The biggest difference I hear between digital and analog

[JackD201]

You're listening to an S-D DAC there, what do you expect? If you don't love the sound of noise modulation, choose a NOS DAC.

Don't generalize my friend One of the most analog sounding players at least 3 of us here have heard is SD. I think I can actually count 7, four of whom are owners. It ain't grandpa's SD that's for sure, least amount of haziness so far. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it should have at least an SPDF input, so technically while it has a DAC, it isn't one.

 

[opus111]

Analog has noise modulation too ya know Which DAC chip does that use ?

 

[LL21]

If I were to do this, which one would I purchase? Is a NOS DAC commercially available? Brand/model names??

The top of the top NOS manufacturers by reputation/press coverage are all quite expensive.

Zanden
Audio Note
Ypsilon
Concert Fidelity
Metrum Octave
AMR
Vertex AQ/Aletheia

All i can say is that i've not found anything that has tempted me away from my Zanden (personal choice of course) incl: DCS Scarlatti, Metronome Kalista Ref/C2A, Stahl-Tek Vekian, TAD D600, Audio Aero La Source, Emm CDSA, ARC CD8, Wadia s7i, Meridian 808.2, Krell 505. The Metronome was stunning, as was the Stahl-Tek...both were my fav...Scarlatti impressive but not for me...could be it would be magic in the right system, just not mine. Audio Aero La Source was suprisingly like the Zanden in some regards though preferred the Zanden in the treble.

 

[valkyrie]

While I generally disagree with Myle's audiophile perception (though I do value his reviews highly - please keep them up) I think he (Myles) has more or less "nailed it" with this comment:

That's great but what's more important for musical engagement: macro or microdynamics (or as musicians call them dynamic accents)? I aver that it's the latter and that's one area where I feel that digital falls short. In an extreme case (as with early digital), the lack of microdynamics gives the music a boring quality and actually screws up the brain's perception of tempo.

This is what I hear with panel speakers - most especially electrostatic speakers. That very fine sense of tonal shadings and small dynamic accents that make music "come alive". I also would venture that this is the area where the vinyl does its most effective work. For some reason this antediluvian, 19th century electro-mechanical "kludge" - that thing we call vinyl - seems to get this small scale stuff perfectly. Don't even have a clue as to why this might be true - but for my ears it most certainly is true.

The ability to capture and playback the inner aspects of music is what separates even good digital from good vinyl. This doesn't mean that I am in the camp of the "vinylistas" - those extremists with their ridiculous turntables and exotic cartridges. It does mean that for some playback there exists a relaxation, a coherence that I do not find with digital recordings.

Though I could do with less of the inevitable ticks, pops, and crackles. The surface noise of much vinyl, the fussiness of this absurd technology and all its attendant fooling about (I mean think about it for a minute - having a very small stone attempt to track a miniscule groove in some goofy, carcinogenic plastic - such is really and truly prehistoric).

So why is it that digital - good digital at that - has so much trouble with this "inner detail"?

 

[JackD201]

Analog has noise modulation too ya know Which DAC chip does that use ?

Come to think of it.......I have no idea! I would like to know. Can you tell by the posted specs? It's all I could find.

Theorical Resolution : 24 Bits > 192 KHz samples Rates
Resampling Rate : 384 Fs
D.A.C Architecture : Delta-Sigma Modulation
Power Bandwidth : 5 Hz to 24 KHz +/- 0,0015 dB
Channel Isolation : - 125 dB
Channel-to-channel phase error : N mesurable
Noise/Signal Ratio : - 130 dB
A weighted noise/signal Ratio : - 160 dB
Phase linearity : +/- 0.19°
Unbalanced Analog Output Voltage : 3,30 V
Balanced Analog Output Voltage : +/- 1,65 V

 

[LL21]

Come to think of it.......I have no idea! I would like to know. Can you tell by the posted specs? It's all I could find.

