View Full Version : Digital sound is not only about ones and zeros
magiccarpetride
25-08-2011, 17:20
The issue with digital anything is that it can be viewed both as a blueprint and as a final product. Unlike in non-virtual world, where even the least educated person has no trouble distinguishing between a blueprint of a chair and a finished, physical chair one can sit on, in the world of digital that distinction is not that obvious to the uneducated.
When musical performance gets recorded, the information captured on tape can be converted to a digital blueprint. This digital blueprint can then serve as a recipe that will guide the machinery on how to produce the final product -- in this case, the final product would be the weak electrical current that will be fed into a DAC. However, the digital blueprint itself can never be listened to; it can only be regarded similar to how we regard a recipe -- i.e. a piece of paper sitting in a drawer, ready to be pulled out and used when preparing a meal. But one cannot satisfy one's hunger by eating that piece of paper.
In that regard, we see that indeed it all boils down to ones and zeros. This 'recipe', or music blueprint can be copied indefinitely and at will, and each subsequent copy is guaranteed to remain 100% identical to the original blueprint.
However, what is NOT guaranteed is that each time this recipe is used to prepare a meal, that each meal will taste identical to the previous meal made from the identical recipe. Or, if we stay with the blueprint analogy, two different shops can use the same blueprint to build a chair, but these chairs will NOT end up being identical.
In the above case, we see that it's not only about ones and zeros, and that the final product wildly varies depending on many other factors and conditions.
Also, digital works in the analogue domain. ;)
Some of my best new modern vinyl sounds better if its been " Digitally remastered from the original analogue tapes". How do you explain that?
And yes , in some cases ive compared the cd to the vinyl and the vinyl is better:scratch:
The Vinyl Adventure
25-08-2011, 18:25
Better tt than cd player Colin ;)
magiccarpetride
25-08-2011, 18:29
Also, digital works in the analogue domain. ;)
Good point.
Better tt than cd player Colin ;)
Makes sense Hamish.
The issue with digital anything is that it can be viewed both as a blueprint and as a final product. Unlike in non-virtual world, where even the least educated person has no trouble distinguishing between a blueprint of a chair and a finished, physical chair one can sit on, in the world of digital that distinction is not that obvious to the uneducated.
When musical performance gets recorded, the information captured on tape can be converted to a digital blueprint. This digital blueprint can then serve as a recipe that will guide the machinery on how to produce the final product -- in this case, the final product would be the weak electrical current that will be fed into a DAC. However, the digital blueprint itself can never be listened to; it can only be regarded similar to how we regard a recipe -- i.e. a piece of paper sitting in a drawer, ready to be pulled out and used when preparing a meal. But one cannot satisfy one's hunger by eating that piece of paper.
In that regard, we see that indeed it all boils down to ones and zeros. This 'recipe', or music blueprint can be copied indefinitely and at will, and each subsequent copy is guaranteed to remain 100% identical to the original blueprint.
However, what is NOT guaranteed is that each time this recipe is used to prepare a meal, that each meal will taste identical to the previous meal made from the identical recipe. Or, if we stay with the blueprint analogy, two different shops can use the same blueprint to build a chair, but these chairs will NOT end up being identical.
In the above case, we see that it's not only about ones and zeros, and that the final product wildly varies depending on many other factors and conditions.
Only an issue in your mind Alex, you have invented a possible problem for some people and tried to make it a universal truth.
magiccarpetride
25-08-2011, 20:10
Only an issue in your mind Alex, you have invented a possible problem for some people and tried to make it a universal truth.
I could agree more, but I won't.
With modern vinyl I often have the other issue it usually sounds worse than the CD version, but get vinyl sounding right and the sound iis awesome
Know what you mean. New LOW album on vinyl. Full of distortion. Reissue DOORS albums on Rhino, sublime.
Get a CD right and it's pretty awsome too :)
magiccarpetride
25-08-2011, 21:36
Get a CD right and it's pretty awsome too :)
Still, nothing beats live performance, no? (I think we've made a full circle now)
Regardless of the medium if the engineers cant be arsed youre going to get a shit recording.
The issue with digital anything is that it can be viewed both as a blueprint and as a final product. Unlike in non-virtual world, where even the least educated person has no trouble distinguishing between a blueprint of a chair and a finished, physical chair one can sit on, in the world of digital that distinction is not that obvious to the uneducated.
When musical performance gets recorded, the information captured on tape can be converted to a digital blueprint. This digital blueprint can then serve as a recipe that will guide the machinery on how to produce the final product -- in this case, the final product would be the weak electrical current that will be fed into a DAC. However, the digital blueprint itself can never be listened to; it can only be regarded similar to how we regard a recipe -- i.e. a piece of paper sitting in a drawer, ready to be pulled out and used when preparing a meal. But one cannot satisfy one's hunger by eating that piece of paper.
