advertisement


Ken Kessler Article In Christopher Ward Watch magazine

VInyl has been (always/mainly/sometimes) cut from digital files for much longer than you would imagine. And there is the small matter of digital delay lines even in otherwise analogue recordings. It would be a bold claim that the presence of digital in the chain can immedately be detected.
However..
let's not forget one man's tireless battle in the face of public indifference....
https://drjohndiamond.com/what-interests-you/human-stress-provoked-by-digitized-recordings/
"Just suppose that digital sound is a major negative force attacking our very civilization."
Read this..going to process it, very interesting..thankyou.
 
Keith that wasn't kind...we need to read allsorts to formulate an opinion..shouldn't we be open to different views..isn't this what makes us human? Progression via knowledge?
I think Keith just meant he found Dr John Diamond amusing. Is that wrong?
 
I think Keith just meant he found Dr John Diamond amusing. Is that wrong?
Im still processing..but anyone who has a earnest interest and serious intent on discovery..surely deserves a little respect? I'm going to read this most interesting article later on after work..I don't agree with everything but some of his views curry favour with me defo..
 
Ps- if a digital recording is like a jigsaw, then how come a digital picture isn’t?
Surely a digital picture is more nearly like a jigsaw, due to being formed of discrete pixels, than an analogue waveform recreated in a DAC?

And is this not perhaps the source of the continued support for the common misunderstanding about digital audio and the 'stepped curve' analogy? People know that if you zoom in on a digital image, you eventually reach the point where you can clearly see the pixels. Is it really any surprise that people think you can do the same with an audio waveform?
 
Surely a digital picture is more nearly like a jigsaw, due to being formed of discrete pixels, than an analogue waveform recreated in a DAC?

And is this not perhaps the source of the continued support for the common misunderstanding about digital audio and the 'stepped curve' analogy? People know that if you zoom in on a digital image, you eventually reach the point where you can clearly see the pixels. Is it really any surprise that people think you can do the same with an audio waveform?
Sort of. It's worth bearing in mind that it's not just digital pictures which are composed of dots. https://www.artlyst.com/reviews/roy-lichtenstein-ben-day-dots-printers-ink-tate-liverpool/
(I don't just mean Lichtenstein I mean the processes he was emulating)
The real point of course of the Kessler nonsense is the idea that you can see the joins, as well as that something is obviously lost. My point was simply that even when you sample is the spatial domain it doesn't create anything like a jigsaw, which might make one wonder how on earth the analogy might work.

Interestingly no one seeems to call celluloid film "digital" because it is composed of indivudal frames (ie sampling in the time domain), not a continuous time system.

I think that the "zooming in" idea does contribute to misunderstanding but the main issue is thinking that a sample is a slice which is only relevant to a particular time section of the recording [hence that there must be a join between the pieces], whereas it in fact carries information about the time before and after - theoretically about the whole signal (hence Robert Watts' quest for the infinite length filter)
 
Watts has, I think, understood that Information Theory says you should employ *all* the samples to work out any output values at instants 'in between' sampled instants. If nothing else, this gives the maximum theoretically allowed bandwidth. If the sampling was done using a sinc patteren and did the same, the system would be 'ideal' in Information Theory terms.

Use of non-sinc or limited sets of coeffcients tends to fiddle with the frequency and time response and reduces the max conveyable frequency (fs/2 is only strictly true for a recording and filters of infinite length).

In reality, using 'a lot' of samples either side of the instant can be pretty good, though.

The basic problem is that people generate an 'artificial' waveform using a computer program that just calculates something like the sinewave values at sampled instants, and doesn't dither or noise shape. The result is NOT a sinewave. It is a staircased waveform similar to a sinewave. Size of the steps set by the quantisation level.

Even a perfect player/DAC then duly shows *what you fed in* - a staircased sinewave shape NOT a sinewave. So what looks like 'distortion' may simply be telling you the player/DAC is working perfectly - and giving you what you chose to put in - which wasn't a sinewave! If you interpret that as 'distortion' then you're commenting on what you chose to put in.

Using dither correctly removes that entirely.
 
