Is Digital Audio A Mature Science?

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

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

 

 Unlike you,  I don't believe in moderating a thread unless the replies are NOT civil or personal attacks .

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Unlike you,  I don't believe in moderating a thread unless the replies are NOT civil or personal attacks .

 

Unlike me? You’ve just attacked me in the same sentence as saying you don’t believe in personal attacks. Why? Because I disagreed with you?

[KeenObserver]

13 hours ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

I sometimes think of the entire music chain as a hose with funnels on both ends. We argue about minutely tiny differences in components in the middle of the chain, but the transducers on both ends of the chain introduce distortions orders of magnitude greater than digital processor do. Microphones and speakers have a substantially greater effect on what we hear than any other component.  While we argue about differences of a ten thousandths of a percent in some components, we see twenty percent distortion in some subwoofers.

And of course the component in the chain that has the most effect.  The engineer at the console.

When CD's first came out they were throwing anything they could find onto CD's and pushing them out the door.  Some were garbage.  But there were sound engineers that understood the new medium and produced outstanding CD's.  I have a number of CD's that were properly re-mastered from the original masters.  They are reference quality and rival any Hi-rez recording.

[Hugo9000]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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. 

I don't think you're being at all fair!  I just had a look at his profile page, and I have to say that @kumakuma's setup has an elegant simplicity that somehow manages to convey the full range of orchestral "color" and surely brings back all the joys of childhood rather than jaded audiophilia! 

 

 

[KeenObserver]

Apparently, discussions on forums are not a mature science.

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

So that's why my favorite chair smells like Vegemite. How did you get past the dog?

[Hugo9000]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Apparently, discussions on forums are not a mature science.

Your nom de plume was well-chosen!

[fas42]

13 hours ago, esldude said:

Balderdash!

Nothing more. 

 

 

 

Which merely says that you haven't gone down the same path of exploration that I have - unlike many, I fluked getting an epiphany moment; which changed everything. Everything since has been a natural, logical progression from that experience, and each step has followed another, in a reasonably rational fashion.

 

I hadn't fired up my current rig for months and months, and was finally provoked into doing so by the awfulness of a sound reinforcement setup which should have at least been somewhat listenable to. It's only taken a couple of days of gently nudging it back to decent shape, for it to provide a good measure of the SQ I'm always looking for. Which centres on it providing the sense and vitality of live sounds - all the other bits like providing a "perfect sonic hologram" fully flesh out as one takes ever more steps to finesse every aspect.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

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. 

 

How it works is that the "small differences", if going in the 'right direction', are eliminating annoying anomalies in the perceived sound - the Subtracting Badness route. When the last critical weakness is 'tamed' then the full measure of SQ can be experienced - I use the debugging concept because the end result is just as magical; when a software program is finally rid of the major bugs then it becomes truly useful, instead of being a huge pain in the bum ...

[Ralf11]

Face it, esldude - he can dish out crap faster than we can rebut it.

[fas42]

 

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I sometimes think of the entire music chain as a hose with funnels on both ends. We argue about minutely tiny differences in components in the middle of the chain, but the transducers on both ends of the chain introduce distortions orders of magnitude greater than digital processor do. Microphones and speakers have a substantially greater effect on what we hear than any other component.  While we argue about differences of a ten thousandths of a percent in some components, we see twenty percent distortion in some subwoofers.

And of course the component in the chain that has the most effect.  The engineer at the console.

When CD's first came out they were throwing anything they could find onto CD's and pushing them out the door.  Some were garbage.  But there were sound engineers that understood the new medium and produced outstanding CD's.  I have a number of CD's that were properly re-mastered from the original masters.  They are reference quality and rival any Hi-rez recording.

 

Umm, no. The "tiny differences" in the "middle of the chain" introduce distortions which our hearing has a hard time separating from the music - "listening fatigue" is one of the most obvious results.

 

When a rig is working at a very high order of competence, "garbage" CDs can be listened to, enjoyably, effortlessly, for hours on end. And this occurs because our brains don't have to deal with the debilitating impact of disturbing, irritating degradation wrought by weaknesses in the playback chain.

[KeenObserver]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Umm, no. The "tiny differences" in the "middle of the chain" introduce distortions which our hearing has a hard time separating from the music - "listening fatigue" is one of the most obvious results.

 

When a rig is working at a very high order of competence, "garbage" CDs can be listened to, enjoyably, effortlessly, for hours on end. And this occurs because our brains don't have to deal with the debilitating impact of disturbing, irritating degradation wrought by weaknesses in the playback chain.

 

Wow!

 

So I just need a "high order" rig to listen to garbage recordings?

 

So we don't need to bother with quality mastering, we just need a "high order" rig.

