Digital Audio’s PR Problem

If you’d never heard of digital audio, but were told that it was now possible to store and play back audio signals on a computer, I don’t think you would raise an eyebrow. After all, how difficult can it be? An audio signal is no different from any other ‘wiggly line’ that computers seem to manipulate with ease: graphics, high quality fonts, CAD drawings, maps etc. for all intents and purposes at infinite resolution.

But somehow, digital audio is seen as a special case, where no one quite believes that it works. Looking at various forum discussions it is apparent that, in fact, it wouldn’t matter how many bits, how many MHz of sample rate, how few femtoseconds of jitter was specified, audiophiles would still be convinced they could hear the ‘1’s and ‘0’s, jitter, quantisation distortion and so on. The noise and distortion inherent in tape and vinyl that is many orders of magnitude greater gets a free pass; the noise in digital audio no matter how minuscule must always be portrayed as ear-bleedingly offensive. Why?

I think there are several reasons:

  1. Digital audio is mathematically-based. Long after real world signals have become buried in noise and distortion due to unavoidable physics, the theoretical numbers associated with the maths remain pristine and, quite unambiguously, show errors! Clearly we need better numbers. And so it goes on. In other words, no matter how high the resolution, you can always zoom in and see a theoretical error that looks just as big and clear on the screen or page.
  2. From the outset, the theory behind digital audio was discussed openly, but very few people actually understood it fully (including me). Thirty-odd years later, the misunderstandings persist. These vary from assuming that digital audio cannot know, or fill in, what is in “the gaps”, to failing to understand the significance of dither.
  3. Digital audio provided a complete mathematical solution, in many ways superior to other computer-based wiggly lines. The system is so elegant and simple that people just don’t believe it can work the way it does. [03.03.16 just saw an article that says exactly that“The intriguing aspect is that those who do understand refuse to believe”]
  4. Digital audio must always be chasing its tail, because as soon as a new performance level is achieved, it becomes possible for every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy the hardware for a small number of pounds, and even to start measuring signals at that level. Suddenly we’re all experts for whom -110dB is an average spec and must therefore be highly audible – although no one has ever heard a signal that quiet. No matter how good, digital audio will always seem mundane.
  5. Digital audio hardware is too complex to build using discrete circuitry. Integrated circuits are cheap. Audiophiles need to know they are buying better stuff than the hoi polloi, but digital audio doesn’t play the game. It remains persistently cheap enough for the masses to buy exactly the same measured performance as the most expensive fancily-boxed version of the same chip. (We are talking £30 versus £30,000, say). In the audiophile mind, this proves that measurements mean nothing and that “bits are not bits”, whereas in reality it shows the opposite.
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Digital Audio’s PR Problem

  1. I don’t get the hate for digital audio. My friend is convinced records are better and was baffled when I offered my records and both turntables to him for a reasonable price. I had many lp’s and cd’s of the same titles and did intense comparisons between my Technics SLD-3 with Shure v-15 Jico stylus equipped versus my Onkyo C-7030 cd player running through my Sansui integrated amp. The results were either very similar or the cd edged out the record. One plus was no surface noise for cd vs vinyl. I don’t suffer from digititus as some exclaim or listening fatigue. Then you have the crowd that tells you if you spend 10 grand on a turntable set up then vinyl will beat your 200.00$ cd player. Ya know 10k will buy a crap load of cd’s and a awesome pair of speakers and amplifier. I think I’ll stick with my shiny silver and gold disc. BTW I’m in my 50’s and am well acquainted with records and reel to reel.cassettes and 8 tracks. I’ll stick with cd’s and am just getting into hooking the ol computer into my rig for streaming.

    Like

  2. Of course, you are completely right and entirely rational and this throws some much need light on the hobby.. But, since when did rationality and science enter into the equations of hi-fi magazines and most hi-fi forums? Many audiophiles simply do not want to believe the science or believe in a rational approach.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s