In that regard, we see that indeed it all boils down to ones and zeros. This 'recipe', or music blueprint can be copied indefinitely and at will, and each subsequent copy is guaranteed to remain 100% identical to the original blueprint.
However, what is NOT guaranteed is that each time this recipe is used to prepare a meal, that each meal will taste identical to the previous meal made from the identical recipe. Or, if we stay with the blueprint analogy, two different shops can use the same blueprint to build a chair, but these chairs will NOT end up being identical.
In the above case, we see that it's not only about ones and zeros, and that the final product wildly varies depending on many other factors and conditions.
I really have the feeling that your "recipe" analogy is there to describe the recording process in general, and not so much the digital copy of it... :scratch:
Moreover, DSD digital is quite different from PCM.
In my opinion, whatever the archiving media used (be it digital or analog) the reproduction problems remain complex, and, the reproduction technology used (be it digital or analog) does not guarantee an easier way to a more "faithful" result.
If your aim was to demystify "Perfect Sound Forever", i agree with it. Otherwise, I must have missed the main point, probably. ;)
Don't agree. The digital copy should remain bit perfect which means you should be able to read it a million times and it should be correct and identical every time. Think of the digital copy not as a recipie for making a pie. Think of the digital copy as an instruction set for a CNC machine. You feed the instructions to the machine and that machine will produce the same item a million times identically.
Where 99% of the deviation in playing digital music comes from is converting the digital to analogue. The DAC section. This is where the problem is. Every DAC does it slightly differently, and every DAC sounds slightly different (for better or worse).
Your Recipie for a nice Pie analogy only fits the DAC process. It does not apply to the digital "ones and zeros" process.
In my oppinion of course :)
Butuz
Don't agree. The digital copy should remain bit perfect which means you should be able to read it a million times and it should be correct and identical every time.
This is a myth, afaik. ;) Time is as destructive to digital media as to analog.
What changes, is that the destruction is... different. :eyebrows:
This is a myth, afaik. ;) Time is as destructive to digital media as to analog.
What changes, is that the destruction is... different. :eyebrows:
Ah :D you're on to a differnt ball game now as we're talking about how robust certain media is. How robust is a hard drive, or a CD, or magnetic tape?
That's a different question. I'd say that for most people they move media around sufficently between hard drives for example to avoid dataloss due to media degradation.
If your hard drive has no bad sectors you should not be experiencing data loss. Most people change hard drives every few years so that problem shouldn't really exist. CD's on the other hand are a different ball game particularly writable / re-writable ones.
I still stand by my statement :)
Butuz
I still stand by my statement :)
Which one ? The one stating that "information can be read a million times and remain unchanged" ? :eyebrows:
I propose you to try to extract bit-perfect from a CD that's 15-years old and see where the truth is. I tried several times (on brand new CDs, still under cellophan), and... it can be perfect.... sometimes ! :lol:
Or try a hard disk that is fifteen years old (even if it was never used in-between).
Butuz, I think you conceptualize digital a bit too much. ;)
There is no "digital copy that remains bit-perfect" in real life, without specific care, like by copying and archiving regularly.
Just like any analog media : there is no "analog copy that remains perfect" without specific care.
So ? :scratch:
I think this thread is getting a touch too anal in all honesty. DACs is DACs and it's the bodging performed by audiophool orientated engineers that makes the difference IMO.
My current take on things - please correct me Stan and other DAC "people."
Good computer soundcard with more than adequate isolation - £50
A stock DAC made with good commercial bits - £100 approx.
Same thing tweaked a bit (with headphone driving amp as well ;)) £200
Above in better box online - £350
As above, supplied in a better box and maybe containing beefier power supply and regulation/filtering? and retailed through a dealer chain £500 approx
Above, dealer supplied but with deluxe box and fancy display - £1,000
Above, Top End dealer, limited production, boutique bits and very expensive casework, probably bodged to hell away from true neutrality, but hey, it "sounds good," - several £K
As I understand things to be nowadays, apparently many DAC chips have the audio outs in them already, only the digital filter being external I believe (HELP STAN!!!). The Sabre DAC I believe to be primarily an AV one (so I reckon it has to be pretty good as standard) and if my instinct is correct, it would barely be ticking over for audio-only use.
No, but you can record something on a CDR, and every year make a new copy of it and throw the older one away. After 15 years of this the one you have in your hands will be a bit perfect copy of the one you started with 15 years ago. For the next 10 years you may shift to using a blue ray disk to ensure the player is still available, but still bit perfect is possible.