Theorical Resolution : 24 Bits > 192 KHz samples Rates
Resampling Rate : 384 Fs
D.A.C Architecture : Delta-Sigma Modulation
Power Bandwidth : 5 Hz to 24 KHz +/- 0,0015 dB
Channel Isolation : - 125 dB
Channel-to-channel phase error : N mesurable
Noise/Signal Ratio : - 130 dB
A weighted noise/signal Ratio : - 160 dB
Phase linearity : +/- 0.19°
Unbalanced Analog Output Voltage : 3,30 V
Balanced Analog Output Voltage : +/- 1,65 V

THanks, Jack...Hey Opus - looks like i am learning (from you)...i started skimming the specs and immediately thought (S-D chips)...and then i saw it listed in there.

 

[opus111]

So why is it that digital - good digital at that - has so much trouble with this "inner detail"?

I suggest its because digital's noise modulation isn't widely, if at all, recognised. We really do need a measurement for it. What you describe subjectively about tonal shadings and dynamic accenting fits my understanding of noise modulation - most DACs and a good proportion of ADCs obscure this fine detail stuff by adding wideband noise which is correlated with the signal. But in the way that SNRs and THD+N and DR is currently measured, this doesn't appear, so those figures all look fine.

 

[opus111]

THanks, Jack...Hey Opus - looks like i am learning (from you)...i started skimming the specs and immediately thought (S-D chips)...and then i saw it listed in there.

I can't tell with a high degree of confidence from those specs - the part they most closely match would be the TI/BB PCM1792A.

 

[LL21]

I suggest its because digital's noise modulation isn't widely, if at all, recognised. We really do need a measurement for it. What you describe subjectively about tonal shadings and dynamic accenting fits my understanding of noise modulation - most DACs and a good proportion of ADCs obscure this fine detail stuff by adding wideband noise which is correlated with the signal. But in the way that SNRs and THD+N and DR is currently measured, this doesn't appear, so those figures all look fine.

interesting...dont totally follow but am starting to...interesting...

Opus...on the ADC noise bit...is there the equivalent risk of noise from other mastering jobs for vinyl/tape? Presumably so...thus, unless you feel digital is more at risk for such mastering noise...(doubtful?)...then it appears that focusing on noise modulation in the D/A process is one key...which i think is what you have been saying in the past is your particular design focus...yes?

 

[rbbert]

I suspect a good part of it also involves tape noise being better understood, characterized and measurable using "standard" measurements.

 

[opus111]

Opus...on the ADC noise bit...is there the equivalent risk of noise from other mastering jobs for vinyl/tape?

The ADC noise arises from the choice of 1-bit (or low-bit) ADCs, rather than anything inherent in digital. SAR (successive approximation register) ADCs would be my choice for lowest noise modulation, however they do take a bit of work to implement as the anti-aliasing filter has to be an analog one (S-D converters do it digitally). Perhaps the best solution would be a modicum of oversampling at the input to ease the AAF design. Nowadays high resolution (16bit and more) chips are available in SAR for relatively low cost so there's no excuse.

Presumably so...thus, unless you feel digital is more at risk for such mastering noise...(doubtful?)...then it appears that focusing on noise modulation in the D/A process is one key...which i think is what you have been saying in the past is your particular design focus...yes?

The D/A process is the only one we have jurisdiction over as consumers - I'm hopeful though as more consumers get more transparent DACs this will gradually pressure the recording guys to switch over to more transparent ADCs through customers voting with their wallets

 

[Atmasphere]

Technically, analog and digital are processess that convey information and actually are more the middle ground than one or the other:

tape theory (in analog tape decks loved by many) states that the iron oxides or whatever, take on a magnetic alignement, and as such eash particle becomes orintated one way or the other, and that is a digital process my dear fellows.

This is ridiculous!! -and utterly false.

Yes, the magnetic particles are aligned so that they represent a positive or negative-going waveform (but keep in mind that a 'magnetic particle' is a misnomer in itself, as you really have bunches of said particles that create the waveform), but where is the measure of intensity of said waveform?? **That** has to do with the intensity of the magnetic charges just mentioned. This is anything but digital; the strength of the signal at the speaker terminals is driven by the strength of the magnetism on the tape! That is an analog process pure and simple,

Anyone telling you otherwise is grossly misinformed.

