All DAC (D/A Converter) Enthusiast Take Note!

adrian4454 wrote:
We dont have lab equipment to verify what has been stated by Nyquist theory to be truth. Or maybe those day lab equipment wasn't accurate enough to prove or disprove the theorem was right or not.

Dude, you're 100% dead wrong here.

The aliasing of source freqs that are above half the sampling freq is a PROVEN FACT.

You have a keen sense to seek out knowledge and information, but may I suggest that you do more reading up on facts before saying if this or that is proven or not. If you're so keen to learn more about Digital signals and stuff, go get a proper textbook from Kinokuniya/MPH,etc etc and start off on the proper fundamentals. Don't rely on manufacturer's marketing brochures and lay-reviews where their intent is only to champion their own products as best in the world over others and u just get suckered into their jargon.

This way, you can avoid making naive conclusions all over the place.
And don't fall into this trap of: "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

If u need a book title on DSP and A/D & D/A signals conversion to start learning on, just ask.

WongKN wrote:Not sure how many of you guys are old enough to remember the 'justification' for the CD format way back when it was first proposed. The sample size (16bit) was chosen to meet a specified dynamic range (100dB I think, not sure) and the 44.2kHz sampling frequency was chosen because it could handle the audible frequency range from 0Hz to 22kHz.

Same goes to why alot of mfgs only rate the low freqs down to 20Hz, because the old Fletcher-Munson test set the (somewhat flawed) standard that not so much on humans cannot hear below 20Hz, but because the test gear of the time was not capable of doing sub-20Hz tests.

But ask any AV freak, they will fight tooth and nail to get a subwoofer that goes down to 10Hz at least for real-cinematic experience.

Fletcher-Munson has since been revised and updated to ISO standards today.

I also forgot one other interesting trivia. Now I cannot remember if it was instrumental to getting the standard set at 16bit/44.2kHz or not but it was certainly instrumental in getting the CD capacity and size to what it is. I think it was also one of the key arguements of adopting 16bit/44.2kHz over other alternatives at that time.

The world knows of Phillips as the inventor of the CD but if I remember correctly, SONY or some other japanese companies was also a key co-inventor, just that Phillips somehow got the credit and rights. Many japanese audiophiles are classical music lovers and by far the most popular classical music piece amongst japanese audiophiles is Beethoven's Symphony No.9. In its entirety, this piece runs just slightly over an hour. The original CD standard was to fit just 1 hour into 1 single disc and therefore was -not- able to fit this piece in totally. So there were negotiations, debates, arguements and finally the CD standard was changed so that the entire Symphony No.9 was able to fit into 1 CD.

I believe if you google hard enough, you will be able to find the complete and more accurate story as mine is from memory.

So anyone really do believe that commercial interests had no influence on the standards of audio equipment ?

Wong KN

I remember reading this story in the Straits Times back in the mid eighties!

hi Cham,

have you got a chance to compare the 24/96, 24/192 and 16/44.1 and the difference?

I tried the zodiac+ with Foobar and it will only accept 24 bits with kernel streaming or WASAPI. There is no way for me to set it to 16 bits. at the time of testing, I wish I have the following hd tracks.

follwing is free download of the 24/192
http://www.2l.no/
click the test bench hd sound



so looks like zodiac gold can handle 24/384 at usb 2.0.

chua55 wrote:hi Cham,

have you got a chance to compare the 24/96, 24/192 and 16/44.1 and the difference?

I tried the zodiac+ with Foobar and it will only accept 24 bits with kernel streaming or WASAPI. There is no way for me to set it to 16 bits. at the time of testing, I wish I have the following hd tracks.

follwing is free download of the 24/192
http://www.2l.no/
click the test bench hd sound



so looks like zodiac gold can handle 24/384 at usb 2.0.

I did compared one of the solo piano piece(Beethoven I think) from 2L. With 24/192 you can feel the hammers striking the strings are all that I could remember.

Gold is designed to stream at 24/384 asynchronously.

Maybe tonight can try comparing the 24/96 and 24/192 of Monty Alexander's Hajji Baba.

adrian4454 wrote:
I dont really get the point of how 24 bits running at 44.1k, you mean the remastering at 24bits 96 or 192kHz then back to our very consumer 16bits 44.1kHz?

the beatles 24/44.1 reissue is not in cd (16/44.1) format. it is a limited edition that came in a thumb drive released at the same time as the cd and vinyl reissues were released.

u cannot play it with a cd player unless it accepts thumb drives like the bladelius.

u need to drive it with a laptop using music players like winamp, media monkey, j river, etc, connected to an external dac.

