is it all hype?

[Farview]

Did you look it yourself?
Why does he projects only single points on all the drawn signals he uses for his explanation?

Because they are vector points, not stair steps.

Why doesn't he explain how the signal is build with sums of O's and I's.
He isn't complete and actual in his explaining. His drawings aren't right. He doesn't explain how the digital signal/curve is made.

He does. Watch it again.

Look further to find a good explanation about how a digital sound/signal starts existing.
Or perhaps Bobbsy can explain that? (as i trust on his knowledge).

I'm reasonably certain the Bobbsy will back up the guy on the video.

 

[miroslav]

And the myths just keep coming!

Didn't think I would see this particular analog VS digital dead horse come back to life ever again around here...but UGH!...
...here we go...again.

Jay...your patience for sifting through nonsense is first class. Good luck, brother.
I would jump into the fray...but now I have to go fill-in all those digital holes in my audio that I didn't know were there.

I thought most people who still love to use tape and lots of analog (like myself) have pretty much agreed that we do it because we like the sound of it, or we like the feel of it...but not because of any "digital holes".
We're all still dumping the audio to digital...if there's holes, where's the audio going...on the studio floor?

You guys have fun now...

 

[42low]

Because they are vector points, not stair steps.
He does. Watch it again.

I'm reasonably certain the Bobbsy will back up the guy on the video.

Can you tell me the time of that moment?
Didn't see it. Probably missed it.

You can call them steps, points, vectors, or whatever you want, they stay fixed points imitation an analogue curve.
Where in contrast analogue is a constant line.
And how many fixed points/vectors you have, it will never cover a line, so 'holes' will stay between them. What can be done is that much points/vectors/whatever that it looks and acts like a constant line (but it still ain't).

That's why i said analogue is unlimited, were digital is limited by the amount off points/vectors/whatever.

This guy measures with an analogue measuring gear. That's what fools the situation. Digital signal fools analogue electronics. It imitates. That's what it should do and is developed for.
If this guy turnes up his signal measurement settings he will get the non constant signal with slight failures too.
Come on man, this was an assignment at school i did myself many times. We had to compare those digital and analogue signals. We had to determine where the digital signal imitated the analogue signal enough to look like it. What it did when we upgraded the digital inputs and so on.

Btw, what do you think in the concept digital the part 'digit' stands for?
And what most people think, a point/vector/whatever is NOT build by one O or I.

I'm quit sure Bobbsy will confirm this too.
And those who really know how a digital curve is build know i'm right.

 

[42low]

Didn't think I would see this particular analog VS digital dead horse come back to life ever again around here...but UGH!...
...here we go...again.

Jay...your patience for sifting through nonsense is first class. Good luck, brother.
I would jump into the fray...but now I have to go fill-in all those digital holes in my audio that I didn't know were there.

Off course. There he is. And again you only can make a fool out of someone and something.
Within all your ridicilousness, can you explain how a digital sound is build? I doubt it.
Empty words come out off you. Kicking for arguments. Nothing more. Hope you get your holes filled.
You win miraslave and some others (at least you think you win).

@the rest
This is why i asked were to put up my CV. For those who can only pick fights but if they have to react ontopic only stupid shit comes out.

@miraslave. I've made a real record. You didn't. Go try to learn driving and parking in your 100K car (which i doubt to as they probably are empty words).

I'm only trying to explain something and then i get this patronising reactions from some 'holy' people.
I finished with this. Fuck it.

 

[miroslav]

What you fail to understand is that you're making a fool out of yourself here because you're stuck in ancient myth land.
When many people who know their stuff are agreeing, and you are disagreeing...well...think about it.

Do a Google search, and you will find that on most audio forums, (even where top pros hang)...these myths have been put to rest awhile ago.
So just because you're not up to speed or you don't get it or you refuse to get it...doesn't mean that everyone has to now go through ALL those explanations and debates just to try and prove it all over again...to you.
The information is already out there.

This is the second or third thread now where you've tossed out some erroneous beliefs or understanding about audio and electronics...and then when people (lots of people) try to explain it to you...you just go on your little rants and get all pissy about it...
...and yes, I find that pretty funny and worth joking about. It better than arguing with you.

I gotta go cut the grass...that will be more interesting than this silly, old, analog VS digital argument.

 

[42low]

What you fail to understand is that you're making a fool out of yourself here because you're stuck in ancient myth land.

No way. You grab each change to insult many subjects and persons by never ever being serious.
And after that discussion about my record and so you especially pick on me. Exactly like you've turned up now.

Do a Google search, and you will find that on most audio forums, (even where top pros hang)...these myths have been put to rest awhile ago.

