• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Back to basics. Definition: Analogue audio

Probably over simplifying and generalizing quite a lot , but the basic princibles give an idea why the digitalization has done leaps in the last half century and why they have lead us to the current technology advances.

IEEE Signal Processing Society has nice coffee read regarding the digital revolution.


Um, yes, I know that article. In fact, I know it rather well, as well as quite a number of those folks mentioned, including the one who hired me into Bell Lab in 1976. Let me help you a bit, ok?



Pay particular attention to 2006. Ok?


And, then, there's this: https://ethw.org/James_D._Johnston

Or this: https://signalprocessingsociety.org...vement/awards/Industrial_Innovation_Award.pdf

Or this: https://ethw.org/James_D._Johnston

And that guru page is at still best confusing. These days for instance, it's NOT easier to process analog. Physics is a ***ch.

Another hint, for what it's worth: https://www.aes.org/member/profile.cfm?ID=1800973364

Yeah, I know that article quite well.

Oh, and what's 'c' for sound on the moon, looking at your given location.
 
Last edited:
Um, yes, I know that article. In fact, I know it rather well, as well as quite a number of those folks mentioned, including the one who hire me into Bell Lab in 1976. Let me help you a bit, ok?



Pay particular attention to 2006. Ok?


And, then, there's this: https://ethw.org/James_D._Johnston

Or this: https://signalprocessingsociety.org...vement/awards/Industrial_Innovation_Award.pdf

Or this: https://ethw.org/James_D._Johnston

And that guru page is at still best confusing. These days for instance, it's NOT easier to process analog. Physics is a ***ch.

Another hint, for what it's worth: https://www.aes.org/member/profile.cfm?ID=1800973364

Yeah, I know that article quite well.

Oh, and what's 'c' for sound on the moon, looking at your given location.
I was pointing the read to the OP direction about what is analog used anymore, no hard feelings.

Guru we can drop from the meaningful sources i have no opinions in that regard.

PS. Very happy to cross paths & share a moment! *hats off* for the hard work. Didnt realize but now. :)
 
coolest-close-ups-on-how-vinyl-works-fb.jpg



Are you trying to understand how e.g vinyl is storing a recording in analog format vs CD in digital as example? that is the basic of this whole depate. All the use cases and features are carved into those differences. first one needs to understand what is signal of course.

No, that was not my intention.
I am aware of the basics to some degree.
 
Depending on the microphone, it may not be only pressure that is detected. A cardoid, for instance, detects half pressure and half velocity along its axis, and adds the two together. There are other examples.

"Quantized digital" is just another analog of the signal. Furthermore, the proper terminology is "quantized, sampled". "Digital" (although it usually is) does not have to be sampled.



A simple pulse is only one way to encode digital signals, and not necessarily the best. There is an entire world of knowledge missing when you reduce a digital signal to a pulse or a USB waveform. Modems exist, and are common. The storage and transmission of a set of digitized samples via modem uses a much wider bandwidth than the original signal, which gives rise to redundancy that can protect the digitized signal very, very well. In this, again, as I said previously, the KEY, the important question, is that the time and level were captured discretely in a way that can be protected in an extremely effective way. Unsampled/unquantized systems like FM (wideband FM, not narrowband FM) also use bandwidth redundancy, but in a less effective way.



Actually, that obscures the facts of the matter completely, and while the waveforms are subject to physics, the chance of a digital error can be reduced trivially in a benign recording medium to "once in the age of the universe". (and the loss will be flagged as 'bad data') The mistake here is in assuming that a signal that is purely continuous in time and level has the same sensitivity to error as a signal that is quantized and properly encoded for transmission over a benign medium, and that is simply false. Given the same "wire plus amplifiers", a signal with 96dB SNR will require a substantially better than 96dB from the "wire plus amplifiers" to avoid a simply measured error, even ignoring mild frequency shaping. Given a quantized, sampled, and properly encoded system, a channel with very low SNR can provide absolutely perfect recovery of the quantized data BECAUSE OF THE KNOWLEDGE of the system in both time and level quantization, coupled with the redundancy built into the quantized, sampled stream. The "low SNR channel" does have a wider bandwidth. Shannon makes this clear in his basic paper on information theory.

One caveat of such systems is that you get very, very little warning (except from the demodulator) before the system fails completely in a properly encoded signal transmitted by digits. One such system I worked on, involving a radio system and a fading simulator, provided "no detected errors" at a given (proprietary) level. at 0.1 dB below that in SNR, it provided an error per second. At another 0.1dB below that, the signal could not be recovered. In any case, the analog audio signal in the comparable analog case (AM or FM, no matter) would have been entirely wrecked, let alone "impaired" at any of those 3 closely spaced levels. Shannon's work was, and is, right.

So your quoted, misleading (at least in the context offered here) statement leads the reader to a profoundly mistaken conclusion that continuous time and level systems have the same sensitivity to noise as a sampled and quantized system. Was that your intention? Furthermore, the (gasp) ITALIC quote does not necessarily make for an argument. A proper citation mentions author and qualifications, as well as context.