If I wanted to archive a music recording, I would not start with a red book CD, I would use a WAV file on a IEC13346 disk, red book is not designed to ensure bit perfect, but the data filesystem formats is.
Archiving digital information is a solved problem to the computer industry, but it involves more than just storing your QIC-40 tape in a safe and forgetting about it.
Alex
Apart from my gut instinct reaction to your post last night I have disected you thoughts and the faulty assumptions you have made in coming to the conclusions you have.
The issue with digital anything is that it can be viewed both as a blueprint and as a final product. Unlike in non-virtual world, where even the least educated person has no trouble distinguishing between a blueprint of a chair and a finished, physical chair one can sit on, in the world of digital that distinction is not that obvious to the uneducated.
Alex who apart from you is making this issue assertion about blue prints and final product? I have not seen that model of thinking used before and from your posts here I note you are not an authority on matters digitial either by qualification or long standing experience. Neither am I but perhaps that is how I recognise you aren't
How did you come to this notion was it in a flash of inspiration or long chewed up ideas?
Can you give practical examples of blueprints?
When musical performance gets recorded, the information captured on tape can be converted to a digital blueprint.
You say CAN be converted how often you think recordings are converted to these digital blueprints you assert.
How does a digital blueprint differ from the original recording to tape or more likely hard-disk? mBoth are 100% copies as you say later.
As I suggest digital blueprints do not exist, kindly indicate what one looks like, if I was looking at one what would I see. I can see a tape or hard disk and directory structure. I can read what is on a tape or hard disk with suitable equipment, what could one read/verify your digital blueprints with?
This digital blueprint can then serve as a recipe that will guide the machinery on how to produce the final product -- in this case, the final product would be the weak electrical current that will be fed into a DAC.
However, the digital blueprint itself can never be listened to; it can only be regarded similar to how we regard a recipe -- i.e. a piece of paper sitting in a drawer, ready to be pulled out and used when preparing a meal. But one cannot satisfy one's hunger by eating that piece of paper.
Ever heard of mixing your metaphors?
In that regard, we see that indeed it all boils down to ones and zeros. This 'recipe', or music blueprint can be copied indefinitely and at will, and each subsequent copy is guaranteed to remain 100% identical to the original blueprint.
However, what is NOT guaranteed is that each time this recipe is used to prepare a meal, that each meal will taste identical to the previous meal made from the identical recipe. Or, if we stay with the blueprint analogy, two different shops can use the same blueprint to build a chair, but these chairs will NOT end up being identical.
So we have digital recording, blueprint or recipe all 100% faithful. If you think analogies then somehow diiferences are introduced, if you think source then no problem.
I think you have fallen foul of ascribing the characteristics of the analogy to the original that the analogy was made to. because food differs digital sound will do.
A meal is made from differently sourced ingredients, prepared by cooks according to their interpretation. They therefore differ because they are a human production task. There is no equivalent in taking a digital recording and producing a CD or file for distribution. It is a copy as you yourself said a 100% copy.
In the above case, we see that it's not only about ones and zeros, and that the final product wildly varies depending on many other factors and conditions.
There is only wild variation in food and chair production from blueprints the analogy, with digital sound, no analogy, unless someone deliberately chooses to alter the recording, pre DAC or CD it is a facimile, Food and chairs introduce the human factor/interpretations.
If I have missed something apart from your faulty use of analogy please put me straight. A digital recording isn't used as a blue print/recipe, it is a digital recording that produces identical copies unless interfered with.
Perhaps you can cite some practical examples of where your variation/loss theory would apply.
Above, dealer supplied but with deluxe box and fancy display - £1,000
Above, Top End dealer, limited production, boutique bits and very expensive casework, probably bodged to hell away from true neutrality, but hey, it "sounds good," - several £K
Dave,you make the assumption that limited production and heavy research are two different things, here. ;)
You also make the assumption that internal parts all cost the same, whatever the quality of the parts and/or the implementation.... :cool:
If I follow your reasoning : My Denon's internal dacs cost 10$ (research and production included), so, I can conclude taht all dacs above the -say- £40 price are ... what ? Expensive casework and boutique bits ? Well, I doubt.
May I sort-of agree to disagree here?
DAC chips these days do most of it for you I think and all the designer of the finished product can reasonably do is tinker around with the power supplies and filter/output stage. I dare say the Denon, if it's a multi-channel one, will have had most of the cost gone into casework and costed over a limited lifespan, since the next generation of chips will be but months away. If it's an expensive two-channel DAC, then it's profit all the way - honestly. Don't let these people tell you that it costs hundreds of thousands to design audio equipment. It doesn't, unless it's a very small scale manufacturer (Naim is a minnow in the wide scheme of things in all honesty) trying to have really good casework made (the aforementioned naim cases are superbly done these days), the DAC chip is a few quid - honestly - and passive components are twenty a penny if bought on a gondola/drum, as most are these days for production.
