There are no contradictions, qusp: the world of digital is an extremely precise, totally knowable place, everything can always be fully understood. But, there typically always has to be a crossover into the analogue world for us to deal with it, the underlying information. The "bible", The Art of Electronics, nicely presents it as a chapter, "Digital Meets Analog", pointing out that this is where things can become hairy ...
Frank
This is the best of my understanding. If the engineers can correct me, I'd be grateful.
The D side of a DAC has two possible outcomes when it expects a Pulse in the PCM stream. On or off. Once that bit is read, the DAC moves on to reconstruct the waveform using lots of bits. The reconstruction varies by the kind of DAC and the other parts in the equipment. If there is noise in the SPDIF, USB, whatever connection, I can see how a DAC might pass that through to the analog section, though part of good design is robustness against such.
It's very fast, and there's a lot of them, but that's all that is received, 1 or 0. Nothing else. There are no qualities whatsoever, no subtleties, no halves, mystical other energies, nothing. The rate is immaterial, since the data stream is at a fixed, mutually set rate and any pause or variation in speed is corrected by any decent DAC. There is only a quantity of the simplest possible kind: binary: on or off. It's a switch. Connect or disconnect. There is no close, no .99999etc. The switch (actually it would happen in the drive's own circuitry, before the DAC) would take a weak impression, say, from a faded CDR (they do fade, takes years) and decide which to call it: 1 or zero, nothing else. After the switch switches, its job is done.
Hope that helps.
The experiment going on at that other forum is not double blind. Until that happens there is no evidence of anything more than expectation bias. Thomas Edison is doubtless having the time of his death over this...oops....Jon Edwards is a charlatan? Awww and I so hoped! Well, I can still hope there's something hereafter!
The D side of a DAC has two possible outcomes when it expects a Pulse in the PCM stream. On or off. Once that bit is read, the DAC moves on to reconstruct the waveform using lots of bits. The reconstruction varies by the kind of DAC and the other parts in the equipment. If there is noise in the SPDIF, USB, whatever connection, I can see how a DAC might pass that through to the analog section, though part of good design is robustness against such.
It's very fast, and there's a lot of them, but that's all that is received, 1 or 0. Nothing else. There are no qualities whatsoever, no subtleties, no halves, mystical other energies, nothing. The rate is immaterial, since the data stream is at a fixed, mutually set rate and any pause or variation in speed is corrected by any decent DAC. There is only a quantity of the simplest possible kind: binary: on or off. It's a switch. Connect or disconnect. There is no close, no .99999etc. The switch (actually it would happen in the drive's own circuitry, before the DAC) would take a weak impression, say, from a faded CDR (they do fade, takes years) and decide which to call it: 1 or zero, nothing else. After the switch switches, its job is done.
Hope that helps.
The experiment going on at that other forum is not double blind. Until that happens there is no evidence of anything more than expectation bias. Thomas Edison is doubtless having the time of his death over this...oops....Jon Edwards is a charlatan? Awww and I so hoped! Well, I can still hope there's something hereafter!
Not really, ...
We as organic beings have to deal with the "real" world, if we have bad eyesight then "perfect" information means nothing if we can't read it ...
So with audio, the ear/brain is the final arbiter, judge of how well the message has got across. It also can make up for deficiencies in the message if you give it half a chance ...
I'm just trying to push the point that having the audio info, say a music file, as digital doesn't solve the issues; it just moves the potential for trouble into another area ...
Cheers,
Frank
There's the crack in the "perfect" piece of glass; where is the stamp of approval in the next consumer item you buy that guarantees that ...?
Frank
Frank, that has nothing to do with the file, if somehow you create a DAC that has such poor PSRR and such poor performance over time that it produces a different sound with the same input, that has nothing to do with the digital file, nothing at all.
DACs and ADCs are used for all manner of things, they reliably create identical results.
DACs and ADCs are used for all manner of things, they reliably create identical results.
The forums are clogged with complaints from people that DACs don't reliably create identical results, at least to a point that the ear is insensitive to the differences ...
This abyss, unfortunately, is where many of the "secrets" of good sound are hidden, so the depths need to be plumbed to find the answers ...
Frank
I think I understand what you're trying to get at. If I do, the opposite is true. Every copying of a digital file refreshes the recording. If a file is fading, this will help preserve it, including when you defragment a hard disk, if the sectors with the music are moved. I ran into this real world less than a year ago. I ripped all my CDs, some of which date to the mid-80s. They were scratched up and took some coaxing, like polishing, putting it in a reference drive I brought home from work (it's my company, not stealing), slowing the CD-ROM down to 4x, finally got some reluctant disks to copy. What did I do after the battle was won? I immediately made a CDR as a backup. It plays more readily than the old disk. So, with digital a copy can be superior to the original in that respect. It's the way students will be bored in 2525 by being forced to study the greatest recording artists of the 20th century, lovingly preserved by copies handed down through the years into the format finally found to be perfect, the molecular structure of twinkies. Future history will judge those artists to be Zager and Evans, of course.
