Stewart world 2.1 digital?

[beans-on-toast]

No question that there's a demand for gear that adds character or color. Everything does to some extent. Accurate instrumentation amplifiers are pretty uninspiring to listen to. They weren't designed for audio applications. The BURL Audio converters, in part, attain their harmonic character with transformers that warm up the sound. Making the converter's output more pleasing to the ear isn't a bad thing. Complex harmonics are also what makes analog Neve preamps/EQ's so desirable, again attributed to the transformers and class A amplifier stages. Both have their place.

 

[Gizmot]

Since we're talking about technology here, I thought i'd throw in my two cents.

My friend Mark Levinson, the creator of the hi-fi company that bears his name and a good recording engineer too, has long theorized that although digital audio has advantages in lower noise and wider dynamic range, analog audio is simply more pleasant to listen to. The reason for this is because your brain doesn't have to work hard to create nice sine waves from the sharp edges of on-off digital signals.

 

[Wiremessiah]

No question that there's a demand for gear that adds character or color. Everything does to some extent. Accurate instrumentation amplifiers are pretty uninspiring to listen to. They weren't designed for audio applications. The BURL Audio converters, in part, attain their harmonic character with transformers that warm up the sound. Making the converter's output more pleasing to the ear isn't a bad thing. Complex harmonics are also what makes analog Neve preamps/EQ's so desirable, again attributed to the transformers and class A amplifier stages. Both have their place.

But "warm" converters is just silly. The neve 1073 is not even that colored of a preamp actually, at least when up to spec. The perceived warmth and color from neves comes from how the amp subtly distorts at higher gain. Rupert neve was trying to design a transparent amp but used topology and tech of the time that by chance made them color the sound rather than break up when pushed.

Converters are converters these days. To put a colored line amp ahead of a converter is absurd imo. Thats like putting a transformers on cable connectors to "warm the sound up".

Not sure if you read my post about the pepsi challenge, but thats exactly the psychology the boutique converter market is exploiting. They know even tiny changes or "sweetening" will make people think a piece of gear sounds better in comparison to what they are replacing and a/bing.

Check this out, starts around 1:15, a mastering legend bob katz tells a story about a converter upgrade:

 

[Wiremessiah]

Since we're talking about technology here, I thought i'd throw in my two cents.

My friend Mark Levinson, the creator of the hi-fi company that bears his name and a good recording engineer too, has long theorized that although digital audio has advantages in lower noise and wider dynamic range, analog audio is simply more pleasant to listen to. The reason for this is because your brain doesn't have to work hard to create nice sine waves from the sharp edges of on-off digital signals.

While I respect Levinson, that is a crackpot theory that has been disproved by science. There are no "sharp edges" once the signal hits a speaker. The fact is, that many people with the stature of Levinson in the audio world still adhere to myths. It doesn't make them any worse at what they do, in fact many times it makes them better, but myths are myths. I don't doubt analog is more pleasing to many, including myself but it's most likely due to conditioning, such as growing up with vinyl and your favorite records recorded analog and such. Tape itself does have some inherent qualities that can make it more pleasing when pushed into saturation, but again that's subjective. Truth is that a good recording is a good recording, and bad one is bad to whomever is listening to it, doesn't matter if it's analog or digital.

And actually have a really crappy like 10th generation cassette of a live show that's one of my most prized recordings, because of the performance, so even sound quality is not even an indicator of how pleasing a listening experience can be.

 

[R Baer]

I never considered getting rid of it. I just saw some people on this forum calling it digital and wanted to know why. I understand more now. But my analog snobbery and ignorance about class d amps convinced people i was trying to say analog is superior. Its not, i just happen to like vintage gear which is analog and went for all analog just as an arbitrary philosophy. It forces me to be in the moment when recording and to keep small mistakes which make my recordings more live sounding, rather than perfect, which often takes the life out of music. I have noticed a lot of high quality live versions of songs i hear are much better sounding to me that the overproduced studio versions. The imperfections, particularly subtle tempo changes even from bar to bar make music richer IMO. The grid and perfect tempo unnatural to me.