I heard the truly wonderful little Rega Brio-R amp yesterday. The case is full of transformer and everything else is shoehorned carefully round it, although I reserve judgement on the dome-head bolts holding the top on. The Rega DAC is built the same way too and just totally disappears from the audio proceedings in use, not ONCE drawing attention to itself. BOTH can be bought for well under a grand total. "We" already know also what a Gatorised Caiman can do for even less and again it's the casework that IMO is the only thing that could reasonably be tarted up - that and maybe incorporating the power supply inside, giving possibly more scope to tweak the supplies to individual parts of the circuit. I'd love to say that a DCS, Chord or similar expensive creation would blow it away, but I really do doubt it, not these days, since many of the things addressed in sooper-dooper DAC's are almost certainly way below audibility, I suspect largely academic interest only and done for "mine's better than yours," just like the THD measurements were used in the mid 70's before the likes of Linn and Naim came along and brought about a re-appraisal of exactly what it was we were supposed to be listening to - the MUSIC!!! :ner:
Sorry to go on and possibly with confused thinking here. There is so much reviewed in the likes of HiFi News that sells for £5K, yet inside has a very few tenners worth of bits, the total cost made up of very expensive casework and greed...
P.S. I justify the above by stating that despite my slightly tongue-in-cheek comments to Simon B before I bought his QED Opto-Digit and Positron, I've been very surprised just how good this ancient Bitstream thing is. The circuit was built exactly to the Philips build-notes and all that was done was the Positron supply, which I believe has twin filtering/regulation on both positive and negative lines to make it "special." The "Twin Supply" mod I'm considering could easily be done in one box and probably with a larger? transformer with two secondaries, all the regulatiuon etc being done on a small slave board alongside.....
Well, lets have another example :
How much to you think this dac should cost (all discrete parts) :
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTX08LGNzRLzypwnyC6GJr-N0bFiqnJkSbGkC3N0aLkxgyEVgtmEA
The size is a full-size component (that is 4 times the Caiman).
Now, let's say that someone has to design it, produce it and sell 1000 pieces of it for 4 years.
How much should it cost ?
Or, are you trying to explain to me that everything should be made like my Squeezebox, which, for £200 has a dac, two network connections, a color touch display, a remote, a network streamer, a processor and plenty of other things in just a few integrated components ? :scratch:
Edit: What I mean here, is that the Rega dac, compared to my Squeezebox internal dac, costs 10 times more for no reason, exactly for the same reasons that you complain about the £££ dacs in a beautiful case, should I treat Rega as thieves ... ? Or do you seriously consider the Rega dac is better engineered than the Squeezebox dac ? ;)
magiccarpetride
26-08-2011, 16:37
I really have the feeling that your "recipe" analogy is there to describe the recording process in general, and not so much the digital copy of it... :scratch:
No, I was only focusing on the digital copy -- the copy that consists of nothing but a series of ones and zeros stored somewhere on the auxiliary medium.
Moreover, DSD digital is quite different from PCM.
Agreed, and good point, and for the purposes of my discussion I'd leave DSD out of consideration.
In my opinion, whatever the archiving media used (be it digital or analog) the reproduction problems remain complex, and, the reproduction technology used (be it digital or analog) does not guarantee an easier way to a more "faithful" result.
No objection there. I was strictly narrowing my attention to what happens between the stages when a 'bit perfect' blueprint of the music (i.e. the collection of ones and zeros stored on disk) gets read, transferred via ethernet cable into the Touch, and then from there streamed via spdif into an outboard DAC. My analysis stops at the point BEFORE the stream hits the DAC, nay, BEFORE it hits the spdif output.
Of course, once the signal enters the DAC, and then gets processed there and then gets forwarded to the preamp, power amp, and finally down to the speakers, all hell may break loose (and I'm not even dragging in the issue with cabling). But I'm not discussing that part.
If your aim was to demystify "Perfect Sound Forever", i agree with it. Otherwise, I must have missed the main point, probably. ;)
Yes, 'perfect sound forever' is bullshit, on that we all fully agree.
Yes, 'perfect sound forever' is bullshit, on that we all fully agree.
Why? Are you saying a properly archived digital file with a corresponding MD5 hash value to ensure it's integrity might not sound the same in 15 years time, cos' if you are that's total rubbish.
magiccarpetride
26-08-2011, 16:54
Don't agree. The digital copy should remain bit perfect which means you should be able to read it a million times and it should be correct and identical every time. Think of the digital copy not as a recipie for making a pie. Think of the digital copy as an instruction set for a CNC machine. You feed the instructions to the machine and that machine will produce the same item a million times identically.
