Digital Audio Explained (from an engineer's standpoint)

[JP]

Subjective/objective aside, I want to hear more about how bit perfect copies suffer generational degradation. Dying to hear what the explanation is on that one.

 

[nailer]

See? The rest of us just listen to the passion that is music and enjoy!

To each his own.

Based on your posts this statement doesn't apply to you. :scratch2: :thmbsp:

 

[E-Stat]

Indulging in confirmation bias is less work and more fun than doing a complete engineering analysis, after all.

Yep, that's what professional recording engineers do every day!

 

[E-Stat]

Subjective/objective aside, I want to hear more about how bit perfect copies suffer generational degradation.

Burning straw men really is a pointless pursuit. Would you like to address anything that Allen actually said and try again?

Hint: the term "bit perfect" is not to be found. Referencing the time stamp would be fine.

 

[dumptruck]

Yes, professional recording engineers indulge in confirmation bias every day. It is their job not to miss any possible improvement, while determining that _____ has no actual benefits in the end product is at best of no benefit to them, and at worst actually hurts them, sending clients to engineers that appear to be trying harder and hearing better.

 

[JP]

Sure, I'll play your game. Allen said he couldn't make a copy of the CD that sounded the same as the original. You inferred you have experienced the same or similar re: generational degradation.

Using my own words, a copy, if it's truly a copy, would be bit perfect. So, how is it when all the 1s and 0s are exactly the same between multi-generational digital copies, degradation is claimed to have been heard? Really, any audible difference for that matter.

 

[E-Stat]

while determining that _____ has no actual benefits in the end product

Yeah, we've got to be vigilant against all the charlatans in the industry both in the recording and playback side (that would be hundreds of companies) who find high resolution recordings are better!

 

[dumptruck]

No vigilance is required, they aren't audio research scientists, and can do their job just fine with a heaping dose of confirmation bias involved. I'm not really sure I follow why you quoted that particular sentence fragment of mine.

 

[RobInONT]

That's all you'll ever get from the subjective side of this hobby. Indulging in confirmation bias is less work and more fun than doing a complete engineering analysis, after all.

Yep...

Objectivist: "Show me the evidence!"
Subjectivist: .................*cricket*.......*cricket*

 

[E-Stat]

Sure, I'll play your game.

Translation: You'll stop putting words into other folks mouths they never uttered.

Allen said he couldn't make a copy of the CD that sounded the same as the original. You inferred you have experienced the same or similar re: generational degradation.

Thank you! Now we can discuss something other than your imagination. My reference was specifically to his comment about the master going to the replicators and not sounding the same.

Using my own words, a copy, if it's truly a copy, would be bit perfect.

True science and logical analysis should be assumption free. Why do you assume that to be the case? What is your control?

So, how is it when all the 1s and 0s are exactly the same between multi-generational digital copies, degradation is claimed to have been heard? Really, any audible difference for that matter.

At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, we don't hear binary digits. Do you? What does a "1" sound like exactly?

We hear the end product of a complex chain of components that must read, correct, decode and convert those digits into a signal real time. There's lots to go wrong. And does. If your world, like that of Dr. Tinear, is limited to $300 players, then there's little to discuss.

 

[henkuk]

Sorry to hear that.

I have several sets of music recorded on LP, CD and 24/96 FLAC and observe the contrary. While LPs and CDs each have their own set of tradeoffs, I find that hi-rez finally blends the best of both worlds.

Good for you, still fails to prove your points though. Cause what you find is just what YOU find, someone else might find something else.

And as for digital copies degrading, that is so laughable that it renders the other information the source comes up with completely irrelevant.

And a side observation, it might appear to the unkind eye you started this thread with a polarized standpoint. And only want us to agree with that as else we surely are wrong....

Bollocks to that....

 

[henkuk]

At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, we don't hear binary digits. Do you? What does a "1" sound like exactly?

We hear the end product of a complex chain of components that must read, correct, decode and convert those digits into a signal real time. There's lots to go wrong. And does. If your world, like that of Dr. Tinear, is limited to $300 players, then there's little to discuss.