The only bass amp I'm aware of that is actually digital (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the new Bergantino B Amp. It uses a fully digital (software based ) preamp mated to a class D power section. Pretty much the same technology behind the digital modeling guitar amps, like the Kemper. Mind blowing technology to be sure, but I totally understand your preference for the way things were. For me, I grew up listening to albums, not CD's and MP3's. My gear was vintage Ampeg, Sunn and Eden being my favorites. When I went into the studio, we recorded on glorious analog consoles with hundreds of buttons and switches, racks and racks of classic vintage outboard gear and then and ran it all to 2" tape. So, when it comes to my preferences in gear, I am absolutely old school in my preference. It's what my brain and my ears are accustomed to. The new modern gear certainly has a lot of advantages, but my love will always be for old school designs.

 

[Spacecase]

The reason for this is because your brain doesn't have to work hard to create nice sine waves from the sharp edges of on-off digital signals.

If you can bear to watch it, this video is pretty informative.

Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell

 

[seamonkey]

Since we're talking about technology here, I thought i'd throw in my two cents.

My friend Mark Levinson, the creator of the hi-fi company that bears his name and a good recording engineer too, has long theorized that although digital audio has advantages in lower noise and wider dynamic range, analog audio is simply more pleasant to listen to. The reason for this is because your brain doesn't have to work hard to create nice sine waves from the sharp edges of on-off digital signals.

Here's a good link to learn about AtoD and DtoA. The stare-step is a misunderstanding. There's no sharp edges. Between when the samples are taken is undefined, and only one curve can fits through the samples.
Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell

I think a lot of digital folklore comes from some early day implementations in toys that used 4 bits.

 

[Wiremessiah]

In his defense he was talking about another guys theory, not his own.

 

[agedhorse]

The assertation that your brain has to work hard to create some waves out of sharp edges of on-off digital signals is more of the typically absurd hi-fi community bull-crapola.

The whole purpose of the D-A converter is to convert the digital information back into the analog world, and there is no stair steps, no square waves, nothing resembling digital. If there was digital stuff left, we wouldn't see THD down below .001%... that's 100dB down from the fundamental.

This is why I left the high end hi-fi design world after only 6 months... the marketing was so absurd and the promises so false that it seemed the industry in general was competing to see which company could be the biggest lier.

 

[Rich Fiscus]

I see digital as bytes that are manipulated with logic: AND, OR, EXCLUSIVE OR, and NOT, then interpreted. Analog is about continuously changing levels. There are fine lines as you said because it's more complicated than I characterized it.

This is exactly the distinction, well more or less.

Like you said, it's complicated, but digital, as the term is commonly understood in this context, means the use of digital logic, aka Boolean logic, aka Boolean Algebra. Although digital circuits make use of definitive on and off states, it doesn't automatically follow that any component with distinct on and off states is part of a digital circuit.

The 1s and 0s in an amp aren't any louder than the 1s and 0s on a CD - assuming you're just holding the disc up to your ear. It's the analog components they're combined with that provide the power and make the noise.

 

[beans-on-toast]

I think a lot of digital folklore comes from some early day implementations in toys that used 4 bits.

Well, 4 bits in outboard gear would be a problem. I have some cheesy sounding processors that I bought back then. Some seek that out to recreate those sounds.

I think that a problem with some early digital recordings is that engineers hadn't figured out how to use it effectively. Many switched over and continued to do what they always did. It was common with analog tape to boost the high end to compensate for loss when bouncing tracks later. This made recordings sound too bright. It took them some time to figure out how to use the technology properly. There are good examples of early digital recordings that were done well.