Keith that wasn't kind...we need to read allsorts to formulate an opinion..shouldn't we be open to different views..isn't this what makes us human? Progression via knowledge?
The article is actually quite interesting; maybe not to any deaf dogmatists who think they know everything - past present and future.

I can certainly agree that there has been something about digital that “isn’t quite right” but for classical music the advantages of digital over vinyl outweighed, and masked any concerns, although I still had the feeling that something wasn’t quite right. It was trying HQ Player and using an m-scaler that made me realise that digital really didn’t sound quite right and that there was something that could be done about it. Curiously, the improvement is most obvious when enjoying music, rather than analysing the sound, and manifests itself by a lack of distracting elements.

Of course, to deaf dogmatists, An m-scaler is an expensive placebo; to anyone who hasn’t already made up their mind HQ Player, m-scaler and other solutions are worth a try, but I would suggest they be tried at length and not just while concentrating on the sound. I suspect the the brain works in different “ways” when in active concentration of sounds as opposed to relatively passive state when enjoying the music; rather like concentrating on a twig but not being able to see the forest. The mind is an extraordinary thing, and just because it can be fooled it doesn’t mean that all methods of enhancing our perceptions are snake oil, although it has to be said there is little doubt that there is much snake oil.

Perhaps Dr Diamond should try an m-scaler or the like and report back!
 
Perhaps Dr Diamond should try an m-scaler or the like and report back!

Bit tricky:

'Memorial tributes and obituaries to Dr. Diamond following his passing in April 2021.'

Of course if he tried one in the after-life and reported back that would be interesting.
 
I don’t believe Dr John would find the M-Scaler to be of any benefit to him whatsoever.
Keith
Care to expand. Can you confirm that a: that you understand the thinking behind the m-scaler and b: that you have listened at length with one one inserted before an appropriate Chord DAC.
 
Like the Flat Earth Society?
I need to read it at my leisure...but I will and report back..I do to a degree feel digital robs something from music..it may be the prevalence of digital or perhaps the ease of access to music nowadays..which makes music less important? For want of a better word? I think there may be something in this? Im a little surprised at your sort of sneering tone..as you seem to have very good musical taste and I would imagine you would also listen carefully ( obviously ) I have listened to the 132 which you kindly reccomended..and I think its quite wonderful..but I digress..I will read it again with my usual open-mindedness :rolleyes: and then you can have a good laugh if you wish..but me? I hope I would have moved a little further down the road of understanding..
 
I need to read it at my leisure...but I will and report back..I do to a degree feel digital robs something from music..it may be the prevalence of digital or perhaps the ease of access to music nowadays..which makes music less important? For want of a better word? I think their may be something in this? Im a little surprised at your sort of sneering tone..as you seem to have very good musical taste and I would imagine you would also listen carefully ( obviously ) I have listened to the 132 which you kindly reccomended..and I think its quite wonderful..but I digress..I will read it again with my usual open-mindedness :rolleyes: and then you can have a good laugh if you wish..but me? I hope I would have moved a little further down the road of understanding..
Always nice to see some references to music amongst the technical analysis, which nonetheless is always good to have from those who genuinely know what they are talking about. After all my hifi is there in the service of music. I still find the Italians difficult to beat in op.132. Back in the day when I had LP sets by The Italian and Amadeus Quartets I settled down to listen to op.132 and couldn't understand why the sublime start of the slow movement wasn't making sense. Turned out that I thought I had put the Italians on but by mistake had put the Amadeus on. My other "go to" quartets for Beethoven are The Belcea, Takacs, Talich and for a bit of an occasional romp The Emerson.
 