I don't have to google to know how it works. Learned that on school and experienced it later in professional life (only not as producer).
I don't have to google to know on that on audio and other forums many information isn't right or complete.
Ad the real explanation is hard to find. What you find online is mostly the simplistic one.

Until now no one could tell exactly how a digital signal is build. So who knows??

This is the second or third thread now where you've tossed out some erroneous beliefs

Erroneous believes? Is it my fault you won't believe i've made a record? Know some artists? And worked with famous companies?
I think that's your error, ain't it!? And the reason why you keep turning up picking on me.
And is it my error if many don't really know and/or understand how a digital sound is build? Who believes in myths?

You only want to pick a fight, time after time. You never ever reacted normally to me (as you also don't to many others), not even once. Never ever taking anything or everyone serious.
You think your god acting as you know everything and everybody else doesn't no shit. And if someone speaks against you it never ever is your fault and you're always right. What's that called? Narcisistic behaviour?

I dare everyone. Explain how a digital signal is build exactly. (and then i don't mean the simplistic explanation that's everywere)
No one did yet. No one can do that? (for your information: I know, i can, but i won't anymore cause i'm really through with it)

 

[Farview]

Can you tell me the time of that moment?
Didn't see it. Probably missed it.

Umm, the entire video is explaining why there are no steps and why the signal coming out is the same as the signal going in.

You can call them steps, points, vectors, or whatever you want, they stay fixed points imitation an analogue curve.
Where in contrast analogue is a constant line.
And how many fixed points/vectors you have, it will never cover a line, so 'holes' will stay between them. What can be done is that much points/vectors/whatever that it looks and acts like a constant line (but it still ain't).

But it doesn't matter how it is stored as long as the signal coming out of the converters is the same as the signal going in. Analog tape doesn't store pressure waves, it stores a magnetic field that imitates the pressure wave. Your argument is invalid.

That's why i said analogue is unlimited, were digital is limited by the amount off points/vectors/whatever.

Unlimited in what way? It certainly doesn't have unlimited frequency response, nor does it have unlimited dynamic range.

This guy measures with an analogue measuring gear. That's what fools the situation. Digital signal fools analogue electronics. It imitates. That's what it should do and is developed for.

As he explains, he measures with analog gear because digital O-scopes display a stepped representation of the wave, like a DAW does. The analog scope isn't 'fooled' by anything. If the analog signal was stair-stepped, you would see it. It's perfectly capable of displaying square waves, why would the analog signal coming out of a converter 'fool' it?

If this guy turnes up his signal measurement settings he will get the non constant signal with slight failures too.
Come on man, this was an assignment at school i did myself many times. We had to compare those digital and analogue signals. We had to determine where the digital signal imitated the analogue signal enough to look like it. What it did when we upgraded the digital inputs and so on.

He turns up the measurement settings high enough to see a 20khz sine wave as smooth. At 44.1k, each period would only be a little over two samples. Surely you would see this stepping. If the stepping isn't happening with the sample rate, where would it come from?

I'm quit sure Bobbsy will confirm this too.
And those who really know how a digital curve is build know i'm right.

Good luck with that. I think the point you are forgetting is that the signal being digitized has to be band limited. Being that it is band limited, there is only one way the vector points can be decoded, which will result in a smooth waveform matching the one on the input. The stair stepping does not happen on the analog side, there are also no 'holes' in the audio.

 

[Farview]

Can you tell me the time of that moment?
Didn't see it. Probably missed it.

If you start around 4:30 he will work his way up from 15k to 20k. Then around 7 minutes, he explains that the stair steps were never there and that there is only one possible waveform that could conform to those sample being where they are.

Around 8 minutes, he explains that zero order hold works with staircase, but that isn't how they all work and it isn't the finished signal.

 

[42low]

--- deleted while by several named as irrelevant ---

 

[42low]

--- deleted while by several named as irrelevant ---

 

[Farview]

I've made an image with this.
In the big image you see what i discribe above. The non constant accurat but as good as possible implemented line parts between the points.
If you make the distances smaller (the smaller image) with more points the curve looks exact. But the small image is exact the same as the big one and is not exactly accurat.

And those implemented and therefore inconsistent parts become more ignorable when using higher values (higher bits and khz).
You all know that if you edit inconsistent sound, that inconsistency wil be blown up by that editing. And will dubble each time if edited again and again. If you put echo on such inconsistency it will be duplicated several times in that one edit.
And eventually, if consistencies are edited to much it will be heard.

As far as this goes, any detail that happens between the samples would be happening at a frequency above nyquist and would have been / will be filtered out.

Now that I know you are ESL, I can see how the words you chose could mean something other than what they say. It's a translation problem.

 

[42low]

As far as this goes, any detail that happens between the samples would be happening at a frequency above nyquist and would have been / will be filtered out.