 

[beans-on-toast]

The neve 1073 is not even that colored of a preamp actually, at least when up to spec. The perceived warmth and color from neves comes from how the amp subtly distorts at higher gain.

I find that Neve equipment sounds rich at any level, not just when pushed. They are very different when compared to Focusrite preamps, which come from the same lineage. They each have their advantages and applications.

We each have our personal favorites, an advantage of having a wide array of products to choose from.

 

[agedhorse]

One way to differentiate digital signals is that the state of the signal has meaning rather than the changes of state. Also, the changing time span of the pulse train means something in non-linear analog whereas it means nothing in digital.

This is not a simple subject, the more you know the more difficult it becomes.

 

[seamonkey]

Well, 4 bits in outboard gear would be a problem. I have some cheesy sounding processors that I bought back then. Some seek that out to recreate those sounds.

I think that a problem with some early digital recordings is that engineers hadn't figured out how to use it effectively. Many switched over and continued to do what they always did. It was common with analog tape to boost the high end to compensate for loss when bouncing tracks later. This made recordings sound too bright. It took them some time to figure out how to use the technology properly. There are good examples of early digital recordings that were done well.

And there was probably a lot of track bouncing using the analog out from the digital gear as PC's were not yet everywhere. It wouldn't stay pure like a digital domain mix.

I should have qualified the 4-bit with a low sample rate. Delta sigma is HiFi down at 1 bit. It's very popular, but a discussion would only confuse the class-d versus digital confusion more.

 

[Wiremessiah]

This is why I left the high end hi-fi design world after only 6 months... the marketing was so absurd and the promises so false that it seemed the industry in general was competing to see which company could be the biggest lier.

the pro audio world is not much better. They are a little better, in that they don't fall for some of the more ridiculous audiophile claims, but they are still highly subject to myths and marketing BS. That said, we are all subject to myths to some degree, and marketing can create artificial needs that can be pleasurably satisfied through placebo effect. If you think the snake oil's working, it works.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Snake oil appeals to those who don't have a working knowledge of things like +/- 3dB @ 10K, etc. As far as I know, if it sounds good, it is good, whatever it is...

 

[Gizmot]

The assertation that your brain has to work hard to create some waves out of sharp edges of on-off digital signals is more of the typically absurd hi-fi community bull-crapola.

The whole purpose of the D-A converter is to convert the digital information back into the analog world, and there is no stair steps, no square waves, nothing resembling digital. If there was digital stuff left, we wouldn't see THD down below .001%... that's 100dB down from the fundamental.

This is why I left the high end hi-fi design world after only 6 months... the market

The assertation that your brain has to work hard to create some waves out of sharp edges of on-off digital signals is more of the typically absurd hi-fi community bull-crapola.

The whole purpose of the D-A converter is to convert the digital information back into the analog world, and there is no stair steps, no square waves, nothing resembling digital. If there was digital stuff left, we wouldn't see THD down below .001%... that's 100dB down from the fundamental.

This is why I left the high end hi-fi design world after only 6 months... the marketing was so absurd and the promises so false that it seemed the industry in general was competing to see which company could be the biggest lier.

The assertation that your brain has to work hard to create some waves out of sharp edges of on-off digital signals is more of the typically absurd hi-fi community bull-crapola.

The whole purpose of the D-A converter is to convert the digital information back into the analog world, and there is no stair steps, no square waves, nothing resembling digital. If there was digital stuff left, we wouldn't see THD down below .001%... that's 100dB down from the fundamental.

This is why I left the high end hi-fi design world after only 6 months... the marketing was so absurd and the promises so false that it seemed the industry in general was competing to see which company could be the biggest lier.

Isn't it wonderful that we can all be here and exercise our first amendment rights to think and say whatever we want?

 

[Wiremessiah]

Snake oil appeals to those who don't have a working knowledge of things like +/- 3dB @ 10K, etc. As far as I know, if it sounds good, it is good, whatever it is...