Once again, it is the knowledge of exact timing and level (to the quantization level) that provides the means to protect a digital signal. Information-theoretic systems allow the storage and transmission of that signal with arbitrary reliability (not accuracy, the accuracy is set forever at capture).

What was your point, anyhow? It appears that you wanted to have an argument, and now you've succeeded.
There is simply no argument. Would you disagree that within a transmission medium, which in the present context could be an interconnection cable or a track on a PCB, any signal, "analogue" or "digital", useless or otherwise, is subject to the same constraints depending on the physical parameters of the transmission medium?

From this perspective the propagation/transmission of a "digital" signal is no different to the propagation/transmission of an "analogue" signal in the same transmission medium.
 
There is simply no argument. Would you disagree that within a transmission medium, which in the present context could be an interconnection cable or a track on a PCB, any signal, "analogue" or "digital", useless or otherwise, is subject to the same constraints depending on the physical parameters of the transmission medium?

From this perspective the propagation/transmission of a "digital" signal is no different to the propagation/transmission of an "analogue" signal in the same transmission medium.
I take a shot.
Sure, electrical current going through a conductor is unaware if it is digital or analogue, useless or not! and yes sure the current is subject to all ills that can affect it along the way, being digital or what have you.
BUT ....
The point was, is the digital data received at destination is going to be tainted as much as if it was analogue? if any.
How sensitive is digital signal to those ills along the way? How sensitive is analogue equivalent?
You see, if Amazon sends me unwrapped food through post, what are the chances of that food getting to me uncontaminated ?
What if it was in vacuum sealed bags?
Not an equivalent example, just a loose one to get the meaning across.
Now imagine, if Amazon just emailed me the recepie instead!
 
Last edited:
From this perspective the propagation/transmission of a "digital" signal is no different to the propagation/transmission of an "analogue" signal in the same transmission medium.

It is very, very different in any germane fashion. The question is not "will there be impairment along the way" but rather "does the message get through intact", hence, your statement is misleading.

In order to transmit a redbook sourced analog signal without measurable error, one must have a transmission medium better than the measurement method. A mere 98.4 dB SNR will not suffice, the extra noise will be obvious if your measurement system is better than that.

In order to transmit a digital signal without any impairment whatsoever, a very low SNR is required, well within the limits of nonlinear, noisy transmission methods. The "impairment", such as it is, is due to the original sampling (hopefully you do accept the Shannon Sampling Theorem, also known as the Nyquist Conjecture) and quantization. No further error will occur. Furthermore, storing and transmitting that digital data again, after "reconstitution" (meaning modulating the ***DIGITAL*** data), remains completely unimpaired.

So, your statement, in context, is misleading and leads people to a completely incorrect conclusion. If you disagree with any part of this, I would suggest a quick trip through basic information theory, the Shannon paper should suffice.

Now imagine, if Amazon just emailed me the recipe instead!

Excellent. And, as the "ingredients" are known a-priori, any cook can make the recipe, given the necessary equipment. That "defined equipment" is why digital has the robustness that it has.
 
PS. Very happy to cross paths & share a moment! *hats off* for the hard work. Didnt realize but now. :)

Oh, and I am amused by the ADPCM reference to Bob Lucky. The earlier paper by Flanagan, et. al. comes to mind, along with this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1094009/authors#authors
Also, my goodness that was a long time ago! That sucker was mostly analog, analog integrators, analog multipliers, analog filters ... It came with a screwdriver and a scope to keep it in bounds. :)
 
Would you disagree that within a transmission medium, which in the present context could be an interconnection cable or a track on a PCB, any signal, "analogue" or "digital", useless or otherwise, is subject to the same constraints depending on the physical parameters of the transmission medium?
Yes.
 
I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in that site, from what's written there. I didn't listen to the video, but the "summary" section is not particularly precise. I'm being polite.

Now I've looked more, the real whopper on that site is "digital is square waves". No, no, it is not, was not, will not be, it's a sequence of impulses.

NOT 'square waves". If you see "square edges" somebody's filters suck.
 
Now I've looked more, the real whopper on that site is "digital is square waves". No, no, it is not, was not, will not be, it's a sequence of impulses.

NOT 'square waves". If you see "square edges" somebody's filters suck.
Impulses?
(perhaps pulses, maybe?)
Someone once said, a squarewave does not actually exist, it is just a mixture of different sinewaves. I think he was implying that since digital is made up of squarewaves and squarewaves are made up of sinewaves , and sinewaves are analogue, therefore digital transmission is really analogue transmission and susceptible to same issues. Or maybe, I misunderstood him.
 
Impulses?
(perhaps pulses, maybe?)
Someone once said, a squarewave does not actually exist, it is just a mixture of different sinewaves. I think he was implying that since digital is made up of squarewaves and squarewaves are made up of sinewaves , and sinewaves are analogue, therefore digital transmission is really analogue transmission and susceptible to same issues. Or maybe, I misunderstood him.