What i'm pointing at is what happens beyond the digital signal, and the core signal.
This is about how the electronics implement that sound. And why digital curves appear and sound 'normal'. The core invention of digital waves.
But also that part that digital sounds analoque and why many think digital soundwaves are the same (which it isn't).

And it is filtered out. By the electronics. Because the electronics don't react as fast as the signal, and therefore the electronics keep the curve ratio's.

As the core digital signal itself is not corrected by the electronics, within the pc the signal not yet has the electronic implementations and therefore still has what i named holes. Which you don't hear because when playing the correcting electronics come by again.

And we work (edit) within the pc on the core signal.
Is it clear were i'm talking about with this explanation?

Now that I know you are ESL, I can see how the words you chose could mean something other than what they say. It's a translation problem.

That probably is the problem.
Nice to constatate that at least someone react normal and tries to understand what's happening, instead of calling one a ignorant fool.
Many thanks for that.

 

[miroslav]

Erroneous believes? Is it my fault you won't believe i've made a record? Know some artists? And worked with famous companies?
I think that's your error, ain't it!? And the reason why you keep turning up picking on me.
And is it my error if many don't really know and/or understand how a digital sound is build? Who believes in myths?)

If you're going to quote me...then quote the whole sentence...not part of it.

I said...
"This is the second or third thread now where you've tossed out some erroneous beliefs or understanding about audio and electronics..."
...but you removed the second part just so you can mention your record...again.

I'm not talking about your record or whatever fame you seem to think you have.
And since you keep bringing up your "record"...as I understood it, it wasn't *your* record, rather you just plaid some tracks on someone's record. Are you even listed in the record's liner notes...did the band even give you any credit?

The fact that you were in some studio 30 years ago, doesn't make you (or anyone) famous.
I've actually had a studio for the last 30 years, and understand the audio and electronic concepts from actual hands-on studio work. You just took some electronic classes and played on some tracks in a studio.

Remember...when you came here a couple of months ago, you're the one who said:

Yeah. I'm a fanatic amateur and eager to learn.

Now suddenly you act like some famous musician who knows everything about audio and you doubt everything people here are saying...people who actually worked in studios many years and know a lot more than you.

I know your English causes some translation issues...but you seem to know it and understand it well enough to keep arguing foolish points with some "authority"...when in fact, you have very little actual studio experience...by your own words.
The reason I joke around with you is because it's better than arguing technical points with someone who only believes his own misconceptions.
When I'm discussing audio with people who have common sense and real audio experience, then it's a more serious conversation.

Maybe if you stop acting like you are smarter and more famous than everyone else here...I'll stop joking about it.

 

[Steenamaroo]

I already deleted a bunch of bullshit from you two guys.
I didn't think I needed to publicly announce and explain it for the hint to be taken.

If it's going to be a contest to get the last word, neither of you will get any words.

 

[Bobbsy]

It's been a few months since this was posted and it appears we need it again:


If you can't watch the whole thing, the executive summary is "digital recordings do not have stairsteps and, viewed on oscilloscope the output waveform of the digital (after conversion back to analogue) is indistinguishable from the analogue original.

Edited to Add: Sorry Farview. Didn't notice that we'd jumped pages during my Australian night an you beat me to it with the video posting. Ah well, it can't be seen too many times.

 

[garww]

Actually, I thought that vid was funnier than shit. Starting with the test instruments, right off the bat.

 

[miroslav]

Actually, I thought that vid was funnier than shit. Starting with the test instruments, right off the bat.

For me...the guy's beard kills it.
He looks like he's transforming into a wolf-man...you know, like in the movies when they do the timed transformation, and the guy's hair gets thicker and thicker until he's covered.
The guy in the video looks like he's in that first transformation step.

Otherwise...the demonstration pretty much covers all the points.
The key is...you can't look at the audio purely in that interim digital stage....what counts is how it comes back out when it is played back in the analog domain, and there it is exactly the same as it went in...there's not steps, or holes...just the same audio that went in.

 

[Bobbsy]

Of course audiophiles can hear things that can't be detected or measured on even the best test equipment.

Anybody want to buy a $5000 IEC mains lead? It'll really make your mixes sound more open and natural.

 

[gecko zzed]

Ah well, it can't be seen too many times.

The more it is posted, the better.

I was only thinking that it needed to be posted again when it appeared in a very timely way in your post.

 

[miroslav]

Of course audiophiles can hear things that can't be detected or measured on even the best test equipment.

Anybody want to buy a $5000 IEC mains lead? It'll really make your mixes sound more open and natural.

My favorite audiophile bit of snake oil are the wooden knobs on stereo equipment. Something about the wood improving the sound waves or something like that.