Mugen, Well, I did said before what I had here could be rubbish.

Thanks for the book, I wont be getting any; as I am have a tough time understand all the possible formula thingy.. can get pretty boring.. no?

But Aliasing is an external introduced distortion to the 44.2k itself right? So if the original 16bit/44.1kHz is not being plagued with this problem; something special might be happening.

Just like everything we have in theory, doesnt always workout perfectly in the real world.

adrian4454 wrote:Mugen, Well, I did said before what I had here could be rubbish.

Thanks for the book, I wont be getting any; as I am have a tough time understand all the possible formula thingy.. can get pretty boring.. no?

But Aliasing is an external introduced distortion to the 44.2k itself right? So if the original 16bit/44.1kHz is not being plagued with this problem; something special might be happening.

Just like everything we have in theory, doesnt always workout perfectly in the real world.

Oh well ... i can't stop u from posting as you aptly said, "rubbish" . Only can help you to get your facts straight , but only if you want to. Otherwise, just carry on as usual.

And yes, your most recent post is still "rubbish". But by all means, do continue if it so pleases you.
cheers.

Ouch

mugenfoo wrote:

adrian4454 wrote:Mugen, Well, I did said before what I had here could be rubbish.

Thanks for the book, I wont be getting any; as I am have a tough time understand all the possible formula thingy.. can get pretty boring.. no?

But Aliasing is an external introduced distortion to the 44.2k itself right? So if the original 16bit/44.1kHz is not being plagued with this problem; something special might be happening.

Just like everything we have in theory, doesnt always workout perfectly in the real world.

Oh well ... i can't stop u from posting as you aptly said, "rubbish" . Only can help you to get your facts straight , but only if you want to. Otherwise, just carry on as usual.

And yes, your most recent post is still "rubbish". But by all means, do continue if it so pleases you.
cheers.

No harm done, that's the way Mugen does it.

Anyway, if you would like to point out what is correct, I am very happy to listen or learn from you.

Another thing, the apodising filter thing that is recently introduced in Meridian player isnt really something new. Found them writing about this since 2004. Again, Mr. Mugen; if there is any other earlier writing?

tycham wrote:
Gold is designed to stream at 24/384 asynchronously.

the antelope zodiac gold does not stream at 24/384. it is a dac, not a music player. it accepts up to 24/384.

the question is - which music player (foobar, itunes, media monkey, j rivers, winamp, etc) can play or stream 24/384?

also, if u look at 2l's website, the 24/352.8 files are in dxd format. which commonly available music player can play that?

adrian4454 wrote:No harm done, that's the way Mugen does it.

Anyway, if you would like to point out what is correct, I am very happy to listen or learn from you.

Another thing, the apodising filter thing that is recently introduced in Meridian player isnt really something new. Found them writing about this since 2004. Again, Mr. Mugen; if there is any other earlier writing?

Apodising filters addresses the pre-ringing problem in the conventional phase-linear filters. There is an AES paper on digital filters u can go read up on. Go Google.But there is no free lunch in this world, and if u minimise the pre-ringing of an impulse response, u might get more post-ringing, or phase shifts, amplitude roll-off happening too soon, etc etc etc, other problems.

There are other high end mfgs who also investigated on apodising filters and decided NOT to implement such, as they believe their own proprietary filter algorithms can do better.


But if you don't have a basic understanding on D/A and stuff, it can get even more confusing and mis-lead you more.

Again, if you're really serious about learning the art & science behind A/D D/a stuff, go pick up a good book. Otherwise, wikipedia and other online forums, etc etc can only give at best a "sneak preview" of the tip of the iceberg.

Again, don't fall into the "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" trap.

haha, "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" is what being used to knock out more knowledgable layman explanation from you.

I wont get to be very serious on the D/A thing, just need to understand some of the stuck up terms. I get to understand better through diagram/graph rather than those thesis write out stuff.

Anyway, Thanks for sharing. From time to time, I may stir shit pot like this, and hope you can stand in before it get out of hand

only with the best interests for you, friend....

sflam wrote:

the question is - which music player (foobar, itunes, media monkey, j rivers, winamp, etc) can play or stream 24/384?