Not true, it appeals to everyone. Look at the post about Mark Levinson's theory. you don't think he knows how an eq works? No one wants to admit they are susceptible to snake oil, but we all are, because we can't know everything. Like I said in earlier post, there are guys way more accomplished than you or me, assuming (maybe erroneously) you are not a world famous professional, that believed DSD or stradivarius instruments were the best. If you don't think you are susceptible to snake oil, you won't be on your guard to look for it. That's one of the reasons snake oil of all kinds get spread around, because high level guys in any field are susceptible to myths, and when they do fall for them, everyone else follows.

However, not all snake oil is bad. Things that have no practical effect can have inspirational effect. There is so much great "sacred" music out there for instance. Or for example an athelete wearing the same "lucky" socks for a winning streak can work as placebo. Placebo effect is extremely powerful, i'd recommend anyone studying it and how much real effects it can have, such as how psychosomatic issues can have real medical effects on people, just like how the ultimate snake oil, homeopathic medicine, has been proven to work with many ailments. In fact the UK govt has done studies disproving the claims of homeopathic medicine, yet still sanctions govt homeopathic clinics because they also did scientific tests proving it's efficacy.

And once you get into art and music, it's even more psychological than anything else. One could say music and art itself is snake oil.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I dunno...for several years I've done tons of research and actual listening tests on gear purchases, along with anecdotal info from actual 1st hand users/reports from sources I personally know or at least trust (when not shopping at a very specific price point). Mfg's sales stuff is always the last thing considered, if at all.

That said, some of the best gear on the planet has less than wonderful spec - compare specs on a U47 to a $99 Chinese condenser mic, for example, then listen to them in Blind AB comparison, determine which is likely the better mic. A 65 Deluxe Reverb or early SVT compared to their contemporary counterparts is .. well.. almost unfair.

There are more 'informed consumers' than people realize, I suspect, which is why the mid/higher end markets generally target those with the money, not the info. I may be wrong, but consider which spending demographic keeps most gear makers open and viable. In the end, we like what we like, regardless.

 

[Wiremessiah]

That said, some of the best gear on the planet has less than wonderful spec - compare specs on a U47 to a $99 Chinese condenser mic, for example, then listen to them in Blind AB comparison, determine which is likely the better mic. A 65 Deluxe Reverb or early SVT compared to their contemporary counterparts is .. well.. almost unfair.

Well there is no "better". The quality level of a $50 chinese mic is insanely good these days. If you are looking to be as transparent as possible, like George Massenburg does, he might prefer the chinese mic. There are blind tests online of high end gear compared to behringer and other cheap knock off stuff, and even owners of the high end gear can't tell. And the thing with gear is that one piece of gear is only one of many infinitely variable factors. How many blind tests can you do with all of the different positions and distances and combinations of mics? How do you know the cheap mic won't sound better on certain sources at certain distances and angles,, or in combination with other mics and preamps and compressors and processors? As flawed as even blind a/b testing is itself, even if it were perfect, there is no way to test all of the other variables. It really can boil down to what piece of gear looks the best to you, although no one will admit it. Then owner's bias comes into play, and you idealize arbitrary choices you make with little data other than a few people's opinions and marketing, because that's all there is.


Gear is just gear. If it works its as good as it gets, at least for modern gear. Everything else is just sugar on top of the sundae.The Shure sm57 is a staple for almost all high end studios, and is very inexpensive. I have heard engineers say they use it more than their $10000 mics. I have some cheap gear and expensive gear. I don't think about how much it costs, I just think about what it does, and how to use it. Gear is just tools. A hammer is a hammer, no matter how much it costs. A jackhammer is far more expensive than a regular hammer, but that doesn't mean you want to use the jackhammer for nails. And it doesn't mean you don't need the jackhammer for jackhammering. But now everyone is selling designer hammers, and we get hung up on the tools themselves, rather than building the house. Just pick something, cheap or expensive, and make music.