Oh dear, we hear the sequence of one and zero's and the order and amount in.the order determines what comes out of the speaker/
Should of these be missing, the sound will not degrade as there isn't any.

 

[E-Stat]

Good for you, still fails to prove your points though. Cause what you find is just what YOU find, someone else might find something else.

As my post suggests, there is a counterpoint to Monty's position that the industry is all wrong offering high resolution recordings. The rest of us just enjoy them.

And as for digital copies degrading, that is so laughable that it renders the other information the source comes up with completely irrelevant.

When you trust reading Rob's straw men arguments instead of referring to Allen's specific comments, then there's nothing to say.

 

[henkuk]

Indeed, I concur...

 

[dumptruck]

As my post suggests, there is a counterpoint to Monty's position that the industry is all wrong offering high resolution recordings. The rest of us just enjoy them.

Yes. I enjoy them downsampled to 48k, usually.

If your world, like that of Dr. Tinear, is limited to $300 players, then there's little to discuss.

Well, we all look forward to your ABX results using your expensive playback gear where you identify your hi-res formats compared the same files after downsampling. Oh, right, you just enjoy the music. Well, fortunately those "hundreds of companies" you mentioned earlier must have taken a few hours to prove at least one person somewhere using something can tell... anybody? no? Then there's little to discuss. Hmm, guess we all agree on that.

 

[hwirt]

Allen Sides interview started out being very interesting but quickly degraded into a litany meaningless pseudo technical clichés. I have no qualms as to his ability to record, mix and produce great audio recordings, but find his technical expertise or more importantly the lack thereof troubling.

Allen pretty much conceded his lack of knowledge on digital audio by deferring to the host to explain anti aliasing filters. Several other technically incorrect statements made by Allen proved that point overwhelmingly. Allen's claim that he has never been able to copy a CD and have it sound as good as the original sealed his fate. At this point I had heard enough.

If this is the best counter argument the OP can find to cast doubt on Monty Montgomery's technical demonstration using universally accepted test methods, then he has failed horribly.

 

[E-Stat]

Well, fortunately those "hundreds of companies" you mentioned earlier must have taken a few hours to prove at least one person somewhere using something can tell... anybody? no?

Absolutely. I suspect most every one. It was an expensive venture at first to introduce new recording standards that are now universally accepted.

That's why the recording industry is no longer limited to 16/44 - even if the majority of recordings today are compressed to the max dynamically and sold in lossy format to the masses.

 

[Dr Tinear]

...If your world, like that of Dr. Tinear, is limited to $300 players, then there's little to discuss.

Nice work, E-Stat. You combined an ad-hominem attack, which is prohibited by AK's TOU, with a factual error, and all in one short sentence.

The 8x-oversampling standalone DAC in my main system retailed for $1200 when it was new, and the CDP that I'm using as a transport carried a $350 retail price. That adds up to more than $1500, not including the jitter reducer or the two coaxial cables that are also part of my CD front end.

 

[E-Stat]

If this is the best counter argument the OP can find to cast doubt on Monty Montgomery's technical demonstration using universally accepted test methods, then he has failed horribly.

In the original thread, I asked if Monty ever addressed the inevitable ringing resulting from steep anti-aliasing filters. Never got a response. Do you know?

Showing test tones on an o-scope is kinda cool, but completely misses the point of why sampling at higher rates is desirable. Which Allen did mention. No steep filters required to ensure Nyquist is satisfied to capture 20k.

 

[Dr Tinear]

In the original thread, I asked if Monty ever addressed the inevitable ringing resulting from steep anti-aliasing filters. Never got a response. Do you know?

Showing test tones on an o-scope is kinda cool, but completely misses the point of why sampling at higher rates is desirable. Which Allen did mention. No steep filters required to ensure Nyquist is satisfied to capture 20k.

Have you ever looked at the square wave response of a typical phono cartridge? You'd probably find the ringing on the leading edges appalling, yet you've sung the praises of analog elsewhere in this thread. If LP playback can sound good with that much ringing -- combined with harmonic and intermodulation distortion numbers that often top 1% -- perhaps the ringing on digital players isn't as big an issue as you make it out to be.