I need to read it at my leisure...but I will and report back..I do to a degree feel digital robs something from music..it may be the prevalence of digital or perhaps the ease of access to music nowadays..which makes music less important? For want of a better word? I think there may be something in this? Im a little surprised at your sort of sneering tone..as you seem to have very good musical taste and I would imagine you would also listen carefully ( obviously ) I have listened to the 132 which you kindly reccomended..and I think its quite wonderful..but I digress..I will read it again with my usual open-mindedness :rolleyes: and then you can have a good laugh if you wish..but me? I hope I would have moved a little further down the road of understanding..
Please don't take this the wrong way, but actually I was thinking about how movingly you described your experience listening to the Vegh 132. I find this odd to square with the idea that digital is unmusical and just makes sound (I assume you didn't rush out to buy the LP).
I don't think anything in this world is perfect. I do however love music and enjoy all sorts of it (you would never believe what I got up to on Saturday night- very different from the 131 but utterly marvellous (also entirely digital)).
When I see kids literally dancing round an iphone- do I think "poor deluded fools: it's not musical you know"? Now how do we get into a mentality where we are thinking
-that millions of people who think they are enjoying music are actually fools
- that anyone who points out that digital seems to work is the spoilsport?
 
Please don't take this the wrong way, but actually I was thinking about how movingly you described your experience listening to the Vegh 132. I find this odd to square with the idea that digital is unmusical and just makes sound (I assume you didn't rush out to buy the LP).
I don't think anything in this world is perfect. I do however love music and enjoy all sorts of it (you would never believe what I got up to on Saturday night- very different from the 131 but utterly marvellous (also entirely digital)).
When I see kids literally dancing round an iphone- do I think "poor deluded fools: it's not musical you know"? Now how do we get into a mentality where thinking
-that millions of people who think they are enjoying music are actually fools
- that anyone who points out that digital seems to work is the spoilsport?
Your Vegh 132 is my favourite now..its perfect! I think digital robs something from the music..I think its subtle and if one just listened to digital, they may never know what the old fashioned ways of recording can bring to the listeners soul ( I believe we listen with our souls..using our ears of course but its the soul that reacts..same when we look at a fellow human being..we look at their soul..well I do anyway..and i think not knowing that analogue magic, isn't a good thing..listening to gigli on a cassette or record is nothing like hearing him sing through a streaming service..you would say the digital version is better..no hiss, no scratchy noises..but it isn't..loses authenticity in my opinion...John Mcormack is a very good example..my mum loved his voice..hearing the records of him singing when I was a kid is a cherished memory..but when I listen now on you tube or qobuz.it leaves me a bit cold..so I think there is something going in the transfer? However I mostly listen to digital and find it satisfactory..but I'm finding nothing in the music I can cherish..like I used to as a child..I think this is the difference..to some no big deal..to others a big deal..
Ps I wasn't having a dig at you..I just assume people who love music embrace everything musical..be it digital or analogue or flat earth buffoonery...or perhaps this is just me!
 
Please don't take this the wrong way, but actually I was thinking about how movingly you described your experience listening to the Vegh 132. I find this odd to square with the idea that digital is unmusical and just makes sound (I assume you didn't rush out to buy the LP).
I don't think anything in this world is perfect. I do however love music and enjoy all sorts of it (you would never believe what I got up to on Saturday night- very different from the 131 but utterly marvellous (also entirely digital)).
When I see kids literally dancing round an iphone- do I think "poor deluded fools: it's not musical you know"? Now how do we get into a mentality where we are thinking
-that millions of people who think they are enjoying music are actually fools
- that anyone who points out that digital seems to work is the spoilsport?
Very kind of you to describe my blather as moving...you do know I now feel bad! You got me..lol..ill argue forever about another forum or cabling..but someone says something nice..I'm destroyed grrrr lol
Anyways I write prose..have little knowledge of grammar but..never let that stop me!
An example..when people get old they remember 70 years ago like yesterday but can't remember yesterday..so I wrote some prose about how a father held his daughter in his arms when she was very small...and whispered in her ear how much he loved her..they had a moment..just dad and daughter, nothing else in the world but them..anyway back into the present, the carers in residential home were remarking on old mable smiling at a wall, they said she must be mad? But what they didn't know, that she was being hugged by her dad..even at the end our parents still wrap their arms around us..this poem I wrote was a little longer..so I shortened it a bit for this example..so with poor grammar I can make everyday circumstances meaningful..same with cables..and analogue music! Lol
 


advertisement


Back
Top