Mac OSX(Snow Leopard 10.6.3 or higher) WIN7 asynchronous with MSBTechnology USB Signature 2, , Zodiac Gold. MSB Tech Data CD IV...

tycham wrote:
Mac OSX(Snow Leopard 10.6.3 or higher) WIN7 asynchronous with MSBTechnology USB Signature 2, , Zodiac Gold. MSB Tech Data CD IV...

and where r u going to get the 24/384 files from?

hi adrian

dont worry about our friend. he likes to comment on 'rubbish', at the end of day, he will go yam cha with you if you invite him.

if u like to read more, here it is.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/white_papers/sample.pdf

by the way, I really like the PMD 100 hdcd filters you have. so do our friend bimmerman. It is such a 'in' thing when the hdcd light is on.

sflam wrote:

tycham wrote:
Mac OSX(Snow Leopard 10.6.3 or higher) WIN7 asynchronous with MSBTechnology USB Signature 2, , Zodiac Gold. MSB Tech Data CD IV...

and where r u going to get the 24/384 files from?

Actually, i might have some 32/512 "equivalent" files lying around.
they're usually stored in a big black round flat circular object, but sometimes can be some other funky colour and might have some cool pictures on it as well .....

Thanks Chua55 for the link.

There is no special light up when HDCD is played on my Audiogd DAC19Mk3, maybe u r referring to another model?

Heck I dont even know my Marantz CD63ki now used as a transport ever send HDCD format to the DAC or not. Anyone can verify this?

sflam wrote:

and where r u going to get the 24/384 files from?

Here!



24 mm thick. 384 kcal!

adrian4454 wrote:Thanks Chua55 for the link.

There is no special light up when HDCD is played on my Audiogd DAC19Mk3, maybe u r referring to another model?

Heck I dont even know my Marantz CD63ki now used as a transport ever send HDCD format to the DAC or not. Anyone can verify this?

Promised my wife to stay away from this website but what the heck! I heard my name being mentioned. Well, I believe Chua was referring to the HDCD amber light on my Cary CD300 which lit up when HDCD content was being played and on the Mark Levinson it's displayed in dot matrix "HDCD". Chua and myself thought it was cool. Mugenfoo was silent, probably busy crunching the numbers that produced the sound in his head but I suspect he was amused nontheless in a Tuvok kind of way.

These days I don't get the HDCD display anymore because I have the digital signal dithered from 16 bits to 24 bits. Still 44.1khz but 24 bits. I never read the manual properly but when I did, I was pleasantly surprised that my Levinson could receive 24 bits. I'm still struggling to tell if HDCD is better than 24bit or vice versa. That is something the superhuman ears of Noodel88 can do. Without Noodle88 to assist me I've since given up and left it at 24 bits permanently. So no more amusing dot matrix "HDCD" display.

tycham wrote:

sflam wrote:

and where r u going to get the 24/384 files from?

Here!



24 mm thick. 384 kcal!

Oooii !!! Copycat !! Go pirate your own pictures !!!

adrian4454 wrote:
Heck I dont even know my Marantz CD63ki now used as a transport ever send HDCD format to the DAC or not. Anyone can verify this?

nope, the marantz cd63ki cannot decode hdcd data.

from wikipedia: ""A number of universal CD and DVD players include HDCD decoding, and version 9 and above of the Windows Media Player software (on personal computers with a 24-bit sound card) are capable of decoding HDCD.

True, the CD63 cannot decode HDCD but HDCD played using a CD63 and fed to an outboard DAC capable of decoding HDCD will indeed decode HDCD. 16 bits from the CD63 magically expand to 20bits with HDCD decoding.

sflam wrote:

adrian4454 wrote:
Heck I dont even know my Marantz CD63ki now used as a transport ever send HDCD format to the DAC or not. Anyone can verify this?

nope, the marantz cd63ki cannot decode hdcd data.

from wikipedia: ""A number of universal CD and DVD players include HDCD decoding, and version 9 and above of the Windows Media Player software (on personal computers with a 24-bit sound card) are capable of decoding HDCD.

A Marantz CD-63 KI Signature can send HDCD-encoded data as a CD transport to a HDCD-capable DAC. However, when used as a CD player, it will not perform HDCD decoding.