I agree with you that a digital artifact (i.e. the music blueprint in the form of a file that resides somewhere on the disk) should remain bit perfect. In other words, you should be able to read it million times and produce a copy that is 100% identical with the original. I've never contested that, as it is the starting point of my analysis.
This is similar to how you may hire an architect to make you a blueprint for your summer house. Once he's done, he is not going to give you the original blueprint, but a COPY of that blueprint. However, this copy is pretty much the same as the original, meaning you can safely take it to the contractors and they will build you a house off the copy of the original blueprint.
My point is this: if you give the same copy of a blueprint to five different crews, you'll get five different houses, not five identical houses. Same applies to digital transports -- you can feed identical FLAC file into five different digital transports, while everything else in your environment remains the same, you'll be hearing five different renditions of that same FLAC.
Where 99% of the deviation in playing digital music comes from is converting the digital to analogue. The DAC section. This is where the problem is. Every DAC does it slightly differently, and every DAC sounds slightly different (for better or worse).
I agree that DACs play important role, but I disagree with your lopsided over-evaluation -- DACs are not contributing 99% of the deviation. I don't know what the percentages are, but they certainly are not 99%.
No objection there. I was strictly narrowing my attention to what happens between the stages when a 'bit perfect' blueprint of the music (i.e. the collection of ones and zeros stored on disk) gets read, transferred via ethernet cable into the Touch, and then from there streamed via spdif into an outboard DAC. My analysis stops at the point BEFORE the stream hits the DAC, nay, BEFORE it hits the spdif output.
Well up to that point I see no reason wht bit perfect can't be attained. It may not be so in reality at the moment, but the only reason I can see for that is crap software in the chain.
I had a thought the other week, that it should be possible to use a spdiff reciever and FPGA to make up a device that calculates and displays a checksum on a incoming audio stream. It would then be possible to play a audio file into it and see if what came out the spdiff reciever was actually the same as what started life on the hard disk.
If I could find a way of inserting extra hours into the day I would have a play with that idea.
I guess you could do the same with a sound card and PC that had a spdiff input.
you can feed identical FLAC file into five different digital transports, while everything else in your environment remains the same, you'll be hearing five different renditions of that same FLAC.
Well, if by hearing you mean the data that is sent to that DAC, then I would say at least 4 of those transports are broken.
Well, if by hearing you mean the data that is sent to that DAC, then I would say at least 4 of those transports are broken.
Well I get what you mean, but let's make a test :
- We take ONE CD player and feed it with the same CD.
- We count the C1 errors (lets stick on the simplest error, for the example).
If we read the CD 10 times, we will get 10 different C1 error count totals.
So ? Is the CD player broken ?:scratch:
(the answer is no, btw :eyebrows:)
If we make the test with 10 different players, we get 100 different totals....
On the other hand, in the real-world digital transport,there is a difference between "data sent by transport" and "data processed by dac". ;)
Well, lets have another example :
How much to you think this dac should cost (all discrete parts) :
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTX08LGNzRLzypwnyC6GJr-N0bFiqnJkSbGkC3N0aLkxgyEVgtmEA
The size is a full-size component (that is 4 times the Caiman).
Now, let's say that someone has to design it, produce it and sell 1000 pieces of it for 4 years.
How much should it cost ?
Or, are you trying to explain to me that everything should be made like my Squeezebox, which, for £200 has a dac, two network connections, a color touch display, a remote, a network streamer, a processor and plenty of other things in just a few integrated components ? :scratch:
Edit: What I mean here, is that the Rega dac, compared to my Squeezebox internal dac, costs 10 times more for no reason, exactly for the same reasons that you complain about the £££ dacs in a beautiful case, should I treat Rega as thieves ... ? Or do you seriously consider the Rega dac is better engineered than the Squeezebox dac ? ;)
Firstly, you obviously regard the pictured Denon DAC as better than the Squeezebox. Am I correct in this? I'd say that after the large and expensive? case, the two transformers would be the next most expensive bits - around £25 tops to Denon in the quantity they bought (I don't know the VA rating of them)? Mass produced by robots (mostly), the circuit board would only be a few quid to buy I'm sure - depends on the cost of the DAC bits, but the caps and the rest are pennies if bought in the thousands (and a goof few tens of pennies if we buy them from a third-party re-seller such as CPC, farnell or RSWWW :)
Secondly, the Squeezebox is made in the far east for peanuts I reckon, as an awful lot of gear is (mini-active with 5" bass units for £60 the pair of you buy enough, say, 500-1000 pairs at a time which retail for £300 or £400 - I had a link to a far eastern catalogue at one time, I'll see if I can fish it out). Unless I'm very mistaken, the Rega DAC is made in the UK. I believe the main board will mostly be robot made locally and of course there's a dealer margin involved. maybe not as much as in other consumer goodies, but still rather more than other computer-based commodities I think.
