TYP555 sounds "more analogue"

All that said and the ADC (analog to digital converter) used in the studio for digital recording hasn't been mentioned; the initial conversion of sound in the digital chain. Not going anywhere with this - just thought I'd point out that the all-analog chain (while using processors) doesn't require conversion of the signal. The digital chain has to convert sound twice, which suggests to me, from a statistical sampling perspective, more room for introduction of error.

Joe, no one's mentioned the microphone or speakers either, which being electromechanical devices with complex mechanical resonance patterns are inherently less precisely controlled than the ADC or DAC, but then they're common to both system.

Talking about the problems and inaccuracies of mechanical processes and electromechanical devices, what about the cutter (less accurate than a 16bit ADC) the vinyl duplication and pressing (less accurate than replication of a digital file) and the cartridge / arm / TT (much less accurate than a 16bit DAC).  But even before that (unless you're talking about the very rare direct cut disks), there's the initial recording to tap, and then the tape playback on a different machine, All of these are electromechanical processes each with a different set of problems and non-ideal behaviours degrading the signal.  There's much more room for error in the analogue chain (in fact there's no possibility of avoiding it!).

I do accept that simple linearity isn't everything (for instance it tells you nothing about anything time related e.g. frequency response, transient performance etc.), but it is a contributor to quality, and for me the frequency dependant compression effects inherent in the analogue chain along with the surface noise that's a flaw specific to vinyl, are by far the most distracting ill effects.

I still don't understand why almost everyone considers that analogue is always better than digital; and why so often analogue is simply equated to good and digital simply equated to bad.

However adding a 555PS to a 272 gives a much more refined sound to the system:  Vocal readability is considerably improved, orchestra timbres are better differentiated and the brain can much more easily follow multiple counterpointed themes at the same time whilst still keeping the work integrated as a whole.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Not really    ... there are not really square waves with sampled values... there are a series of finite values for periods of time, but thinking of it as a square wave is simply a digital abstraction to help conceptual understanding ... however sampling theory says these values need  to be interpreted as the DAC as values at  infinitely small points of time separated by precise time periods... it uses a concept of the Dirac distribution function... and then this can be reconstructed using the sinc function and other filtering functions as necessary to create an analogue continuum. The timing and time interval between these pulses becomes critical and this is what we refer to as the DAC clock...  deviation in this clock is what we can refer to as jitter.

The limit of my conceptual understanding is a game of join-the-dots!

Interestingly our ears send information to out our brain using a form of digital transmission - the 'spike train' of 'activation potentials'.  The voltage transition in a neuron is from a resting potential of -70mV to an activation potential of +40mV.

I don't hear anyone complaining about this digital transmission! 

ChrisSU posted:

The limit of my conceptual understanding is a game of join-the-dots!

As good as my ability to draw then! 

ChrisSU posted:

Allante93 posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Clive B posted:

 

 

 

{"That’s the big difference between analog and digital waves. Analog waves are smooth and continuous, digital waves are stepping, square, and discrete."}

I had, perhaps naively, assumed that the job of a DAC was to make these square waves nice and round again before they get anywhere near your ears!!

That's exactly where I was Chris, didn't even consider dusting off the Old Calculus Book!

But some things, you never forget, like area under the curve! Easy to figure out the area of regular objects, but what about irregular objects. That's when my irregular Brain kicked in Calculus mode. 

But in any event, the bracket information was googled, Difference between analog & digital curves!

Lo and behold, the same graphs from my Calculus Books popped up!  That's when I recalled the smaller the rectangles got, the less area was being disregarded like little triangles.

But to your point Chris, that's when we were  connecting  the dots in class. In this age of quantum mechanics we now have improved on the digital sound, that which was thin and tin sounding, 40 years ago, has reached the level of an CD 555!  

I will never forget, my first Denon CD player,  had to take it back immediately!  Why, because it didn't sound like my Thorens turntable. However, I did get a Meridian CD player and it sounded more like my turntable.

That's all, a connecting of the dots, that's exactly the way I viewed it Chris!

Over and out!

Enjoy your Music!

Allante93!

PS. Speaking of the age of quantum mechanics, this voice activated texting is something else excuse the errors! LOL.... 

Posted by Simon:

{PS Allante93 I think you are mixing calculus and sample theory somewhat... integrals are continuous (analogue) functions, sample theory uses discrete functions.(  ∫ vs ∑ )}

Yes Simon, you were correct, I was using the Summation symbol, to estimate the area, I think! LOL.... 