If you want to record CDs that will last a long time, one of my customers recommends these, BTW. Taiyo Yuden CDR . That's Taiyo Yuden Silver. YMMV, but probably better than generic cheapies.
Serious preservationists have a duplication schedule for their media, knowing that everything wears out. The Myth Of The 100-Year CD-Rom See the comments by digital archivist for the national archives Jeffrey Darlington. Kinda flies in Cookie's face, don' it.
No, the crack I mentioned occurs in the world where the digital interpretation gets cosy with the analogue interpretation. As in a DAC.
I appreciate the preservationists plight; I was 30 years in the computing game, started with 5 Meg hard drives the size of washing machines. And you step from each physical format to the next, hoping that no crucial files get left behind, on dinosaur storage media ...
At times you wonder if there is something almost metaphysical about data, whether there's an inner drive to return to a state of pure randomness ... that entropy will get it in the end ...
Kinda funny that paper still has an excellent reputation for getting the job done ...
Frank
I appreciate the preservationists plight; I was 30 years in the computing game, started with 5 Meg hard drives the size of washing machines. And you step from each physical format to the next, hoping that no crucial files get left behind, on dinosaur storage media ...
At times you wonder if there is something almost metaphysical about data, whether there's an inner drive to return to a state of pure randomness ... that entropy will get it in the end ...
Kinda funny that paper still has an excellent reputation for getting the job done ...
Frank
LOL
Powerpan, still awaiting answer regarding teflon PCB's and sound improvemnt, please.
teflon PCB is just a sell point as I know from technical side.
but it really brings clearer sound(like some audio equipments use mica rings between capacitos and PCB could bring clearer sound),
BTW, passive component always could trim a little bit of sound while ACTIVE component could decide sound quality.
no, it doesnt, what is the mechanism for this crack to be stored in the digital data which has been proven to be (and stated to be for this argument) bitperfect. its a very simple question, one you continue to avoid, just stating it does not make it so. the dac will not respond to partial bits either, even if by some miracle of magical science you manage to get a partial bit in there it will be seen as one state, or another...
so then we just have the way the modulator responds to the very same data, if it responds slightly differently because of different environmental effects, it still has nothing to do with the data it recieved, nothing at all.
sorry but if you worked for 30 years with computers, how did your brain come to malfunction like this?
so then we just have the way the modulator responds to the very same data, if it responds slightly differently because of different environmental effects, it still has nothing to do with the data it recieved, nothing at all.
sorry but if you worked for 30 years with computers, how did your brain come to malfunction like this?
Sorry, qusp, don't want things to get stirred up again ... just think it through. Take the clock signal coming in to the DAC for example, for the exercise take a chip form thereof. Outside of the chip this can be considered a pure, digital signal; but within the chip this is treated well and truly as an analogue waveform, doing the job of flipping various switches at precise points of time. So here all sorts of nasty analogue effects can take place, distortion can appear on the output which in fact would correspond to a partial bit, if looked at from a digital point of view.
Where the precise boundary is may be hard to define, and in fact is irrelevant; we rely on analogue engineering and not logic certainty to give us accurate enough results at the output ...
BTW, no need to introduce tetchiness ...
Frank
Where the precise boundary is may be hard to define, and in fact is irrelevant; we rely on analogue engineering and not logic certainty to give us accurate enough results at the output ...
BTW, no need to introduce tetchiness ...
Frank
Last edited:
double blind a/b comparision is what we use to test the improvemet, and human beings could only remember what they hear for just 6 seconds, fast switch between A/B is what we use to test.
most DIYer's don't have the condiction (nobody buys 2 machines to DIY one and use another to compare, right?), so, when you think it sounds good after DIY, then, it will be good. that's your brain drives your ears to accept the imagination, not the truth...
most DIYer's don't have the condiction (nobody buys 2 machines to DIY one and use another to compare, right?), so, when you think it sounds good after DIY, then, it will be good. that's your brain drives your ears to accept the imagination, not the truth...
Fas42 I dont think you realy understand digital engineering, as I have stated earlier it is its own engineering disipline.
You may also be suprised that DAC and ADC is used and has been used at Daresbury, CERN, is used on medical instrumentation and in a whole host of other things outside of audio, and as to PC's playing audio gardly taxes them it wont alter the noise spectrum above the background noise...
You may also be suprised that DAC and ADC is used and has been used at Daresbury, CERN, is used on medical instrumentation and in a whole host of other things outside of audio, and as to PC's playing audio gardly taxes them it wont alter the noise spectrum above the background noise...
:http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/218853-best-motherboard-audio-6.html#post3374067
Post #53
Just re-read some earlier posts regarding analogue storage systems for digital data... We are decending more and more into audiophile reality, where everything is analogue blah blah blah...Even seen some who lay out digital circuitry using analogue techniques, cos it apeals to the lost souls who havn;t got a bloody clue about the first thing to do with digital engineering, next they will be telling me that the electrons carying the signal (drift velocity) are moving at near the speed of light.
Here is one solution to sorting out the digital electrons from the analogue electrons (sorry didn't we tell you they were different).
