Digital, but not by the numbers

[Julf]

Originally Posted by 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.

True. It would also have helped if it had been presented as a real, open discussion rather than as a "just wait for what I will reveal in the next instalment" pseudo-blog.

This is DIYaudio, so we can have fun provided we don't claim to be doing something deeply significant.

And having fun isn't deeply significant?

[Julf]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right - and that is the whole point of digital. As we all know, you might, as you put it, have "vast arrays of voltages bouncing around, and glitching merrily", but as long as the design is sound, it won't affect the end result at all. A 1 will be a 1, and a 0 will be a 0. You won't have "almost 1" or "not quite 0". As you read this text on the web, some letters are not randomly transposed or changed.

It's where the digital world meets the analog (basically DACs and ADCs) where it gets tricky.

[fas42]

Originally Posted by Julf

It's where the digital world meets the analog (basically DACs and ADCs where it gets tricky.

And that's exactly the angle abraxalito is coming from ...

Frank

[Julf]

Originally Posted by fas42

And that's exactly the angle abraxalito is coming from

I am not sure it is an "angle". It is just something that any competent designer of DACs and ADC's is very familiar with. You always make design tradeoffs about what you handle in the digital domain, and what in the analog domain.

[fas42]

Originally Posted by Julf

I am not sure it is an "angle". It is just something that any competent designer of DACs and ADC's is very familiar with. You always make design tradeoffs about what you handle in the digital domain, and what in the analog domain.

What abraxalito is saying, and I echo that, is that the behaviour of the digital side can very easily adversely affect the analogue side unless every precaution is taken. If designers of DAC's, etc, were so competent, and I assume here you mean complete assemblies rather than IC's, then why has digital sound had such a terrible time being accepted by keen listeners of music recordings?

Frank

[Julf]

Originally Posted by fas42

What abraxalito is saying, and I echo that, is that the behaviour of the digital side can very easily adversely affect the analogue side unless every precaution is taken.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, as long as "every precaution" doesn't involve voodoo and magic unicorns.

If designers of DAC's, etc, were so competent, and I assume here you mean complete assemblies rather than IC's, then why has digital sound had such a terrible time being accepted by keen listeners of music recordings?

For the same reason class D amps, semiconductor amps (as opposed to valves), amps in general (as opposed to mechanical record players), LP (as opposed to 78 rpm vinyl), stereo (as opposed to mono) and round discs (as opposed to cylinders) had a terrible time being accepted by "keen listeners", perhaps?

[DF96]

I think one of the problems the OP was facing was that he didn't have much idea about digital circuitry and the problems created by sharp edges, such as ground bounce and jitter. 'marce' tried to help (he is an expert in these things) but was rebuffed. Simply slowing the edges is not sufficient, because in digital audio the exact timing of the edge can matter.

Digital is just analogue, true, but that does not mean that experience in one guarantees success with the other. RF experience may be better.

I suspect that some digital sound has a terrible time being accepted because it lacks certain distortions loved by some analogue fans.

I suspect that some digital sound has a terrible time being accepted because aspects of it are designed by analogue designers who don't take proper account of the sharp edges coming out of a DAC chip.

I suspect that some digital sound has a terrible time being accepted because it is designed by people who actually don't understand sampling, quantisation, dither etc.

[qusp]

Originally Posted by Julf

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, as long as "every precaution" doesn't involve voodoo and magic unicorns.

wood, must not forget wood, it offsets that digital glare if wood is even nearby.
because we all know that those analogue electrons resonate sympathetically with the nearby materials, though somehow avoid being affected by the FR4/fiberglass.... why is that?

For the same reason class D amps, semiconductor amps (as opposed to valves), amps in general (as opposed to mechanical record players), LP (as opposed to 78 rpm vinyl), stereo (as opposed to mono) and round discs (as opposed to cylinders) had a terrible time being accepted by "keen listeners", perhaps?

yep, because people already own stuff, it takes quite a lot of cajoling to get people to accept something that means they have to start collecting, tuning whatever you want to call it.. all over again and they will make up all sorts of reasons why it should be avoided

nevermind te fact that apart from a small percentage of diehard listeners and not because of conspiracy, digital dominates the marketplace. some of the last to come kicking and screaming insist that the reason they have come, or what is stopping them from coming; is because they are waiting for their 'digital' to sound more 'analogue' whatever that means...

[fas42]

Originally Posted by qusp

is because they are waiting for their 'digital' to sound more 'analogue' whatever that means...

What they mean is 'musical' -- everyone knows what this is when they listen to a live, acoustic instrument, like a Spanish guitar. From personal experience, over the years, most CD systems were pretty awful at doing this and this has got nothing to do with the recording, and everything to do with how the systems were implemented ...

Frank

[fas42]

Originally Posted by fas42

What they mean is 'musical' -- everyone knows what this is when they listen to a live, acoustic instrument, like a Spanish guitar. From personal experience, over the years, most CD systems were pretty awful at doing this and this has got nothing to do with the recording, and everything to do with how the systems were implemented ...

Frank

And an example of what apparently does do it right, at a ridiculous price, is the Audio Note Fifth Element setup. This uses all the "wrong" ways of course, but is deeply impressing the "cognescenti". Reading between the lines of what people are hearing when they listen to it, this unit has managed to finally turf out all the nasty distortion artifacts that put people off when listening to normal digital, without the need for an extra round of tweaking ...

Frank