The electronics field has changed out of all recognition in recent decades I feel, yet the HiFi scene is still full of small scale bodgers who charge a fortune for their wares, the cost being the bling casework and perceived cachet/status, rather than real costs of research or manufacturing. The UK Top End business is full of 'em - IMO obviously...
P.S. My comments above don't include bespoke and custom projects hand-made in small quantities and yes, the Rega DAC IS expensive, but not obscenely so IMO.
Chippy_boy
26-08-2011, 17:33
Don't agree. The digital copy should remain bit perfect which means you should be able to read it a million times and it should be correct and identical every time. Think of the digital copy not as a recipie for making a pie. Think of the digital copy as an instruction set for a CNC machine. You feed the instructions to the machine and that machine will produce the same item a million times identically.
Where 99% of the deviation in playing digital music comes from is converting the digital to analogue. The DAC section. This is where the problem is. Every DAC does it slightly differently, and every DAC sounds slightly different (for better or worse).
Your Recipie for a nice Pie analogy only fits the DAC process. It does not apply to the digital "ones and zeros" process.
In my oppinion of course :)
Butuz
Agree with all of the above. I think you have it about right. Everything is perfect with digital if only we had digital ears. But unfortunately we don't so somewhere along the line those infinitely reproduceable 1's and 0's have to be converted to volts and amps and magnetic fields and then movement of cones and moving air. There's LOTS of scope for doing that well, or not so well. Even if the transposition of digital to analogue is done well by the DAC chips, there's the small matter of producing enough drive in the OP amps, without adding distortion or messing with the phase angles etc.
Well I get what you mean, but let's make a test :
- We take ONE CD player and feed it with the same CD.
- We count the C1 errors (lets stick on the simplest error, for the example).
If we read the CD 10 times, we will get 10 different C1 error count totals.
So ? Is the CD player broken ?:scratch:
(the answer is no, btw :eyebrows:)
If we make the test with 10 different players, we get 100 different totals....
On the other hand, in the real-world digital transport,there is a difference between "data sent by transport" and "data processed by dac". ;)
Yes, but as long as the errors are corrected by the transport the data that leaves the transport will be identical.
But thats red book. I was responding to the post that started with "you can feed identical FLAC file"
But thats red book. I was responding to the post that started with "you can feed identical FLAC file"
Ok, my bad. :cool:
Firstly, you obviously regard the pictured Denon DAC as better than the Squeezebox. Am I correct in this? I'd say that after the large and expensive? case, the two transformers would be the next most expensive bits - around £25 tops to Denon in the quantity they bought (I don't know the VA rating of them)? Mass produced by robots (mostly), the circuit board would only be a few quid to buy I'm sure - depends on the cost of the DAC bits, but the caps and the rest are pennies if bought in the thousands (and a goof few tens of pennies if we buy them from a third-party re-seller such as CPC, farnell or RSWWW :)
Secondly, the Squeezebox is made in the far east for peanuts I reckon, as an awful lot of gear is (mini-active with 5" bass units for £60 the pair of you buy enough, say, 500-1000 pairs at a time which retail for £300 or £400 - I had a link to a far eastern catalogue at one time, I'll see if I can fish it out). Unless I'm very mistaken, the Rega DAC is made in the UK. I believe the main board will mostly be robot made locally and of course there's a dealer margin involved. maybe not as much as in other consumer goodies, but still rather more than other computer-based commodities I think.
The electronics field has changed out of all recognition in recent decades I feel, yet the HiFi scene is still full of small scale bodgers who charge a fortune for their wares, the cost being the bling casework and perceived cachet/status, rather than real costs of research or manufacturing. The UK Top End business is full of 'em - IMO obviously...
P.S. My comments above don't include bespoke and custom projects hand-made in small quantities and yes, the Rega DAC IS expensive, but not obscenely so IMO.
Sorry Dave, I didn't mean my photo as a kind of test, I'm honestly sorry if I mixed you up.
The photo is the Northstar dac, the board is designed by a couple of people, it's a small firm, they design everything from top to bottom (except the three main chips) and they try to make a living. Perhaps the parts are not expensive per se (although top end in their domain), but the design and the board in so few pieces is exensive, you understand what I mean ?
These guys are trying to make a living while succesfully designing high-level dacs, but they can make only one every 5-6 years or so. And they can sell only a few tens.
