How Science Got Sound Wrong

IF there were ever to be an ADC > DAC combination which perfectly implemented the mathematics of Nyquist's Theorem it would probably sound better than any current means of sound recording and reproduction. I'm not sure the ability to do that is even theoretically possible with current or near future technology. Perfect transient response? No way. No aliasing? Not with any available filter technologies. We do have pretty accurate clocking available, and many seem to feel that has notably improved digital audio, but it is mostly implemented in DACs (not ADCs) as far as I can tell, so even then addresses only half of that problem.
 
rbbert said:
IF there were ever to be an ADC > DAC combination which perfectly implemented the mathematics of Nyquist's Theorem it would probably sound better than any current means of sound recording and reproduction. I'm not sure the ability to do that is even theoretically possible with current or near future technology. Perfect transient response? No way. No aliasing? Not with any available filter technologies. We do have pretty accurate clocking available, and many seem to feel that has notably improved digital audio, but it is mostly implemented in DACs (not ADCs) as far as I can tell, so even then addresses only half of that problem.
Click to expand...

I actually recently transferred the 45rpm LPs in my collection to digital. The transfer was at 24/96 and it came out beautifully. Everyone that has heard the digitally ripped LP cannot tell a difference from the actual LP. And yes, all the noises from the record and the euphonic sound from the LP are there. To me that means that the Nyquist's Theorem was implemented perfectly, and even if not, whatever was left out was not substantial to make a difference in the sound.

And FWIW, most (if not all musicians) playing acoustical instruments and recording their own music today, are using ADC devices to convert their music to digital. Heck, today I bet that very few professional recording studios are using analog tape for their recordings. That means that they must be using ADCs to record the new music that we listen to today.

That said, each individual may have a preference depending on how they perceive the sound.
 
“How does all this translate into the language of technology? The guiding principle of a nervous system is to record only a single bit of amplitude at the exact time of arrival. Since amplitudes are fixed, all the information is in the timing.

On the other hand, the guiding principle of digitization is to record variable amplitudes at fixed times. For example, sampling with 24-bit amplitude resolution, every 23 microseconds (44 kHz). Since sample times are fixed, all the information is in the amplitude.

So unlike digital recorders, nervous systems care a lot about microtime, both in how they detect signals and how they interpret them. And the numbers really matter: Even the best CDs can only resolve time down to 23 microseconds, while our nervous systems need at least 10 times better resolution, in the neighborhood of two to three microseconds. In crass amplitude terms, that missing microtime resolution seems like “only” tiny percentage points. However, it carries a whopping 90% of the resolution information the nervous system cares about. We need that microtime to hear the presence and depth of sounds outside us and to sense others’ emotions inside us.

The old analog technologies, LPs and POTs phones, preserve that necessary 90%. Digitization destroys it. Neil Young was right.”

WOW! That explains so much.
 
Mike said:
For example, sampling with 24-bit amplitude resolution, every 23 microseconds (44 kHz). Since sample times are fixed, all the information is in the amplitude.

WOW! That explains so much.
Click to expand...
Yes, it explains why Softky, a physicist I respect, has an audiophile believer understanding of digital audio and is thereby parroting nonsense. Shame.
Time resolution of digital audio – Troll Audio

cheers,

AJ
 
kiwi_1282001 said:
Nonsense? Do you have a counter argument AJ?

I thought Softky's point about the "continuous-wave" of analog as apposed to time sliced approximation of digital was interesting. Could the preservation of time explain the appeal and desirability for many of LP*?



* Leaving aside that many modern vinyl records are produced from digital masters.
Click to expand...
Since one can’t very easily leave that last aside, given that so many posters claim to still prefer digitally mastered LP’s to the digital versions of those albums, perhaps it is some other aspect of LP sound that is preferable or appealing?
 
nicoff said:
I actually recently transferred the 45rpm LPs in my collection to digital. The transfer was at 24/96 and it came out beautifully. Everyone that has heard the digitally ripped LP cannot tell a difference from the actual LP. And yes, all the noises from the record and the euphonic sound from the LP are there. To me that means that the Nyquist's Theorem was implemented perfectly, and even if not, whatever was left out was not substantial to make a difference in the sound.

And FWIW, most (if not all musicians) playing acoustical instruments and recording their own music today, are using ADC devices to convert their music to digital. Heck, today I bet that very few professional recording studios are using analog tape for their recordings. That means that they must be using ADCs to record the new music that we listen to today.

