2. digital
  3. 140819-117192

A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzRvSWPZQYk

There will still be some flat earthers who refuse to believe it....
Those should watch the video a second or third time :-)
128x128cakyol
rcronk
52 posts
 
Analogue is a 'real' copy of the sound impressions where Digital is merely coded ones and zeros read by a machine and sound is produced in the process.  There is no 'there' there with digital.  There are NO sonic impressions.  Just a digital program reading directions in binary code.  Zappa's Jazz From Hell album is a good example.  Brilliant and performed without any musicians.  Cold,. hard and exact.  But even that album becomes musical when the vinyl copy is played next to the digital. 

Flat-earthers indeed!  To those who prefer musicians to machines as music makers I think the analogue/digital divide needs to be judged by our ears, not another machine.  Those with the sensitivities to hear music will make the same choices and judgements and do not need to have a machine tell them what and how to 'hear'.  As Captain Beefheart put it, "How'd you get a name like Crazy Little Thing?"
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"When the atoms of the steak were disassembled and then reassembled the porterhouse steak looked still like a real steak but when it was broiled and tasted it didn’t taste like a real steak..."
If the description of the movie is accurate, it is not exactly what these debates about digital suggest. That steak retained all the particles and all of them were used to reassemble while digital is said to be missing some parts.


"...like the fresh raw porterhouse steak in the movie..."

"...then reassembled the porterhouse steak looked still like a real steak but when it was broiled...
Maybe it would have not tasted good had it been broiled before being disassembled, either. Maybe the problem was the steak and not the process of transportation.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
6,033 posts
 
tom1000
There are no steps, no divisions, or resolution with analog, but there is with digital.
It’s a common misnomer that digital has "steps." To be fair, it seems intuitive that it does. But it doesn’t, as proven here. And analog has limited resolution, too - just as with digital.
There is no Nyquist theorem, which based on an approximation.
There most certainly is a Nyquist theorem. A fairly good explanation of it is here.

Please note that the Nyquist principle is a theorem, not a theory. That means it’s actually provable, using math and science.

I’m much more of an analog guy that a digital guy, but it’s important to understand how digital audio actually works if we hope to ever see it improved.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
It’s a common misnomer that digital has "steps." To be fair, it seems intuitive that it does. But it doesn’t, as proven here. And analog has limited resolution, too - just as with digital.

It is certainly not proven with this youtube.  Digital is sampled, not continuous.  The reproduction accuracy with digital is a function of the sample-rate and filtering to "smooth" those steps.  Any NOS D/A chip will output these stair-steps and requires filtering to eliminate them.  If you disable or raise the frequency of the digital filtering from any Delta-Sigma D/A chip, it will have these stair-steps.  I have seen it on my scope.

There most certainly is a Nyquist theorem. A fairly good explanation of it is here.

The Nyquist theorem is true and often cited, however, it makes some assumptions such as the waveform is continuous and not transient.  Transient waveforms cause the Nyquist theorem to break-down.

Not that it doesn't apply, but the sample rate required to get an accurate transient reproduced is much higher that Nyquist would predict.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
6,033 posts
 
audioengr

Digital is sampled, not continuous. The reproduction accuracy with digital is a function of the sample-rate and filtering to "smooth" those steps.

The Fourier Transform proves otherwise, and the transform really has more than one proof. One is in the video, but there's mathematical proof, too, if you really want to dive deep into it.

The Nyquist theorem is true and often cited, however, it makes some assumptions such as the waveform is continuous and not transient.
It relies on the Fourier math.

Transient waveforms cause the Nyquist theorem to break-down ... the sample rate required to get an accurate transient reproduced is much higher that Nyquist would predict.

If you could disprove the Nyquist Theorem, you'd be famous. It's already been proven. That's why it's a theorem.



More to discover