HDCD-encoded CDs comply with the redbook standard, the only difference being that the HDCD control data is embedded in the least significant bit (LSB). I have an issue of Stereophile May 1995 issue which describes more, but sadly, the original Pacific Microsonics website is nowhere to be found.

Some links that may give a little more insight into HDCD:
http://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/c/HDCD/HDCD.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20020124220637/www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/AES_Paper.pdf

bimmerman wrote: That is something the superhuman ears of Noodel88 can do. Without Noodle88 to assist me I've since given up and left it at 24 bits permanently. So no more amusing dot matrix "HDCD" display.

Hey, bimmerman where is my royalty????

Hey noodie, royalty don't have, out of stock. But loyalty sure got heaps of.

Hi-Fi 4 Sale wrote:

sflam wrote:

adrian4454 wrote:
Heck I dont even know my Marantz CD63ki now used as a transport ever send HDCD format to the DAC or not. Anyone can verify this?

nope, the marantz cd63ki cannot decode hdcd data.

from wikipedia: ""A number of universal CD and DVD players include HDCD decoding, and version 9 and above of the Windows Media Player software (on personal computers with a 24-bit sound card) are capable of decoding HDCD.

A Marantz CD-63 KI Signature can send HDCD-encoded data as a CD transport to a HDCD-capable DAC. However, when used as a CD player, it will not perform HDCD decoding.

HDCD-encoded CDs comply with the redbook standard, the only difference being that the HDCD control data is embedded in the least significant bit (LSB). I have an issue of Stereophile May 1995 issue which describes more, but sadly, the original Pacific Microsonics website is nowhere to be found.

Some links that may give a little more insight into HDCD:
http://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/c/HDCD/HDCD.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20020124220637/www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/AES_Paper.pdf

Well maybe you can find something in the Microsoft knowledge base since HDCD is now fully owned by Microsoft.

HDCD is just a "has been" lah ....

Well Moogie as they say in detroit, there's just no replacement for displacement. In digital audio, the equivalent of displacement would be how much that particular audio file displaces your Hardisk or SSD storage. So far, to my non-noodlesque ears, the sweetspot is at 24/96.

bimmerman wrote:Well Moogie as they say in detroit, there's just no replacement for displacement. In digital audio, the equivalent of displacement would be how much that particular audio file displaces your Hardisk or SSD storage. So far, to my non-noodlesque ears, the sweetspot is at 24/96.

Only if it was originally recorded at 24/96.

If it was originally 16/44.1, and then just Bloated up to 24/96, its a waste of bytes and electrons.

Yes I agree. I work with Photoshop alot and when you take a low rez picture and upsample it and apply interpolation to get it to a bigger size you just end up with a bigger picture with a whole lot of jaggies. Pixels that were not there to begin with cannot be created with interpolation and that's that. So upsampling 16/44.1 to 24/192 will be equally futile. But digitizing a well preserved analogue recording from a master tape to 24/96 or 24/192 is what you're talking about right?

In digital photography the imaging sensors on some high end DSLRs have already outresolved most of the best lenses. Most of the best glass out there are just not good enough for the best sensors. Well, you still get fantastic images but it's just the lenses are now the limiting factor and not the sensors.

Where am I heading with this? Well, I'm wondering what bit depth and sampling rate would it take before analogue master tapes, original vinyl pressings, studio recording consoles, digital studio recorders, the best microphones used, etc. get's outresolved. Could 24/96 be just right? Someone from Stereophile (can't remember who) commented that during his listening tests, his 24/96 audio file did contain more audiable information than his vinyl record of the same recording. I'll post it when I remember who wrote it.

But then there's just no end to it because the day will come when they make Terra byte thumbdrives for cheaps and then all of us will think why should we settle for just 24/96 when we can go for 24/192 or 32/384 or beyond. Who would care if 24/96 was presumably all you need?

Hmmm... Interesting times ahead.

Forgot to mention, Esoteric makes a SACD player that upsamples 16/44.1 CD to anywhere from 24/352 to a boggling 24/1536. I've had the chance to hear it and to the best of my hearing, the soundstage expands wider as you upsample but I also noticed that the more you upsample, the more hollow the sound. That's the best way I can describe it.

24/96 out-resolving analog ? Not even in your dreams.