The dac is about £1200 and I really think is bloody cheap (considering the above), cheaper than a lot of other "craps" in the market.
In other words, I understand you may be upset about some (perhaps, a lot) of pieces on sale out there, I'm simply statiting that not everything is about an expensive case and boutique bits. ;)
I'm sure if Rega could sell for 10000 pieces, the price would be different. ;)
Unless I'm very mistaken, the Rega DAC is made in the UK.
Yes it is Dave, "Designed and made in England"
.... and yes, the Rega DAC IS expensive, but not obscenely so IMO.
As to it's cost, it may be around the £500 mark, but it's worth that for sure IMO. I'm a very happy owner ;)
I liek these. http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38c90e6e6e8b8db4de7c48c6ef479827e00e8e5f9b5f887851 ab5ad542e197fa2g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=819cxvvt7c60a6j&thumb=5)
http://www.analogueseduction.net/product/HRT_Music_Streamer_II_USB_DAC_HRT-MS
Dey don’t hav all dem nobs an stuff fer astart an dey sound awesome. U can pick one up fer under one hundred and fifty quid an even all them golden eared reviewrs recon they is awesome. Prolly din’t give dem the marks wot they deserve coz they got no fancy case anat, don’t look so clever in with all the bling an controls.
Nuver thing is, u don’t pay fer stuff u don’t need, like its only got one set of socets at eiver end an that gotta make it better rite, less inteferance and cheeper. My mates say its pants coz it don’t look cool but I fink they sound good specially with that asychoinous bit wot cost mega bucks to get rite.
Corse, If I put it in a flashy box an then took it round my mates an said have a liten to this new Dac they would go WOW, that’s feckin brilliant an I’ll get one.
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/82bf1a4b8569f9cb079e692c4c5cc8c906e104ddca5c34be05 f18588726fba112g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=yb8t381837fwhyb&thumb=5)
I agree with Dave, lodsa overpriced crap out there an they all sound bout the same anyway. Best job is to make yer own an then u can spend as much as you want makin them look good an still have a few quid left. http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/881865f09eb214199cf819de58edbd1bc84989f0d98c01dc0c b231ab94fba87a2g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=7gg8h7qgo76zq25&thumb=5) http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/881865f09eb214199cf819de58edbd1bc84989f0d98c01dc0c b231ab94fba87a2g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=7gg8h7qgo76zq25&thumb=5) http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/881865f09eb214199cf819de58edbd1bc84989f0d98c01dc0c b231ab94fba87a2g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=7gg8h7qgo76zq25&thumb=5)
Sorry Dave, I didn't mean my photo as a kind of test, I'm honestly sorry if I mixed you up.
The photo is the Northstar dac, the board is designed by a couple of people, it's a small firm, they design everything from top to bottom (except the three main chips) and they try to make a living. Perhaps the parts are not expensive per se (although top end in their domain), but the design and the board in so few pieces is exensive, you understand what I mean ?
These guys are trying to make a living while succesfully designing high-level dacs, but they can make only one every 5-6 years or so. And they can sell only a few tens.
The dac is about £1200 and I really think is bloody cheap (considering the above), cheaper than a lot of other "craps" in the market.
In other words, I understand you may be upset about some (perhaps, a lot) of pieces on sale out there, I'm simply statiting that not everything is about an expensive case and boutique bits. ;)
I'm sure if Rega could sell for 10000 pieces, the price would be different. ;)
Ok, no probs. if this DAC comes from a dealer network, then the trade costs would be several hundred. I doubt that casework would cost much less than £50 and, say, a hundred for the basic bits (more if there are carefully selected "boutique" bits there. Add the other hidden costs and it's a fair living for them I suspect. My "bad" is looking at Stan's products and also the newly discovered (by me) Shiite models, which look very good and cleverly conceived casewise and all for £350 or so in the UK.
We're going way off topic here. Sorry all.
magiccarpetride
26-08-2011, 20:56
Why? Are you saying a properly archived digital file with a corresponding MD5 hash value to ensure it's integrity might not sound the same in 15 years time, cos' if you are that's total rubbish.
Digital file is not sound.
Stratmangler
26-08-2011, 21:02
Digital file is not sound.
Neither is an LP record....
magiccarpetride
26-08-2011, 21:55
Neither is an LP record....
So what IS sound then?
So what IS sound then?
Why don't you tell us?
magiccarpetride
27-08-2011, 00:02
Why don't you tell us?
If I told you I would have to kill you.
If I told you I would have to kill you.
:lol::lol::lol::lolsign:
So what IS sound then?
I am sure I've once encountered a mp3 of it on the internet.