OF FLYING ELECTRONS
But however many times audiophiles (lost variety) say digital is analogue it will not change the fact that DIGITAL electronics is a discipline on its own with its own rules, and ways of working and especuialy PCB layout techniques.
Keep chasing the demons
Post #53
Just re-read some earlier posts regarding analogue storage systems for digital data... We are decending more and more into audiophile reality, where everything is analogue blah blah blah...Even seen some who lay out digital circuitry using analogue techniques, cos it apeals to the lost souls who havn;t got a bloody clue about the first thing to do with digital engineering, next they will be telling me that the electrons carying the signal (drift velocity) are moving at near the speed of light.
Here is one solution to sorting out the digital electrons from the analogue electrons (sorry didn't we tell you they were different).
OF FLYING ELECTRONS
But however many times audiophiles (lost variety) say digital is analogue it will not change the fact that DIGITAL electronics is a discipline on its own with its own rules, and ways of working and especuialy PCB layout techniques.
Keep chasing the demons
But however many times audiophiles (lost variety) say digital is analogue it will not change the fact that DIGITAL electronics is a discipline on its own with its own rules, and ways of working and especuialy PCB layout techniques.
Keep chasing the demons
The above quotation are what I simply call ********...
I am wondering what your motivations may be..
"digital interpretation gets cosy with the analogue interpretation"
You're going to need to find a test for that better than a golden ear listening to files he already is prepared to believe might be audibly different.
A few pages ago I mentioned that my DAC input is toslink (optical). If there were any stray electrons in the PCM, they wouldn't make it unless you want to argue they make some existential leap and become photons... Any other possible DAC infiltration would be outside the input path like EMI or AC line noise and that isn't going to change with unoriginality of the file.
Believers in this phenomenon should flock to my configuration. I'm sure on listening after hooking up with audiophile Phoenician glass cables from Dewey Cheethan, purveyors of fine interconnects by appointment of her Majesty Ltd., a mere £100 per metre, they'd hear a greater depth of soundstage, more precise instrument placement, and warmer air from the soprano's throat.
I'm just a skeptic waiting for some better defense from believers than the Emperor is really looking fine in his finery today, so say Very Serious People with a LOT of Experience in finery.
Update: Just love the flying electrons nerd humor.
Gonna join the other side for a moment just to return the favor. There's experimental proof that electrons are not simple, are not all identical, and accordingly behave differently. This doesn't make me want to run out and buy Cookie's $40 CDs, but this has been peer reviewed. It works. We need new theory for WHY it works. Sorry, all I could find was a power point slide. It's a white paper not web published.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lNc2L_wbHLUJ:j.web.umkc.edu/jlnr25/the%2520ability%2520of%2520an%2520electric%2520current%2520to%2520transfer.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESge8dI97acIKt8BlA-eQJFAxJtZX1B7ijJ_7a11x6hRRNjIuBv8RrjnBw9H4TqnkH-Xa07cuoFgn-FfEvbOsLHQ07z1NMzV4x08tF9B5sfEefqiuuTOi75kgq6x2bP68CgewjWa&sig=AHIEtbQAzqJrLnUzhuQD4Q7yhH5IsIWQ8w
You're going to need to find a test for that better than a golden ear listening to files he already is prepared to believe might be audibly different.
A few pages ago I mentioned that my DAC input is toslink (optical). If there were any stray electrons in the PCM, they wouldn't make it unless you want to argue they make some existential leap and become photons... Any other possible DAC infiltration would be outside the input path like EMI or AC line noise and that isn't going to change with unoriginality of the file.
Believers in this phenomenon should flock to my configuration. I'm sure on listening after hooking up with audiophile Phoenician glass cables from Dewey Cheethan, purveyors of fine interconnects by appointment of her Majesty Ltd., a mere £100 per metre, they'd hear a greater depth of soundstage, more precise instrument placement, and warmer air from the soprano's throat.
I'm just a skeptic waiting for some better defense from believers than the Emperor is really looking fine in his finery today, so say Very Serious People with a LOT of Experience in finery.
Update: Just love the flying electrons nerd humor.
Gonna join the other side for a moment just to return the favor. There's experimental proof that electrons are not simple, are not all identical, and accordingly behave differently. This doesn't make me want to run out and buy Cookie's $40 CDs, but this has been peer reviewed. It works. We need new theory for WHY it works. Sorry, all I could find was a power point slide. It's a white paper not web published.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lNc2L_wbHLUJ:j.web.umkc.edu/jlnr25/the%2520ability%2520of%2520an%2520electric%2520current%2520to%2520transfer.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESge8dI97acIKt8BlA-eQJFAxJtZX1B7ijJ_7a11x6hRRNjIuBv8RrjnBw9H4TqnkH-Xa07cuoFgn-FfEvbOsLHQ07z1NMzV4x08tF9B5sfEefqiuuTOi75kgq6x2bP68CgewjWa&sig=AHIEtbQAzqJrLnUzhuQD4Q7yhH5IsIWQ8w
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.