Please Educate Me
@paul6001 https://www.youtube.com/c/TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel/videos search within his videos for several seminal discussions of analog vs digital music production and fidelity, and how to make digital sound right |
Music is analog consisting of sound waves. Amplifiers and speakers also operate in the analog domain using electric signals that vary in intensity over time....not just two values strung together to create other values which is what happens in digital domain. Sources can be digital and reside on computers but the digital information has to be converted to analog to make music. To do that the digital electric signal must accurately represent the digital information at the source and then be converted to analog. Time is a key component of music so the D to A process has to get the time dimension of the analog signal created from the digital one right or in other words produce the right information at the right time. You can see that is a complex and sensitive task and results can vary widely. Music waveforms are analog, complex and hard to represent accurately especially at higher frequencies. Any program that resides on a digital computer must convert to analog at some point in order for a human to interact with it. What is displayed on your computer monitor is also a result of Digital to analog conversion but a different kind. Here the digital signal is converted to light intensities and color using pixels on a computer monitor and what you see (which can also vary) is the result of that digital to analog conversion process. Same thing happens with a HDTV. So the bits on the computer in digital domain are always carefully preserved Else the programs would not work But it’s the conversion from digital to analog where results can vary widely. Hope that helps. |
I thank the well-wishers above. But my sense is that the fire I’ve drawn is more the norm than the exception. After all, my post concerned an abstract point of physics. Imagine if I’d said something about cables. A smarter man wouldn’t bother, but- I’ve been a professional writer and editor for almost 20 years now, working at one time or another for pretty much every business magazine you’ve ever heard of. Writing on a few other topics as well, mostly food and travel. Over the years I’ve collected the usual ephemera of the successful journalist: Awards, cover stories, etc. I’m pretty confident of my writing abilities. A point that seems to have eluded many: When I use Word to write, I enter ABCs, not digital content. Likewise, the computer shows me the English language, not digital code. I don’t know if that is the same as digital to analog conversion but conversion of some sort is taking place. It seems that many people lurk on this site, reading posts in which they have no real interest, in the hope of gaining a small, small, infinitesimally small sense superiority over the ignorant bumblers who naively wander into your world. I’m glad that I was able to provide you with a moment of pleasure but I dearly hope that you lead bigger lives. Still, the speed with which you attacked me—speed that says you had nothing better to do than wait for some schmuck to turn up—makes me worry that you don’t have much on your plates. |
mahgister, well said...and 40+ yrs. into our relationship, I don’t lie. That said, misinterpretation and/or assumption by either can still intrude. I suspect that couples can see the same issue, but describe/conceive of it in their own fashion. But I don’t, nor necessarily want, my spouse to see the world as I may Exactly anyway... I really don’t want to live with a clone I don’t think another of Me would see things the same fashion anyhow. Extending that observation, I think that applying that ’here’ can also be at the root of many of the fracas we read. If I was to amass identical equipment, from source to speaker, with all between, playing any sort of source material in as duplicated an environment as practical... ...I would wager that I still would not respond to what I hear and perceive with the same observations as the owner of the duplications' original. I don’t think it’s possible...unless one or the other makes a reference and/or comment about a given detail. And even that may or may not be noticed by the ’other’. And, even then, that detail may not be considered a flaw, or even an improvement. Science and technology aside for a moment, this is where taste and preference elbow the former pair aside. We read where ’this (preamp, amp, DAC, CdP, IC, cable,etc.) made/didn’t an improvement, leading to a ’swap’ to Something Else. This ’SE’ did/didn’t, and may have began (or not) another hunt for perceived ’Nirvana’, whatever one sees ’it’ as being. ...and that’s OK, either way. Anyone is more than welcome to listen to what I have and do with it. If they have any commentary, pro or no, I’m happy to hear it. I welcome commentary and critique’, really. But you have to come here and listen to it. I expect the same from y’all. Obviously, not terribly practical. Spouse says I live in a ’conditional world’; this=that, IF. I’ve yet to hear an argument that overcomes that. (But that’s just MHO, and I’m happy with it.) |