The problem with humans is we are often too arrogant about our own technology, for our own good. The idea is often that if we go brute force enough with a specifications, we will outdo nature. Analog is natural and digital is artificial no matter how you look at it. One is continous the other is discrete. It is futile to think that simply going very high number of bits and very high over-sampling, just these two simple parameters, will allow a digital to overcome analog. It is like all those young punks who always tells me that their turbocharged car, all they need is to put a boost controller and turn the knob and more power will be free. We think that we can create a supercomputer that in our own measurements out-computes a human brain and thus a computer will be superior to the human brain. Artificial intelligence they say. I am sure you all know how real that is even today. Or rather how far away.

No, the world do not work this way.

But that being said, there would be a few modern recordings that are initially recorded in digital format right from the source, perhaps at 24/96 or 24/192, then D/A'ed back into mastering tapes and then cut into vinyl for distribution.

I have a nagging suspicion that my Lady Gaga picture disc was done this way...
Maybe i need to put that vinyl under an Electron microscope and see whether the groove walls are smooth and continuous , or have traces of digital jaggedness in them!



But heck, the LP still beats plain CD format anytime, anyday.

bimmerman wrote: Could 24/96 be just right? Someone from Stereophile (can't remember who) commented that during his listening tests, his 24/96 audio file did contain more audiable information than his vinyl record of the same recording. I'll post it when I remember who wrote it.

Are you sure that what he heard was really more info, or it could be digital "noise" artifacts that are unnatural and mistaken as detail instead! Like some old tubey amp thats about to blow its last cloud of electrons. Sure they make vocals sound airy and warm and fuzzy all over. Heck, they can even make W. Axl Rose's yelling and screaming falsetto sound like Rickie Lee Jones's seductive vocals. "Noise" or "detail" here? I'd guess the former...

hifi 4 sale wrote:

A Marantz CD-63 KI Signature can send HDCD-encoded data as a CD transport to a HDCD-capable DAC. However, when used as a CD player, it will not perform HDCD decoding.

AFAIK, a cd player must have a HDCD decoding chip to decode the HDCD, which has four extra bits of data in a sub-channel. A HDCD compatible player decodes the data as 20 bit 44.1khz.
however HDCD is backward compatible and a non-HDCD (i.e. normal) player will just decode the normal Red Book 16bit 44.1khz data and ignore the extra four bits of data in the sub-channel.

AFAIK, the marantz cd 63ki does not have a HDCD decoding chip. So it'll read a HDCD disk as 16bit 44.1 regardless of whether it is used as a player or as a transport.

wong kn wrote:

24/96 out-resolving analog ? Not even in your dreams.

The problem with humans is we are often too arrogant about our own technology, for our own good. The idea is often that if we go brute force enough with a specifications, we will outdo nature. Analog is natural and digital is artificial no matter how you look at it. One is continous the other is discrete. It is futile to think that simply going very high number of bits and very high over-sampling, just these two simple parameters, will allow a digital to overcome analog. It is like all those young punks who always tells me that their turbocharged car, all they need is to put a boost controller and turn the knob and more power will be free. We think that we can create a supercomputer that in our own measurements out-computes a human brain and thus a computer will be superior to the human brain. Artificial intelligence they say. I am sure you all know how real that is even today. Or rather how far away.

No, the world do not work this way.

according to hifi legend tim de pavaricini, digital files at 24 bit 400khz sampling can equal analogue.

quote: "Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a 'sound' purely because it is based on lousy mathematics."

to read the interview, click http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?216-Excerpt-from-Tim-de-Paravicini-regarding-the-state-of-digital[url][/url]

WongKN wrote:24/96 out-resolving analog ? Not even in your dreams.

Analog is natural and digital is artificial no matter how you look at it. One is continous the other is discrete. It is futile to think that simply going very high number of bits and very high over-sampling, No, the world do not work this way.

Wong,
It is actually possibly to approximate analogue given high enough sampling and depth, but the only question is how high.

In fact, down to the most discrete level our brain is digital, but its scale and complexity makes it seem continous. So are our eyes....it is digital, like in a digital camera. At high enough pixel count and depth, both will seem to be "analogue" to us.

Our brain and eyes, 'digital'? Really?

After reading all your responses it now seems to me that the question should not be about digital outresolving analogue but rather, outresolving our human hearing and sounding best to our brains. Seems there is already an opinion on that from a hifi legend and the number he quotes is 24/400.