That said, each individual may have a preference depending on how they perceive the sound.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You played a song from the LP for "everyone" and then played the digital version for "everyone" and no one could tell a difference?
 
mep said:
Seriously? You played a song from the LP for "everyone" and then played the digital version for "everyone" and no one could tell a difference?
Click to expand...

Refer also to Fremer's video from PSAudio, linked in another topic here. Although there have certainly been experiences like @nicoff's posted here and elsewhere, there are more like MF's.
 
rbbert said:
Refer also to Fremer's video from PSAudio, linked in another topic here. Although there have certainly been experiences like @nicoff's posted here and elsewhere, there are more like MF's.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Fremer's video said "everyone" was blown away at how much better the LP sounded. It's hard to believe that you could play an LP for "everyone" and "no one" can tell the differences between the LP and the digital copy of the LP. I'm not buying it.
 
mep said:
It's hard to believe that you could play an LP for "everyone" and "no one" can tell the differences between the LP and the digital copy of the LP. I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to run that test on you, as long as its public for all to see the results via Youtube.
 
AJ Soundfield said:
I'd be happy to run that test on you, as long as its public for all to see the results via Youtube.
Click to expand...

You and your tests...

I would trust you as much as I would trust Ethan Winer to conduct a test which is a trust factor of 0.0.
 
mep said:
Seriously? You played a song from the LP for "everyone" and then played the digital version for "everyone" and no one could tell a difference?
Click to expand...

Everyone who listened to both in my system that is. Yes.
 
Mark's no fun, he'd never do the test.
Of course I knew that before asking :)
I got the same results as you, but of course I don't rip, all real time analysis, so even record wear/playback variability is accounted for.
Both streams are always real time. Lots of fun.

cheers
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Mark's no fun, he'd never do the test.
Of course I knew that before asking :)
I got the same results as you, but of course I don't rip, all real time analysis, so even record wear/playback variability is accounted for.
Both streams are always real time. Lots of fun.

cheers
Click to expand...

Yeah AJ. I’m really going to hop on a plane to fly to Florida to listen to a system of unknown components to subject myself to your version of a test which doesn’t consist of listening to an LP through your system and then comparing a recorded version of the LP played back.
 
mep said:
Yeah AJ. I’m really going to hop on a plane to fly to Florida
Click to expand...
I've seen you at Mike's place. In Florida.

mep said:
to listen to a system of unknown components
Click to expand...
Aha, I forgot audiophiles have to see/know to hear. That's key. Makes sense.

mep said:
your version of a test which doesn’t consist of listening to an LP through your system and then comparing a recorded version of the LP played back.
Click to expand...
Correct. It's listening to a straight analog version of LP as you always do, then comparing to a level matched version of itself, the exact same, real time signal, passed through a "Digital" ADA. So a valid "analog" vs "digital" version of the exact same "master". Nothing recorded. Except correct/incorrect scores.:D
Which of course you would have zero problems distinguishing, given the audible superiority of analog vs digital and all the "sound" associated with digitizing.
Unless of course, that leads to apprehension and evasion. And of course nothing to share with world via Youtube.
Perfectly understandable.;)
 
Anyone familiar with Maslow’s Hammer?

It’s an observed principle in science, basically stating that if a hammer is the only tool you’ve got, every problem will look like a nail to you. And then of course you’ll treat it as such. Simplified, you ask a Mathematician and he’ll use math, you ask an engineer and he’ll use whatever he’s got in his engineer toolbox.

This is the reason why in today’s science most breakthrough discoveries happen at the fringes of research, where different sciences intersect. This is, as in those cases usually someone has looked at an old problem in new ways. Recent example: the first and most potent Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which is a new way of developing vaccines.

Similarly, just because we only know some ways to measure the difference between analog and digital today, that does not mean that this is the ultimate and final truth. It’s just the current state. Maybe more obvious, if we compare live vs. a recording, the measured frequencies in a closely-miked recording might even be “better”. But nevertheless, in terms of the musical experience, there is nothing like the live event.

And, today we all agree that mp3 sounds like crap. But the tech is still valid, as you cannot technically differentiate between congruent frequencies from different sources when they overlap in a recording. In terms of measurement it’s just the same frequencies.

Ergo: While we can hear what we can measure, we’re not able to measure everything we hear. This is no new news.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I’m still amazed that so many audiophiles don’t own turntables. I personally find it so enjoyable and have for over 40 years. I’ve never not had a turntable, even in the 90’s when my wife teased me for playing records.

From the collecting to the purity of sound to the enjoyment of listening to the album from beginning to end, it’s just a wonderful part of the hobby.

I hear all the arguments against vinyl, daily. But I still don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top