But when it's all said and done, The Archaic CDP, ain't Bad!

I forget now, but a wise young man brought it to my attention, A New Paradigm!

The Analogue TT, The Digital CDP, And Digital Streaming, depending on Music & Mood!

Allante93!

PS:

General principle of quantum mechanics...

If it seems right intuitively... then it's nothing like that.

Allante93 posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Allante93 posted:

 

{"That’s the big difference between analog and digital waves. Analog waves are smooth and continuous, digital waves are stepping, square, and discrete."}

I had, perhaps naively, assumed that the job of a DAC was to make these square waves nice and round again before they get anywhere near your ears!!

That's exactly where I was Chris, didn't even consider dusting off the Old Calculus Book!

But some things, you never forget, like area under the curve! Easy to figure out the area of regular objects, but what about irregular objects. That's when my irregular Brain kicked in Calculus mode. 

But in any event, the bracket information was googled, Difference between analog & digital curves!

Lo and behold, the same graphs from my Calculus Books popped up!  That's when I recalled the smaller the rectangles got, the less area was being disregarded like little triangles.

But to your point Chris, that's when we were  connecting  the dots in class. In this age of quantum mechanics we now have improved on the digital sound, that which was thin and tin sounding, 40 years ago, has reached the level of an CD 555!  

I will never forget, my first Denon CD player,  had to take it back immediately!  Why, because it didn't sound like my Thorens turntable. However, I did get a Meridian CD player and it sounded more like my turntable.

That's all, a connecting of the dots, that's exactly the way I viewed it Chris!

I think I've probably forgotten all the calculus I ever learnt. All you need is loads and loads of dots, really close together, so close that even Huge can join them up neatly. Oh yes, and a really good ruler, so you can get the spacing on the x axis nice and even. 

ChrisSU posted:

Allante93 posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Allante93 posted:

 

{"That’s the big difference between analog and digital waves. Analog waves are smooth and continuous, digital waves are stepping, square, and discrete."}

I had, perhaps naively, assumed that the job of a DAC was to make these square waves nice and round again before they get anywhere near your ears!!

That's exactly where I was Chris, didn't even consider dusting off the Old Calculus Book!

But some things, you never forget, like area under the curve! Easy to figure out the area of regular objects, but what about irregular objects. That's when my irregular Brain kicked in Calculus mode. 

But in any event, the bracket information was googled, Difference between analog & digital curves!

Lo and behold, the same graphs from my Calculus Books popped up!  That's when I recalled the smaller the rectangles got, the less area was being disregarded like little triangles.

But to your point Chris, that's when we were  connecting  the dots in class. In this age of quantum mechanics we now have improved on the digital sound, that which was thin and tin sounding, 40 years ago, has reached the level of an CD 555!  

I will never forget, my first Denon CD player,  had to take it back immediately!  Why, because it didn't sound like my Thorens turntable. However, I did get a Meridian CD player and it sounded more like my turntable.

That's all, a connecting of the dots, that's exactly the way I viewed it Chris!

I think I've probably forgotten all the calculus I ever learnt. All you need is loads and loads of dots, really close together, so close that even Huge can join them up neatly. Oh yes, and a really good ruler, so you can get the spacing on the x axis nice and even. 

Yes, but you would need a infinitely small ruler, an in finitely sharp pencil and a veeeerrry keen eye. 

Guilty of topic creep me thinks.

Don't forget that the rule needs to be marked with infinitely small divisions (and you probably still need to be able to see them).

nigelb posted:

Yes, but you would need a infinitely small ruler, an in finitely sharp pencil and a veeeerrry keen eye. 

Guilty of topic creep me thinks.

But only by a quantum leap! (which, by definition, can't actually be infinitely small)

I was assuming I could cheat and use a virtual ruler 

Maybe, but it's virtually impossible! 

Huge posted:

Don't forget that the rule needs to be marked with infinitely small divisions (and you probably still need to be able to see them).

Yes, joining the dots in the conventional way is not looking like a practical solution, let alone then trying to work out the area under this hand-drawn graph. 

Silly idea when you think it through!

Surely there is a better way. Maybe some mathematical approach you get introduced to at A level that very few understand or care about but do it anyway to get their A level Maths, perhaps?

We better be careful, and stay on topic!

The Padded Cell!

Allante93!

PS. We should be safe, we aren't talking $$$!