My turn for a long-winded post:

While it is easy to say that many people fall into the "technology trap" of reading up and catching up with the new hype and fancy jargons of "cutting-edge" digital frontiers, it is also equally self-deceiving in a self-righteous kind of way to think that any old-established format or medium will always hail superior over the other.

It is therefore best to be reminded that there is no ONE single best solution to date, but to keep an open mind about both sources. There are many an audiophile or equipment lovers out there who have given on the CD medium and have gone back purely on vinyls. While this is very indeed a personal choice, it should not self as a form of self-righteous stand that digital medium will never equal or rival the best analog sources.

Likewise, for those who have their audio experiences limited purely on the digital medium and have yet to experience the definitive and superlative of today's analog source performances, should not be so quick to profess a stand that XXX/YYY spec of digital resolution would be sufficient to rival analog sources etc etc.

From my own brief journey and dabbling in both mediums, the only conclusion I dare make so far is that both mediums have their own strengths and weaknesses.

The case for analogue:
The consumer digital format (aka redbook) is woefully inadequate capturing a faithful spectrum in order to satisfy the human hearing ability.
New digital standards, resolution and processing power will eventually close the gap, but as to when this will happen is yet to be seen/heard.

Capitalistic and greedy manufacturers / distributors / dealers would always throw up a wall of technical jargon and babble-bobble to confuse and con the poor consumer out of their hard earned money. And today's "digital era" and its "Perfect Sound Forever" slogans only makes it all the more simpler to steal the penny from the pocket of the ill-informed.


The case for Digital:
The analogue medium has plateaued for the last 40 or so years already.
a 30ips tape reel still works the same as it did 50 years ago via its induction pickup head and a magnetic medium.
a turntable ecosystem of a spinning platter, pickup needle and a motional arm is still the same 60 years ago as today. Can these be taken as the "ultimate" and "be all, end-all" system for audio reproduction, for ever and ever amen ? For the sake of everyone, i hope not, lest the human race suffer the indignation of being trapped in a time capsule and civilization as we know it will come to a grinding halt.

Digital music today also affords the convenience and enjoyment of music that an analog format would not permit.

_______________

So what's next ?

The Digital frontier, despite its inherent flaws, limitations and venues for abuse, nevertheless is still an evolving field, pushing the frontiers of science, technology and even rightfully as an artform by itself. The beauties of chaos theory and fractals are but some examples on how digital means have allowed the generation of such abstract models.
After all, digital is but another means of mathematical representation.

I can't think of any analogue device that can rival the precision of a simple consumer digital device in terms of mathematical calculations today.
Even the age old chinese abacus is perhaps the worlds oldest "digital calculator". You either put the bead one side or the other, not in between or somewhere halfway on its shaft.

I would not be surprised if one day but would gladly welcome instead, a digital based audio reproduction machine that would rival or even surpass the capabilities of today's top notch analogue systems. Of course, these would have be a balanced approach; i.e. both the software and hardware must work hand in hand (instead of today's scenario of terribly compromised software medium, then throw ostentatious amount of digital "processing power" and fancy tricks in the hardware side to "try" and extract back the essence.. or make up some phony stuff along the way to fill in the missing essence )

Back to the point of Digital vs. Analog. It is a quite useless to champion one medium over the other per se. But the greater issue at hand here is how these mediums would be better positioned to serve the purpose of faithful audio reproduction. So it's back to the human hands and brains behind it and the human creativity in doing such.

But it has to be said, that while digital might still be an extreme crude tool or medium for doing so , it is still ever evolving. Thanks to the the powers of silicon and digital computing.Too bad the same cannot be said for analogue , in which its very essence has not seen any significant evolutions except those that instead have been driven by tech advancements in digital. Ironic, but true.

Case in point: Lets look at car engines in general: an "ANALOG" fuel carburetor vs. a typical modern fuel-injection system, powered by a DIGITAL ECU and its barrage of engine-telemetric sensors. Which one meters the fuel flow more accurately, which one meets today's strict emission laws, and most importantly, which one permits the mechanical engine to reach closest to its max power output potential ?

Closing statement: The day will come... just to see when only.

CT-Boy wrote:Our brain and eyes, 'digital'? Really?

CT-Boy, as to your question on digital or analogue, if you delve down deep enough into the realm of physics, the world is actually better represented in a digital form than an analogue form. Case in point:
A proton is a proton, A neutron is a neutron, and an electron is an electron. There are no half-neutrons or 3-and-a-quarter electron, etc etc. At least physics today as we know it does not allow for such.
A proton comprises of 2 "up quarks" and 1 "down quark". The opposite makes a Neutron (1 up quark, 2 down quarks). and so on and so forth like other quarks named "charm", "strange", "top", "bottom".
Its all in discrete quanta.

