t, music exists in the acoustic “dimension” NOT the analogue “dimension”. That’s why we need microphones to change the “dimension” and speakers/HPs to change it back again. Surely you must know this?
Of course they operate mathematically, EQ and other processes are defined mathematically and then circuits designed to implement that math, even the pick-up patterns/characteristics of mics. How do you think EQ and other analogue processes/processors operate?
Now you’re contradicting yourself. Analogue has all these and other distortions, which digital either doesn’t have at all or has magnitudes lower but digital “macerates” the music and analogue doesn’t?
What relative lack of time related distortions? Analogue EQ has exactly the same mathematic processes as digital EQ processors, with exactly the same artefacts plus additional noise and distortion, while digital does not have “other digital artefacts”! Where’s the trade off?
You mean you prefer the higher noise, distortion and other “macerations” of analogue!
Unfortunately, your post was packed with a whole list of the false marketing invented and employed by the audiophile community since Sony’s infamous SACD/DSD marketing. It’s completely contrary to the actual facts/science and is based on myth and falsehoods! Although it did elucidate exactly the false audiophile marketing I mentioned.
G
Have you though? Have you actually tested “what your ears are telling you” or do you only “go by” what your (biased) perception is telling you?The biggest difference here is that I have long chosen to go by what my ears are telling me, rather than conventional theory.
Firstly, what is “hashy”, did you just make that up? Secondly, I was a formally trained and then a professional orchestral musician for many years, so I’ve got a better knowledge of what orchestral strings should sound like than most and, as a professional sound engineer working with orchestras for many years subsequently, in some of the worlds top studios and concert venues, I’ve objectively analysed many orchestral recordings. There is none of this “hashy” (whatever it is). Furthermore, if there were something “hashy” then the world’s top soloists, conductors, orchestras and the top engineers and producers who record and create orchestral recordings would have demanded digital audio be changed or would simply have not employ it. In fact, the exact opposite occurred and classical/orchestral music were the first to fully adopt digital audio.You even haven't apparently ever noticed the hashy "digital strings" typically encountered in digital orchestral recordings.
Have you though? Have you actually tested “what your ears are telling you” or do you only “go by” what your (biased) perception is telling you?
Also, “conventional theory” (Sampling Theory) was proven nearly 80 years ago, then digital devices (including digital audio) were developed from that theory and of course extensively objectively measured and reliably tested. Therefore, the “conventional theory” is not wrong and if it were then there would be no digital devices or digital audio. You’re surely not claiming that are you?
Firstly, what is “hashy”, did you just make that up? Secondly, I was a formally trained and then a professional orchestral musician for many years, so I’ve got a better knowledge of what orchestral strings should sound like than most and, as a professional sound engineer working with orchestras for many years subsequently, in some of the worlds top studios and concert venues, I’ve objectively analysed many orchestral recordings. There is none of this “hashy” (whatever it is). Furthermore, if there were something “hashy” then the world’s top soloists, conductors, orchestras and the top engineers and producers who record and create orchestral recordings would have demanded digital audio be changed or would simply have not employ it. In fact, the exact opposite occurred and classical/orchestral music were the first to fully adopt digital audio.
So obviously, what you think “your ears are telling you” is faulty, both according to the objective facts and measurements and according to the subjective evaluations of the most highly trained and skilled professionals who perform and create the recordings. Yet for some strange reason you have “long chosen to go by” your faulty hearing/perception rather than the actual facts and then come to an actual science discussion forum and argue nonsense/made-up “facts”?
G
It was neither and you didn’t step on a sore spot. You on the other hand failed to answer a single question or address any of points I raised and instead just responded with personal attacks!An angry and vituperous response. Must have stepped on a sore spot.
Ah, thanks for presenting another typical “audiophile impression”, IE. Completely contrary to the actual facts. But when did being completely wrong ever affect audiophile assertions/claims?My impression is that you may be one of the closed-minded strictly by-the-book "meter-reader" engineer types who like to think of themselves as audiophiles …
Show me/us some reliable evidence of actual audible differences and we’ll stop putting it down to gullible, delusional audiophiles. How difficult should this be for “the long experience of legions of true audiophiles”? Not a single person out of all these legions for 4 or more decades, why are we still waiting?who (contrary to the long experience of legions of true audiophiles) dismiss as hype, self-suggestion and delusion the obvious to most audiophiles differences between different cables, power conditioners, amps, preamps, DACs and so on, and also of course the multitude of "tweak" accessory products.
No you don’t have any “technical material to explain this”. You might well have marketing material falsely presented as technical material in order to fool gullible “true” audiophiles.I have some technical material to explain this, but due to your orientation on the issues you are probably not interested.
I am an electronics engineer and software designer in the military aerospace avionics field by profession, and also an audiophile for more than 40 years. I formerly before retirement had a successful company, Magnan Cables Inc., marketing my own design of audio cables including interconnects (as for instance the well-known Magnan Type Vi interconnect), speaker cables and power cables.................................................................
If you have any real technical material/reliable evidence then post it! But if it turns out to be just more audiophile marketing BS, then all you will obviously achieve is reinforcing the premise of gullible audiophiles who don’t know the difference between reliable evidence/technical material and marketing BS.
G