 

[mep]

I think the whole "analog is really digital" argument that was proffered is bogus and said so previously.

 

[Atmasphere]

I'm sticking to my guns on this one; the dictionary definition does not seem to have much to do with anything analog. The problem understanding that seems to be that in the analog world you can't count (no pun intended) on things being in unique particles. Its just not a model that holds up in the real world. If the underlining is yours, what the dictionary is referring to is the use of magnetic polarization as a means to store a digital value. But what we see here is that digital very much relies on things being analog to start with, not the other way 'round.

 

[rbbert]

Tom, I told you you wouldn't get anywhere with this POV, no matter how obvious it is to some of us.

 

[microstrip]

(...)

Definition of digital
adjective
1(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization. Often contrasted with analogue.

When high end audio is designed, and expecially high revealing systems, these kinds of things are known to better reduce things such as noise and distortion, that is, if one is inclined to drive all imperfections to zero or the quantum level!

Tom,

Your very imaginative post is based on a misinterpretation of a poor definition of digital. The words typically represented do not mean that the entities referred are quantum.

As I told you before the the magnetic dipoles define an angle with the direction of the movement of the tape, and the voltage signal created by the tape moving along the head coils depends on it. This angle is an analog variable, the voltage created is an analog entity.

 

[mep]

Nobody has explained how obvious "it" is. We have been given some analogies that show that monkeys are the same as birds and they both can fly, but I have seen no proof that analog is the same as digital and vice versa. So are we just talking generalities, opinions, and analogies or are you really trying to proffer that analog recording and playback is really digital recording and playback?

 

[rbbert]

I'm not saying that today's commonly used digital storage formats are the same as analog, but those of the immediate and easily foreseeable future are "analagous". 128x or even 256x DSD and 32/192 PCM and/or 32/384 DXD have data flow rates similar to if not greater than analog tape's data flow rate, because like it or not both analog tape and digitally stored music involve discrete "particles" which store data.

Even our hearing is "digital" in the sense that the hair cells in our ears only respond at specific levels, not at an infinite number of non-discrete levels. The auditory nerve and subsequently the auditory processing centers of our brains then convert those discrete signals into what we perceive as a smooth analog waveform.

 

[LL21]

I'm not saying that today's commonly used digital storage formats are the same as analog, but those of the immediate and easily foreseeable future are "analagous". 128x or even 256x DSD and 32/192 PCM and/or 32/384 DXD have data flow rates similar to if not greater than analog tape's data flow rate, because like it or not both analog tape and digitally stored music involve discrete "particles" which store data.

Even our hearing is "digital" in the sense that the hair cells in our ears only respond at specific levels, not at an infinite number of non-discrete levels. The auditory nerve and subsequently the auditory processing centers of our brains then convert those discrete signals into what we perceive as a smooth analog waveform.

Is the correct analogy film photography vs digital photography?...in the beginning with 2megapixel cameras...film photography felt 'analog' and digital was a pixelated approximation...but in truth, i believe film photography (analog as its approach might feel) is apparently something like 12-15 megapixels...which means consumer cameras have now matched it...and that is part of the reason why few if anyone is making film and film cameras for consumers (presume medium format film still exists?)

Perhaps some are saying that the digital appoximation of audio has not yet reached something that 'analog' is still manaqing to do. Without doubt...we are getting very close compared to 10 years ago. Just for some, not yet.

 

[opus111]

Making an analogy with film is interesting for sure - film also has a parallel to the modulation noise of analog tape, and that's film grain. Digital photography is grain-free, so the perceived contrast ratios are higher. This is parallel to how I perceive the sound of piano in (well-implemented) digital - its 'high contrast' whereas analog tape recordings of piano have some softening.

Analog lovers note that digital sounds 'grainy' though - what they're hearing is not the (inherent) quantization (pixellation) noise, rather the noise modulation resulting from poor digital implementation.