2. misc-audio
  3. 153711-122613

Does Digital Try Too Hard?

Digital glare. A plague of digital sound playback systems. It seems the best comment a CD player or digital source can get is to sound “analog-like.” I’ve gone to great lengths to battle this in my CD-based 2-channel system but it’s never ending. My father, upon hearing my system for the first time (and at loud volumes), said this: “The treble isn’t offensive to my ears.” What a great compliment.

So what does digital do wrong? The tech specs tell us it’s far superior to vinyl or reel to reel. Does it try too hard? Where digital is trying to capture the micro details of complex passages, analog just “rounds it off” and says “good enough,” and it sounds good enough. Or does digital have some other issue in the chain - noise in the DAC chip, high frequency harmonics, or issues with the anti-aliasing filter? Does it have to do with the power supply?

There are studies that show people prefer the sound of vinyl, even if only by a small margin. That doesn’t quite add up when we consider digital’s dominant technical specifications. On paper, digital should win.

So what’s really going on here? Why doesn’t digital knock the socks off vinyl and why does there appear to be some issue with “digital glare” in digital systems.
128x128mkgus
djones51
4,947 posts
 
So terry9 are you accusing Monty of somehow messing with the scope or hacking the SW since it showed a perfect smooth waveform ? I am not sure anyone cares whether you grant it simply get the equipment and replicate it or can you prove he was wrong? Just announcing " I do not grant " isn't going to cut it when we can all see his work, where's  yours? Post a YouTube refuting it. 


"This is important because the talk continues to use this result (a perfect, smooth waveform) as proven, which I do not grant" 
terry9
2,354 posts
 
I gave my conclusions and my reasons for all to see and criticize. That's the way of math and science. I suggest that you re-read my post and then decide who it is that is "Just announcing".
djones51
4,947 posts
 
Ok I re-read your post and you begin with an assumption that the waveform isn't  really what we are seeing in the experiment  with no other proof than "I do not grant".  The only conclusion  i can make is you are saying that Monty the engineer somehow is rigging the experiment because you don't grant there is really a perfect waveform there. 
terry9
2,354 posts
 
I'm talking about the graph of an arbitrary waveform, not any specific wave form. At the point where he says something like, "There are no steps" and refers to "lollypops". The general case.
djones51
4,947 posts
 
There is no arbitrary waveform it is simply the way the software represents the waveform on the computer, he can manipulate it to look like a lollipop or stair steps or waves or whatever there are no steps or lollipops like he said it's just a lazy way of showing the digitized  signal. There is the analog signal sent through the computer where it's  digitized then sent back through the dac and sent on to the scopes they show the same signal. It would be analogous to saying the signal of the waveform on the oscilloscope is " arbitrary " because you are simply looking at  a picture of a wave on its  screen. Is the waveform on the oscilloscope  arbitrary? Or is it a 1khz signal? Why is the picture of the signal on the computer monitor arbitrary and the same signal on the oscilloscope not? They are both just a means of showing us a representation of sound whether they are waves or lollipops.
More to discover