Digital, but not by the numbers

[Trevor White]

Originally Posted by fas42

I shall be so bold as to mention that abraxalito has continued with the essence of what this thread was started for, on another forum. For those who are interested in the technical details of what he's exploring, and what he's up to, see here: Digital that sounds like analog

I'm pleased to see that he's making progress:



Improving "bloom" is shorthand for reducing that low level, detail masking disortion that digital reproduction is notorious for - he's making good progress ...

Frank

There's an old saying that applies here.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Be careful which sheep you follow from the heard

[qusp]

what I found out from following that link?...apparently fas42 is banned over there so he cant participate..

we did several times mention how OT it was getting early on, but abrax seamed to think it worth the diversion... then Charles continued to 'defend' but has really just been digging that hole deeper and deeper.

I think weve explored that enough though dont you guys?

that mother of tine site is great comedy though...

[fas42]

Originally Posted by qusp

what I found out from following that link?...apparently fas42 is banned over there so he cant participate..

Technically speaking, not banned ... sidelined may be a more accurate term ...

Frank

[qusp]

hehe, no doubt the site is a duller place without you

[SY]

Guys, can we stay away from personal stuff and stick to matters digital?

[qusp]

hey I think you got me wrong there, that was just a friendly jibe at fas42 above. it mentioned his 'vacation' on the first page (maybe second post) of the thread he linked, worth a mention dont you think? certainly takes a bigger man than I to resist.

I will not be carrying it on

[DF96]

So where does this thread go now? Do we turn it into a tutorial on digital audio, for the benefit of newbies and people hoping to sell equipment? Or would we end up going round in the usual circles with Shannon-deniers, Nyquist-deniers and Fourier-deniers all trying to claim that the usual rules don't apply to them, their ears and their wallets?

[Julf]

Originally Posted by DF96

So where does this thread go now? Do we turn it into a tutorial on digital audio, for the benefit of newbies and people hoping to sell equipment? Or would we end up going round in the usual circles with Shannon-deniers, Nyquist-deniers and Fourier-deniers all trying to claim that the usual rules don't apply to them, their ears and their wallets?

Well, we are at close to 300 posts in this thread - I don't think too many people have gotten this far. Sensible people dropped off early when they realized there was an impending wardrobe failure for royalty, and the cargo cult people dropped off (as proven by that other forum thread) when the objectivist trolls unfairly took over the thread from those willing to boldly go where no calculator has gone before...

[DF96]

If only the OP had presented his idea simply as a fun way to do an analogue implementation of a digital filter, with no claims about audible superiority, we might all still be playing nicely together. This is DIYaudio, so we can have fun provided we don't claim to be doing something deeply significant.

[fas42]

Well, at least one point that should be made is that there is no such thing as digital circuitry ... guess what? It's still really analogue, every last ounce of it, just pretending to be digital, there are no 0's and 1's anywhere in sight, all there really is just vast arrays of voltages bouncing around, and glitching merrily, but never quite badly enough to stop the circuits working as intending.

So, all we have to do is tell the sedate audio side of things to just ignore that hysterically cavorting digital crowd, under all circumstances ... ,

Frank