Chippy_boy
27-08-2011, 06:39
I've heard it said that sound doesn't exist. I can understand that point of view, but I disagree slightly. I would say that sound does exist (compressional wave, typically in air), but certainly "music" does not exist. It is a pure figment of our imagination conjured up in the cerebral cortex and dependent on our emotions and general state if mind. Hence it being quite difficult for a hifi to trick us into thinking it's the real thing.
Humans don't exist, they are just a bunch of living cells.
It is just an acid secretion of these cells that trick us into conceiving we ever exist ! :lolsign:
Chippy_boy
27-08-2011, 09:09
Humans don't exist, they are just a bunch of living cells.
It is just an acid secretion of these cells that trick us into conceiving we ever exist ! :lolsign:
I think therefore I am ;-)
I think therefore I am ;-)
Hehe :)
In an attempt to come back slightly on-topic, I will try to express something that bothers me about digital (in general, not just about music in particular):
So... I have a photo of me as a five-year old kid standing there in my entrance hall. It's an old photo, as you may imagine, a 50-year-old one. In perfect condition. And I have the negatives. Good.
Now, I have some old computers and hard disks in another room. When I say "old", I mean... just fifteen years old. Nothing to do with the photo.
I tried to plug the other day, because I was looking for a 10-year-old document, but... nothing to expect from this bunch of metal and plastic, I have to throw them away, nothing works any more. :(
And that's what crossed my mind : IF these disks were fifty years old what could I expect from them ?
Even if I keep preciously a hard disk with digital photos for my children, would they be able to look at them in fifty years, just like I look at this photo my mother kept for me which is fiercely standing (the photo, not my mother !) in my entrance hall ? :scratch:
I bet no.
No, because the disk will be probably unusable. Even if it was usable in 50 years, the SATA interface wouldn't exist any more, and I would have no way of reading it... :(
At the moment, all my media are in digital form : music, photos, videos.
But : I am obliged to duplicate them every so often : backups, server upgrades, hard disk upgrades and so on.
If I want to keep them for my children, they will have to travel into 50 copies of them (every year or so). It is the price to pay.
So, perfect digital copy is an advantage ?
Ah well, staring to this photo of when I was a kid, it reminds me that this "advantage" is actually the walls of the prison cell I'm in. :doh:
And, having worked in computers for a lifetime, where things last averagely 10 years or so, I wonder how on earth a necessity became an advantage ? :scratch:
StanleyB
27-08-2011, 10:16
The first audio CD discs that I acquired in 1983 still work in my CD player and laptop. That's about 28 years now.
The first audio CD discs that I acquired in 1983 still work in my CD player and laptop. That's about 28 years now.
Yep, just pray you don't loose a single byte in the toc area for the next years. ;)
And, having worked in computers for a lifetime, where things last averagely 10 years or so, I wonder how on earth a necessity became an advantage ? :scratch:
That's a very good point - but there are advantages to go with the clear disadvantages too. Yes I have to spend time (and money) keeping my ever growing digital collection of music backed up and safely archived, but how could you store and easily access thousands of CD's from something that is smaller than a paperback book? Mind you, when everything is on the cloud, it will be someone else's problem ;)
StanleyB
27-08-2011, 11:51
Yep, just pray you don't loose a single byte in the toc area for the next years. ;)
The secret is to keep your CD in its case and in a dark place. The aluminium layer does not break down so easily then.
The secret is to keep your CD in its case and in a dark place. The aluminium layer does not break down so easily then.
Well said. ;)
That's my way, too. (but I have also a copy, a backup of the copy, and a off-site backup of ... the backups)
magiccarpetride
27-08-2011, 16:44
And, having worked in computers for a lifetime, where things last averagely 10 years or so, I wonder how on earth a necessity became an advantage ? :scratch:
It's all about sharing. You cannot share your physical photo with all your friends and family around the globe in an instant, however if you digitize it, you can share it with everyone by simply clicking a button.
It's all about sharing. You cannot share your physical photo with all your friends and family around the globe in an instant, however if you digitize it, you can share it with everyone by simply clicking a button.
Good point. Copying and sharing is easier, indeed. ;)
ZebuTheOxen
31-08-2011, 16:17
Unfortunately you are correct Themis.
The recommended guidance for data archiving from The National Archive is to routinely move your data from one set of spinning disks to another. I suppose this avoids the issue of media incompatibility and electronic decay, but is still not as survivable as the written (or carved) word.
CERN have done their own research into the matter and are using LTO-4 tapes for archiving of LHC data for up to 50 years. Tapes have the advantage of having no moving parts and relative stability when kept in subterrenean climate controlled concrete-lined safes. I imagine in a few years they will be plucked out and moved to a newer system where the data is more readily accessible. It's certainly no microfiche ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.