The light that our eyes see, are in the switching and swinging of electromagnetic waves from one state to another. The ever faithful gold-standard of a sine-wave (nothing gets more analogous than a sine wave) merely approximates the rate of change of physical state or condition. So one could equally argue that Analogue is merely a representation of a digital universe. But this is quick approaching a discussion on Stephen Hawking level of Physics and I shall not go further.

>>> My turn for a long-winded post:

Mugen, you are beginning to sound like the "Raja Petra" of hifi. Long winded discourse but makes a lot of sense

mugenfoo, I see you 'point'. thank you for shedding some 'light'.

carz, thats has always been him and it's 'expected'..

sflam wrote:

hifi 4 sale wrote:

A Marantz CD-63 KI Signature can send HDCD-encoded data as a CD transport to a HDCD-capable DAC. However, when used as a CD player, it will not perform HDCD decoding.

AFAIK, a cd player must have a HDCD decoding chip to decode the HDCD, which has four extra bits of data in a sub-channel. A HDCD compatible player decodes the data as 20 bit 44.1khz.
however HDCD is backward compatible and a non-HDCD (i.e. normal) player will just decode the normal Red Book 16bit 44.1khz data and ignore the extra four bits of data in the sub-channel.

AFAIK, the marantz cd 63ki does not have a HDCD decoding chip. So it'll read a HDCD disk as 16bit 44.1 regardless of whether it is used as a player or as a transport.

...which is a different way of saying the same thing.

I think some of you are confusing the difference between 'discrete' and 'digital'. Digital implies discrete. But we also need to understand that digital can be in many forms. BINARY digital is a form of discrete representation that using a bit with only two states. There are also octal discrete, decimal discrete, etc. The fact that we can't represent PI, square root of prime numbers, and many other scientific constants shows that even our decimal discrete is a flawed representation of nature. Heck, we can't even represent one-third in finite discrete form and we have to invent an imaginary number to represent the square root of negative 1.

It is true that so far -WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AND SCIENCE- whenever we dwelve deep enough into a matter, things seems to become discrete. E.g. in the ancient times, the Greeks thought all things are discretely made up of atoms. Later we found that those atoms have protons and electrons and neutraons. Then we found that quarks makes up those protons. Then later we found even more elementary particle. IS THERE A LIMIT ? Many scientists now tends to speculate that there may well be no limit.

There is a saying that amongst scientists, those in the discipline of astronomy and biology (including medicine) are the ones who are always humble and respectful of nature. This is because of what they deal with. They say that trying to understand and study nature is more scary that a huge infinitely big onion. Everytime you peel off a layer and you arrogantly think you have 'seen it all', nature surprises you with another layer of complexity.

But I agree with mugenfoo's post that we cannot also be complacent and assume that analog in the form of LPs and/or master tapes will forever be better than any possible digital form that humans can master in the far future. But to a limit. There is a limit to the human senses. We can only discern down to a certain difference in decibels, in lumens, etc. So we -can- say that eventually we can use brute force to push enough resolution into digital to challenge the limits of -HUMAN SENSES-. But to challenge analog means to challenge nature. And that is the most futile thing we can even think of.

An analogy. I was personally in the thick of this more than two decades ago. Back in those days, a young I/T specialist with the world's biggest and most advanced computer manufacturer in the world led me to be arrogant. I got to learn of ELIZA (google it up) back in those days. It was a tremendous breakthrough for computing. And it led many people to become arrogant as well. Soon countries were predicting that within years computer technology will make the human brain obsolete. Even Japan, an asian country who should know better and be humble and respectful of nature made the boast that with a country-wide coordinated effort, they will have an artificial intelligence that can challenge the human brain. I recall it was some silly arrogant short period of 5 years or so. They failed. Miserably. Not only Japan but the entire world. And today the I/T industry is very much the wiser and respectful of nature for that. All we have to show for that arrogance was the 'fuzzy logic' we have in our washing machines and car ECUs. Match the human brain ? I didn't say the word, it was common back then. "Not even in your wildest dreams".