 

And to think of all the time I've wasted searching for quality recordings!

[fas42]

The goal is to get the most enjoyment out of the greatest number of recordings ... if the "historical artifact" is all you have, do you want every time you listen to such to be an ordeal, a hair shirt experience?

 

<car analogy alert!>

 

I have a vehicle that allows me to only be comfortable driving over the best roads - it's a sign of its capability that I hate coming across mediocre roads; I prefer to organise my trips by searching for the roads that are of a certain standard; unfortunately, that means that there are many parts of the country that I can never visit.

 

[KeenObserver]

You'll have to excuse me for a minute.  I'm going to go smash my head on concrete and then take some LSD.  I'll come back and see if I understand this better.

[fas42]

Ahh, yes - those "turn everything on its head" moments can do that to one ...

 

Quite nice at the other end - for example, you discover that the original masterings are so much more enjoyable than all the rejigging efforts - the latter have been so simplified, "dumbed down" to make them 'work' on normal rigs that they are quite boring to listen to ..

 

 

[crenca]

Back on topic, this post by esldude sums it up nicely I think.  Whatever gains are left to be made in the digital domain itself (filters, sample rates, etc.) appear to be increasingly insignificant.  The more important limitations are to be found on the recording and playback ends with transducers, rooms, etc. etc.

 

 

[fas42]

The most important limitation is the attitude of those who think they understand everything that matters for achieving 'mature' SQ ...

[KeenObserver]

Sometimes when I listen to audiophiles going on endlessly in flowery prose I go off on a tangent.  I think of the art critic in a gallery, standing in front of a blank canvas, pontificating endlessly about what the artist's intent was.

And then I think of the artist at home: "Honey, remember when I had artist's block and couldn't paint?"  "yeah" "Well I sold that blank canvas for a million dollars!"  "Great!  Can we go out to dinner?"

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I sometimes think of the entire music chain as a hose with funnels on both ends. We argue about minutely tiny differences in components in the middle of the chain, but the transducers on both ends of the chain introduce distortions orders of magnitude greater than digital processor do. Microphones and speakers have a substantially greater effect on what we hear than any other component.  While we argue about differences of a ten thousandths of a percent in some components, we see twenty percent distortion in some subwoofers.

And of course the component in the chain that has the most effect.  The engineer at the console.

When CD's first came out they were throwing anything they could find onto CD's and pushing them out the door.  Some were garbage.  But there were sound engineers that understood the new medium and produced outstanding CD's.  I have a number of CD's that were properly re-mastered from the original masters.  They are reference quality and rival any Hi-rez recording.

Agree the source material is key, please provide examples of CD's that sound great and what is your CD player? 

Many thanks

[20hertz]

Sure , Listen to Chris Wilson, Live at the Continental. A simple live recording that puts most others to shame.

Hugh Masekela, Hope, is also stellar.

 

However, despite listening to oh so much high end digital, I still find it lacks the organic reality of analogue.

[marce]

But it is analogue you are listening to... You don't listen to digital you listen to analogue... IT HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO ANALOGUE.

[marce]

Yes, its a regular thing from some audiophiles, a bit like your all analogue sounds the same, comment the usual audiophile drivel and boy this thread has had some, but not as much as some others.

You can buy add on software that will make your digital sound like the analogue of yesteryear.

[KeenObserver]

I always am filled with wonder when someone comes to a site called Computer Audiophile to espouse the virtues of vinyl and turntables.

[marce]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

I always am filled with wonder when someone comes to a site called Computer Audiophile to espouse the virtues of vinyl and turntables.

Because it is a superior format... LOL

I use 8 track tape these days and when I can afford I will be up-grading to wax cylinders.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I pretty much agree with @esldude for the most part.

 

I think DSP and active speakers should be the next frontier for audiophiledom, but there are many roadblocks to this happening. The mentality that it's all or nothing / black or white isn't helping. Audiophiles shouldn't take DSP and put it all in the same basket. If some people want to use DSP or active speakers that doesn't hurt the other "half" of this wonderful hobby. Just like vinyl improving over the years doesn't hurt digital.

 

It would be great if everyone encouraged the improvement of DSP, active speakers, and better recordings without feeling attacked if they don't want to get on the DSP train. If some people believe there isn't much left to optimize in digital, so be it. Just the same if some people think digital still has a long way to go, they shouldn't really care what the "other side" is saying. We can all get there while simultaneously striving for different methods of travel. 

 

I'm interested in what I consider tweak options and I'm interested in DSP and active speakers. Let's pursue both. I believe the biggest gains will come from DSP but I don't discount "tweaks" out fo hand. It's all fun stuff.