We used to have Analogue Computers - they were grossly inaccurate and a pig to use. As soon as Digital Computers became fast enough the analogue ones were dropped like a hot potato!
Digital Audio would be perfect, except for one thing: Digital to Analogue Convertors!
What about Analogue to Digital Convertors? OK, Digital Audio would be perfect except for two things!
What about clock jitter? OK, Digital Audio would be perfect ... ...
Just goes to show you that we define perfection rather easily.
If my height were a figure that could be defined in 16 bits of digital information then I'm sure that the molecules on the end of my hair folicles at the top of my head would protest.
Intrinsic noise produced in the rec/replay electronics is what does damage, 1/f noise in particular.
Dan.
freax, you've heard analogue playback sound "better" than digital, so you've built up an idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with the digital way - well, you're right actually, the level of fussiness typically applied to getting playback working correctly is inadequate, and analogue manipulation makes the 'errors' less noxious to listen to, than for a fully digital chain.
This is a personal experience thing, really - one day you will hear a fully digital path totally nail it, give you fully orgasmic listening immersion, without any compromises, whatsoever. From then on you will understand that normal audio reproduction is frequently highly crippled in quality terms, and it becomes your journey to learn how to bypass these failings ...
This is a personal experience thing, really - one day you will hear a fully digital path totally nail it, give you fully orgasmic listening immersion, without any compromises, whatsoever. From then on you will understand that normal audio reproduction is frequently highly crippled in quality terms, and it becomes your journey to learn how to bypass these failings ...
Yes I must be completely off my rocker to want to listen to Billy Joel live in Concert at Yankee Stadium. Through a Nikko ND-390 II no less! Which then goes via BNC to RG6 Coax then to a KT88 SE (Triode) designed by Scott17 then to a pair of Frugelhorns.
Recorded from an analog Satellite feed back in 1990.
I know for certain that it does something to the sound, compresses it, etc, whatever. I love it.
And no looking at the nice analog gauges doesn't improve the sound quality, it may improve the enjoyability of it but I can tell the difference between my imagination fooling myself and sound quality.
I've never bested it, ever, for realism and enjoyability, but the soundstage is very limited by what the tape can do, I understand that, but the vocals, which cassette tape was meant to perform well at, are great.
I just finished taking off the motor and spraying its bearings with teflon oil. Sounds great!
Maybe when I complete my TDA1541 dac I'll be more impressed with Digital, I'm not fooling anyone especially myself I'll ditch Analog when it can best it.
Btw when the crowd starts to sing thats when I really start to sink into the music.
Recorded from an analog Satellite feed back in 1990.
I know for certain that it does something to the sound, compresses it, etc, whatever. I love it.
And no looking at the nice analog gauges doesn't improve the sound quality, it may improve the enjoyability of it but I can tell the difference between my imagination fooling myself and sound quality.
I've never bested it, ever, for realism and enjoyability, but the soundstage is very limited by what the tape can do, I understand that, but the vocals, which cassette tape was meant to perform well at, are great.
I just finished taking off the motor and spraying its bearings with teflon oil. Sounds great!
Maybe when I complete my TDA1541 dac I'll be more impressed with Digital, I'm not fooling anyone especially myself I'll ditch Analog when it can best it.
Btw when the crowd starts to sing thats when I really start to sink into the music.
Attachments
Last edited:
So last centuryYes I must be completely off my rocker to want to listen to Billy Joel live in Concert at Yankee Stadium. Through a Nikko ND-390 II no less! Which then goes via BNC to RG6 Coax then to a KT88 SE (Triode) designed by Scott17 then to a pair of Frugelhorns.
Recorded from an analog Satellite feed back in 1990.
I know for certain that it does something to the sound, compresses it, etc, whatever. I love it.
Dan.
Jim LeSerf is an astrophysicist, with an interest in audio. He understands the limits of 'playing around' with physics.freax said:
If you live in a reasonable democracy you are free to propose almost anything you like. The universe (including all audio electronics) is free to ignore you and continue on its way using physics and mathematics.
I've never EVER considered altering the laws of physics. How insulting.
If you cannot understand what I'm trying to convey then there is an error in communication, You could've just stated that I should clarify it a bit more but no you brung out the "he's crazy" card.
Now let me try and clear it up a bit.
The premise of the idea is that unless we can sucessfully perfectly reproduce the structure of an audio signal down to the quantum state of each electron as it passes through to the other side of an audio chain we will never attain perfect reproduction of the original in a listening environment.
I also go on to state that unless we use analog technology this will never happen because digital is limited by what we can do in our current universe, if you guys want to go on and continue to state the obvious fallacy that we can reproduce in-excess digitally a number of electrons that are received at a microphone or series of microphones faster than they can be made by the laws of our universe then the whole notion of audio reproduction is never going to attain perfection.