The I/T 'experts' were simply over-confident just because they have mastered the ARTIFICAL human measurement of MIPS and MEGAFLOPS. And because they calculated the human brain doesn't even measure up to 1 MIPS, they think it is easy meat. Eventually most people agreed that the error was simply because we chose to measure and judge the human brain by OUR artificial and very primitive/limited standards. We CANNOT get an idea of how powerful the human brain is by using OUR measurements of MIPS and FLOPS.

Tim De P's opinion is that at the specs he gave, it can SATISFY the human senses. My reading is he does NOT think it means equal or better than analog.

Can analog be made better. Yes, definitely, OUR way of playing analog. But analog recording as a medium, if we discount the artifacts of LPs and TTs and arms, that is something digital might very well never ever challenge.

Technology arrogance can be a very humbling experience. Most of the world agrees that the U.S. is very arrogant simply because of their vast military and economy might. But all it takes was a lady named 'Katrina' who brought down on their knees. Till today, sadly, they have not fully learned.

Sadly (or happily, depending on how u want to look at it), there is a trend of recording studios that now record purely in digital domain right from the start. How they cut and master it into the consumer medium whether its LP, CD or thumbdrive is another matter...

On another example, it is human arrogance in championing one technology over another is just as bad as human arrogance in stubbornly sticking to one "proven" method and shutting out new and emerging methods/technologies.

It is best to always keen an open eye that ultimately whatever the choice of technologies is merely a TOOL in helping to reach the intended goal. Be it in audio, physics or automotive.

BTW, the latest to hit the physics geek scene today is "String Theory". Something that just totally did not exist prior to the 1980s, although its foundations can be traced back to just after WW-2. Would anyone be so quick to say that Einstein's theories of Relativity would be the be-all and end-all , and the new frontiers in quantum mechanics and String-Theory are downplayed ?


And to assume that the world is always analog is purely self-delusionary. Analog or Digital are merely REPRESENTATIONS of Nature / the world / the Universe. But just to be aware that of late, the "digital" language has brought forth much new discoveries and pushed the frontiers of human civilization further than before. Just as there will not be enough numbers or bits to account for an infinitely long number of PI, hence there would always be "rounding off " scenarios for practical purposes of PI = 3.14159265 would be the resolution that I would care to remember.

Who knows ? Maybe in the near future there would an entire new set of language/mathematics that could be a neither base-2 or base-10, etc etc.

But on the frontiers of science and physics, the infinitesimally small has a trend to be breaking down into the discrete rather than the analogous. A "Digital medium" are merely descriptions/representations and hence a subset of the discrete domain. An "Analog medium" would be an "approximation" to a bunched up group macro-level representation of the same medium.


But using closer examples to home, I always like the Carburetor vs. Fuel-Injection analogy. Of course, there are always some "super old-school" people who will champion a carbie's ultimate superiority over present-day fuel injection methods. But the sun has already set on them a long time ago already.

Its just too bad "Digital" as applied in consumer audio is still wanting compared to the best analog mediums at the present day.

I have heard the LP (properly setup) and I have also heard the antelope zodiac+

To all those who have been asking to listen to LP, have you attempted to listen to the antelope zodiac+.

Does it really sound good with the 24/192? Hope to hear some charming report soon.

chua55 wrote:
I have heard the LP (properly setup) and I have also heard the antelope zodiac+

To all those who have been asking to listen to LP, have you attempted to listen to the antelope zodiac+.

Does it really sound good with the 24/192? Hope to hear some charming report soon.

I personally have not heard the Zodiac+ . But I have heard (and on many occasions), digital gear built and engineered 10x more than the Zodiac. Like a dCS Scarlatti transport/clock & some professional-Studio grade Nagra front-end for example. This vs. an analogue playback system in its price tag (like a RM100+K TT deck) and with equally exotic and price blowing amps and speakers.


My current stand would be if the source is originally from a CD, and no matter how you want to upsample/sidesample/oversample to 96/192/384/768 and dice-up and redistribute the bits to 20 or 24 or 32 or even 64 bits for that matter, would still not come close to a vinyl record in true honest faithful sound reproduction.


But the vinyl still suffers the evils of surface dust , scratches, manufacturing flaws/imperfections and other general inconveniences and eventual physical mechanical wear and tear. Such is the impermanence of things.

I have not heard of the rubidium clock. perhaps antelope products are full of marketing hypes, like the Bose ?