Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

[KeenObserver]

It seems that we have reached a point in digital audio where we are arguing at the angels on the head of a pin level.  We are talking at 120 or 140 db level down or one ten thousandth percent difference.

I realize that constantly striving to better a product is a good thing, and that a constant series of improvements may ultimately realize a measurable gain, but arguing about an infinitesimally small distortion amount that could not be discerned by any human being is a bit much.

Digital video is a much more complex issue and has further to go.

[fas42]

On the playback side - yes for the theoretical, no for the practical. That is, it's trivial to achieve "mind-boggling", easily measurable numbers; but mighty difficult to guarantee a real world implementation that subjectively 'measures up'.

 

The major failing is the reticence for most to concern themselves with system wide integrity - with digital, this is absolutely essential to get right; the constant focusing on single parameter excellence, as is often the case, is classic "can't see the forest for the trees" thinking ...

[sandyk]

45 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

It seems that we have reached a point in digital audio where we are arguing at the angels on the head of a pin level

 

 There can often be a world of difference between Digital Audio from a top notch hardware player, and in an unfriendly environment such as an electrically noisy computer implementation with RF/EMI up into the UHF DTV region, even outside the computer !

 That's where the majority of the action is at the moment , as evidenced by the large threads from Rajiv, Uptone forum etc. 

[Ralf11]

how many angels are pinheads, anyway?

 

 

for "mature science," substitute "over-ripe engineering effort"

 

digital audio includes DSP for speakers/rooms - that is where the blankets will be lifted (to paraphrase one worthy)

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 There can often be a world of difference between Digital Audio from a top notch hardware player, and in an unfriendly environment such as an electrically noisy computer implementation with RF/EMI up into the UHF DTV region, even outside the computer !

 That's where the majority of the action is at the moment , as evidenced by the large threads from Rajiv, Uptone forum etc. 

Another interpretation of where the action is.  Where there's smoke there's fire.  Only we don't know what is burning. 

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Another interpretation of where the action is.  Where there's smoke there's fire.  Only we don't know what is burning. 

 

A huge 490 page thread in the Music Servers section of the forum is where much of the REAL action is, not in the General Forum area where most of the " If we can't measure it, it doesn't exist" brigade mainly hang out, regurgitating yellowing pages from middle to late 20th century textbooks !

[audiventory]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

It seems that we have reached a point in digital audio where we are arguing at the angels on the head of a pin level.  We are talking at 120 or 140 db level down or one ten thousandth percent difference.

 

1. We know about psychoacoustics too little.
    
2. Read that we have a lack in audio really now: https://samplerateconverter.com/content/where-limit-audio-quality

[esldude]

Digital recording and reproduction is mature science yes.  It can be end to end transparent to human listeners from ADC to DAC.  

 

Now the reason we don't have full lifelike reproduction has nothing to do with any failings in digital audio.  It has to do with limitations of transducers.  It has to do with limitations of two channel recording and reproduction.  Or 5 channel recordings and reproduction. 

 

We aren't currently able to create a sonic hologram of the original soundspace.  Additional channels and research are allowing a result humans perceive as closer to the original (or created) soundspace.  Whether it ever gets there or not I don't know.  It is not a problem of digital that is keeping us back.  DSP may one day solve it or get us closer to the real sound. 

[pkane2001]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

A huge 490 page thread in the Music Servers section of the forum is where much of the REAL action is

 

That whole thread is easily explained by the results of this study:

 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Running-head-%3A-THE-REPEATED-RECORDING-ILLUSION-1-%3A-Anglada-Tort-Goldsmiths

 

Short summary: 75% of listeners heard music as different when told in advance that it was different, including trained musicians. Even though the same music was played. Bias anyone?

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

That whole thread is easily explained by the results of this study:

 

 

  How about giving a little credit to the bulk of the forum members who are well aware of Expectation Bias, which also applies even more to those who don't expect to hear any difference because of their employment background ?

[Ralf11]

A huge 490 page thread in the Music Servers section of the forum is where much of the REAL Expectation Bias is

[fas42]

56 minutes ago, esldude said:

Now the reason we don't have full lifelike reproduction has nothing to do with any failings in digital audio.  It has to do with limitations of transducers.  It has to do with limitations of two channel recording and reproduction.  Or 5 channel recordings and reproduction. 

 

We aren't currently able to create a sonic hologram of the original soundspace.  Additional channels and research are allowing a result humans perceive as closer to the original (or created) soundspace.  Whether it ever gets there or not I don't know.  It is not a problem of digital that is keeping us back.  DSP may one day solve it or get us closer to the real sound. 

 

None of this is correct. Tranducers are fine, 2 channel is fine - what is lacking are the necessary levels of integrity of the end system; and because this is currently considered relatively unimportant we have the dilemma of the state of much ambitious audio these days.