We're having enough problems now with the current limits of our own technology, The only system which could perfectly do it I would hazard to guess would be a quantum computer light-based system because the speed of light goes faster than the speed of sound and electricity.
You cannot reproduce an audio signal in perfect accuracy down to the molecular level by using electronic systems UNLESS it is an analog one. The reason for this being? Analog is already using electricity as a medium and it stores the information carried by electricity independently of any digital processing systems.
Analog is a simple enough process as to keep up with the speed of electrons that are being received at the microphone, and the noise which is associated with quantum states is recorded along with the current charged state of the electrons that are travelling through the cables of the recording system. Now if you take a computer and place it into the mix you end up slowing **** down because you have to quantize that information because the clock speed of a computer will always be slower than the speed of electricity.
What made you guys think that I was trying to break the laws of physics? Could it be that you've clouded your judgement of every new idea because of some crackpots that come onto this site trying to sell stuff?
If anything Digital audio and its reproduction is flat out IGNORING the laws of physics and what a physical medium is capable of by ignoring huge chunks of the electric signal from being recorded and reproduced. All digital audio is ever capable of is a perfect COPY of the original signal and not the original signal. It is very early forms of Teleportation or Replication.
Has anyone got Stephen Hawking's phone number?
Last edited:
Perhaps not intentionally. But you have to understand basic physics (as well as basic signal theory) to get why the stuff you've been saying has no basis in reality.
Yes. And apparently my understanding of physics differs from everyone elses enough that no matter how clear I try to make it its considered garbage.
Time to give up on the idea. I feel like multiple people have cut my idea to pieces with a razor blade. It feels sickening. But alas thats what they invented band aids for.
Btw whats with the vicious dog on your avatar? Its not cute. It feels very threatening.
Last edited:
Freax,
I am a scientist by profession, however quantum physics lies well outside my areas of expertise.
I would consider that I have a reasonable grasp of its basics, but anywhere beyond that I find it total mind*uck. I therefore choose not to post on this subject as I do not consider myself qualified to make meaningful assertions or engage in intelligent debate.
There is an abundance of material on websites that seeks to link pet postulates with quantum physics in an attempt to give them an aura of scientific credibility and/or elevate the perceived intellect of the author. This type of 'pop quantum exploitation' is becoming increasingly prevelant and often succeeds in convincing the gullible.
As much as it grieves me to agree with Sy on anything, I would graciously suggest that you read some of the subject material he has suggested. I guarantee that one of the primary results will be that you realise you actually understand a lot less than you thought you did.
You will also become better at sifting out a lot of the BS posted on the net
I am a scientist by profession, however quantum physics lies well outside my areas of expertise.
I would consider that I have a reasonable grasp of its basics, but anywhere beyond that I find it total mind*uck. I therefore choose not to post on this subject as I do not consider myself qualified to make meaningful assertions or engage in intelligent debate.
There is an abundance of material on websites that seeks to link pet postulates with quantum physics in an attempt to give them an aura of scientific credibility and/or elevate the perceived intellect of the author. This type of 'pop quantum exploitation' is becoming increasingly prevelant and often succeeds in convincing the gullible.
As much as it grieves me to agree with Sy on anything, I would graciously suggest that you read some of the subject material he has suggested. I guarantee that one of the primary results will be that you realise you actually understand a lot less than you thought you did.
You will also become better at sifting out a lot of the BS posted on the net
Last edited:
As electrons meander along slowly in the presence of an audio signal, say 0.1mm/s in a wire, as the music is ac they just sort of wiggle about in the wire, so I cannot understand how there quantum state is critical. So how is digital not keeping up with the speed of electricity, electrons cant... Also as I said earlier we are not measuring the electrons as such but the charge they represent.
I think it needs to be made abundantly clear that although circuit components may rely on quantum phenomena (e.g. semiconductors) the circuits themselves are fully classical (if by 'classical' you include magnetic fields - which strictly speaking are relativistic but can be treated in a classical fashion). There is absolutely no need to invoke quantum mechanics for audio electronics. People who do so when selling are just trying to con people; people who do so when not selling are merely exhibiting their lack of knowledge of physics and engineering. They should not feel too hurt when others point this out. If I went on a language website and started putting forward my ideas about Hebrew etymology I would get exactly the same reaction.
Ditto relativity. For the vast majority of applications (especially Civil / Mechanical Engineering) classical Newtonian physics continues to provide a perfectly adequate model of the physical world. It even got Neil Armstrong on the moon.
There's absolutely no need to invoke the spectre of Einstein at the drop of a hat.
There's absolutely no need to invoke the spectre of Einstein at the drop of a hat.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.