The Digital Doubt

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

I think you need to be the player or you are not going to tell.

A/ I am in my own observations.
B/ People are in blind tests
C/ I don’t understand how audio can be measurable equal, and feel different, doesn’t make sense. Unless there is latency into play.

 

[FuzzyAce]

To be frank, an electric guitar, as far as signals go, is not very precious or special. ADDA can handle it just fine.

I do accept that the experience of someone who approaches the experience with an assumption about what the ADDA process is doing to their guitar signal MIGHT have the experience colored by that assumption.

VS.

Feels relevant to the thread.

 

[Eagle]

A/ I am in my own observations.
B/ People are in blind tests
C/ I don’t understand how audio can be measurable equal, and feel different, doesn’t make sense. Unless there is latency into play.

I’m not sure 1~2 milliseconds is going to be enough to be obvious. It depends on what your measuring. How do you explain the fact that two pickups with the same dc resistance and the same poles and magnets can sound different.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

View attachment 36153

VS.

View attachment 36155

Feels relevant to the thread.

I was thinking the same thing but didn’t want to shit stream (as @Boudoir Guitar likes to call it), glad you did

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

How do you explain the fact that two pickups with the same dc resistance and the same poles and magnets can sound different.

Because the signal they generate is measurably different?

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

I’m not sure 1~2 milliseconds is going to be enough to be obvious. It depends on what your measuring. How do you explain the fact that two pickups with the same dc resistance and the same poles and magnets can sound different.

I can’t, nor want to.
I just navigate on what I experience myself, and what I can verify through other sources…other peeps graphs maybe..

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I was thinking the same thing but didn’t want to shit stream (as @Boudoir Guitar likes to call it), glad you did

Off topic jokes are choice. Starting a thread where a guy is talking about a device and then several days in asking “so, what’s that device?”, especially when there are approximately 10 billion YouTube videos about the device is

 

[Sascha Franck]

You don’t accept the digital and analog are inherently different? Putting something through ADDA is loosing information and modelling even more.

You don't accept that this is completely irrelvant once we're within a certain range of accuracy.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Off topic jokes are choice. Starting a thread where a guy is talking about a device and then several days in asking “so, what’s that device?”, especially when there are approximately 10 billion YouTube videos about the device is

Okay sheriff

 

[Sascha Franck]

Like I said, I'm ok with modeling being different. I think it's awesome in a way because new sounds are being created because of the technology.

Fwiw, as you may know, I don't give a toss about modeling being 100, 95, 81 or even just 61% true to the original.
And I will as well happily accept that there's still certain differences (whether that's for good or bad shouldn't matter here, both exist).

But it's completely beyond me how some people can come up with weird snakeoil-ish assumptions, followed by some "that's why analog is better" resumes. And as we were at it, claiming that modeled amps would always compress more than their analog counterparts is just that, namely non-provable voodoo. If they were doing this, it could be proven easily. And heck, some defenitely do, such as the GT-1000 amps (just that they don't exactly have analog counterparts). But coming up with some sweeping generalizations is just stupid, simply because it's not true.

 

[Eagle]

You don't accept that this is completely irrelvant once we're within a certain range of accuracy.

And we are nowhere near it.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And we are nowhere near it.

We absolutely are. At least here and there. But your opinion on it is absolutely irrelevant as well as you're not even *trying* to prove anything, all you ever come up with is your analog-superiority-complex driven snakeoil-voodoo, trying to make things look like a well known truth over and over and over again. Which it isn't. And in case it was, you'd be able to deliver some proof. But you're not.

 

[Eagle]

Fwiw, as you may know, I don't give a toss about modeling being 100, 95, 81 or even just 61% true to the original.
And I will as well happily accept that there's still certain differences (whether that's for good or bad shouldn't matter here, both exist).

But it's completely beyond me how some people can come up with weird snakeoil-ish assumptions, followed by some "that's why analog is better" resumes. And as we were at it, claiming that modeled amps would always compress more than their analog counterparts is just that, namely non-provable voodoo. If they were doing this, it could be proven easily. And heck, some defenitely do, such as the GT-1000 amps (just that they don't exactly have analog counterparts). But coming up with some sweeping generalizations is just stupid, simply because it's not true.

I agree that accuracy only matters if it’s a goal in itself. But digital feels different and less dynamic. The whole process is improving as resolution grows from generation to generation but There is a way to go before you get a comparable experience as the player. So you are happy with the dynamic of a pod version one . Finished done deal.

 

[Eagle]

We absolutely are. At least here and there. But your opinion on it is absolutely irrelevant as well as you're not even *trying* to prove anything, all you ever come up with is your analog-superiority-complex driven snakeoil-voodoo, trying to make things look like a well known truth over and over and over again. Which it isn't. And in case it was, you'd be able to deliver some proof. But you're not.

You have provided no evidence of anything at all .

 

[Sascha Franck]

But digital feels different and less dynamic.

It "feels" less dynamic? Can you prove it? No. It doesn't "feel" less dynamic to me. Can I prove it? No.
So, that "feels less dynamic" is subjective already. No way to prove it.
Which leaves us with graphs. Something you ignore.

 

[Sascha Franck]

You have provided no evidence of anything at all .

I don't need to provide any evidence. You're the one coming up with statements that needed prove, not me. You don't even get the most simple principles of a discussion.

 

[Eagle]

It "feels" less dynamic? Can you prove it? No. It doesn't "feel" less dynamic to me. Can I prove it? No.
So, that "feels less dynamic" is subjective already. No way to prove it.
Which leaves us with graphs. Something you ignore.

Where are your graphs from verified sources?

 

[Eagle]

I don't need to provide any evidence. You're the one coming up with statements that needed prove, not me. You don't even get the most simple principles of a discussion.

Utter nonsense.

 

[la szum]

 

[dk_ace]