 

People have created "sonic holograms" for decades - but usually don't progress what they have beyond a personal 'statement', which ultimately folds when life events overtake their situation. The desire by most to just play with technology as a means to these ends is distracting nearly all from the better methods - and there are little signs of this changing, in the consumers. Luckily, the more ambitious designers and builders of gear are bit by bit improving what counts, meaning that we are getting closer, with the raw components.

 

DSP can never solve inherent problems with the quality of the playback chain - though it can achieve what's necessary as a side effect to employing this approach; "sharing the load" is a very effective technique.

[sandyk]

 

Well recorded material is capable of providing quite a deal of height and depth of image information from just 2 front speakers  , as well as a good amount of ambience provided that the playback equipment is above average.

 Even quite a bit of multi channel material can do this too when down converted to Stereo.

 A good example of this is "The Storm" from Chesky.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

  How about giving a little credit to the bulk of the forum members who are well aware of Expectation Bias, which also applies even more to those who don't expect to hear any difference because of their employment background ?

Because like you've seen written thousands of times, being aware of expectation bias in no way protects you from falling afoul of it if you continue with sighted listening impressions.  

 

It would be like knowing that 3 packs of cigarettes a day can increase cancer risks, but continuing to smoke as if that knowledge would protect you from cancer.  It is a methodology that does not work.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

None of this is correct. Tranducers are fine, 2 channel is fine - what is lacking are the necessary levels of integrity of the end system; and because this is currently considered relatively unimportant we have the dilemma of the state of much ambitious audio these days.

 

People have created "sonic holograms" for decades - but usually don't progress what they have beyond a personal 'statement', which ultimately folds when life events overtake their situation. The desire by most to just play with technology as a means to these ends is distracting nearly all from the better methods - and there are little signs of this changing, in the consumers. Luckily, the more ambitious designers and builders of gear are bit by bit improving what counts, meaning that we are getting closer, with the raw components.

 

DSP can never solve inherent problems with the quality of the playback chain - though it can achieve what's necessary as a side effect to employing this approach; "sharing the load" is a very effective technique.

Balderdash!

Nothing more. 

 

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

Because like you've seen written thousands of times, being aware of expectation bias in no way protects you from falling afoul of it if you continue with sighted listening impressions.  

 

 I have posted on numerous occasions that our equipment comparison sessions with Audiophile Neuroscience and other friends are performed under non sighted conditions  !

 Having virtually all of the gear already powered up also assists in this respect , as well as ensuring optimum performance and reducing delays.

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

  How about giving a little credit to the bulk of the forum members who are well aware of Expectation Bias, which also applies even more to those who don't expect to hear any difference because of their employment background ?

 

Right. So if all conclusions are subject to expectation bias, maybe you should give measurements a little more credit, since they are not? 

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I have posted on numerous occasions that our equipment comparison sessions with Audiophile Neuroscience and other friends are performed under non sighted conditions  !

 

And this helps to justify that 490 page thread, how exactly? The thread that starts with a statement that nobody can:

• Demand proof
• Require a specific methodology
• Require measurements.

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

And this helps to justify that 490 page thread, how exactly? The thread that starts with a statement that nobody can:

• Demand proof
• Require a specific methodology
• Require measurements.

 

 .You had your chance with the rebuttal thread, but it appears to have just about fizzled out after several members from both sides, INCLUDING the OP came to some consensus !

The original thread made it clear that it wasn't a measurements thread, and that the participants were not qualified to provide the measurements you so desperately crave.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Right. So if all conclusions are subject to expectation bias, maybe you should give measurements a little more credit, since they are not? 

 

 I have always welcomed appropriate measurements as well, especially for Preamps and Power Amplifiers wherever possible, but they are NOT the " be all, end all".

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 .You had your chance with the rebuttal thread, but it appears to have just about fizzled out after several members from both sides, INCLUDING the OP came to some consensus !

The original thread made it clear that it wasn't a measurements thread, and that the participants were not qualified to provide the measurements you so desperately crave.

So you are moderating this one? As I recall, you brought up the other thread, I just responded.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

I have always welcomed appropriate measurements

By appropriate, I take it you mean ones that agree with your pre-conceived ideas.

[kumakuma]

10 hours ago, sandyk said:

How about giving a little credit to the bulk of the forum members who are well aware of Expectation Bias, which also applies even more to those who don't expect to hear any difference because of their employment background ?

 

Differences so minor that they only appear if you believe in them aren't worth worrying about.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Differences so minor that they only appear if you believe in them aren't worth worrying about.

 

These small differences all add up. However, keep burying your head in the sand , Sunshine !

 You are obviously deliriously happy with the lacklustre set up you are already using. 

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

By appropriate, I take it you mean ones that agree with your pre-conceived ideas.

 

4 hours ago, mansr said:

By appropriate, I take it you mean ones that agree with your pre-conceived ideas.

 

No. I am not you !!!