A series of IMPULSES, not "pulses." Zero width, with finite energy, mathematically. There is no "between" them, and no 'square wave' involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse

The "square" stuff is simply a plotting artifact that makes it easier to see the plot, BUT IT IS NOT WHAT SAMPLED DATA IS. That is sheer confusion.

BUT DIGITAL IS NOT MADE UP OF SQUARE WAVES. Oh, h311 no it's not. That way lies a whole host of mistakes and confusions. There is a system in which all signals are made of square waves, it's called the Hadamard Transform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform It's a legitimate transform, and one can derive an alternate sampling theorem from it, but that's not the way to understand anything that goes into the human ear, stick to the frequency domain for that. (i.e. Fourier basis for the transform.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

Now, a square wave is made of sine waves, yes, but that's simply not relevant to this discussion. It's just another fact. All that means is that the Fourier basis spans the set of complex sequences. So does the Hadamard basis. So do an infinite number of other basis functions. Literally.

I actually cover the "no square wave outputs" in the talk tomorrow, and show why there are no "edges" in a reconstructed analog waveform that was transmitted digitally.

(now you may be sorry you asked :) )

reconstruction.jpg


If you think that the waveform top left comes out of your DAC, that's wrong. Well, that or the DAC is broken. There are some.

The second line of plots is the spectrum of the time waveforms in the first line. Notice how there is still only ONE frequency in the left set of waveforms that's below the Nyquist limit. The rest are ***IMAGES*** and are above half the sampling rate AND MUST BE FILTERED OUT. There may be no edges in a properly reconstructed signal. The "why" of this might suggest you sign up for the talk if you haven't.
 
BUT DIGITAL IS NOT MADE UP OF SQUARE WAVES.
Exactly!
Step-like is a DAC output product (with no reconstruction filter, with no LPF).

1668675976753.png

(Kester, Bryant: Sampled data systems)
 
I take a shot.

I'll shoot back.

Sure, electrical current going through a conductor is unaware if it is digital or analogue, useless or not! and yes sure the current is subject to all ills that can affect it along the way, being digital or what have you.

There is a substantial difference in the 'signal' passing through a cable when it comes to analog or digital.
In the analog realm the frequency spectrum runs from DC to say... 50kHz in bandwidth. No more than that but even 100kHz or even 200kHz is not an issue.

For digital the used frequency range is magnitudes higher, in fact it is so high that wavelength, cable length and impedances start to become a factor, above several MHz range.

You are probably hinting at the fact that both are electrical signals.

BUT ....
The point was, is the digital data received at destination is going to be tainted as much as if it was analogue? if any.
How sensitive is digital signal to those ills along the way? How sensitive is analogue equivalent?

In digital transmission via cables the 'retrieval' of data (the determination if a '1' or '0' is received) is quite robust.
Only at about halfway into the transmitted bit there is a clock signal that tells the circuit to (very shortly) 'sample' the incoming signal.
That sample can have a 'range' of voltages which all result in a logical '1' being received.
The same for a '0'. At about the middle of the received 'bit' a certain range of voltages determines it is a '0'.
So any noise on the line would have to be substantial on the transmission cable and would result in a misinterpreted bit.
This can be detected (depending on the transmission method).
So VERY robust. The 'quality' of the signal, within a range, has NO influence on the transmitted data and when it does it is a misinterpreted value.
When the transmission rate is too high and/or there are high reflections (impedance mismatch, long cables) then the signal can become

Analog is clear. When you change the signal in any way this is audible.
When you change the digital transmitted signal, up to a certain point NOTHING changes in the transmitted data.

You see, if Amazon sends me unwrapped food through post, what are the chances of that food getting to me uncontaminated ?
What if it was in vacuum sealed bags?
Not an equivalent example, just a loose one to get the meaning across.
Now imagine, if Amazon just emailed me the recepie instead!
Makes no sense, very poor analogy.

Of course you have read info about 'jitter' which affects timing. The good thing is jitter is just a timing thing that can cause the (derived) clock to move a bit forward and backward.
If that recovered clock is actually used to clock out the retrieved bits you would really have a problem.
Fortunately this does not happen. The data is buffered (stored temporarily) and different clocks are used for this.
How this done and how well incoming data jitter is reduced is circuit dependent. How stable the clock is that is used for the DAC chip determines how much the timing is off at that end.

Another thing that is often mentioned, and can indeed play a role, is ground loops. Some of the 'garbage' send along (usually common mode so does NOT affect the data at all) could make it through the DACcircuit board (depends on PCB design) into the audio path.
This, however, has nothing to do with the digital signal though.
 
Last edited:
I'll shoot back.
Always appreciated from knowledgeable people, which I consider You to be among them.
There is a substantial difference in the 'signal' passing through a cable when it comes to analog or digital.
In the analog realm the frequency spectrum runs from DC to say... 50kHz in bandwidth. No more than that.
For digital the used frequency range is magnitudes higher, in fact it is so high that wavelength, cable length and impedances start to become a factor, >1 MHz range.
You are probably hinting at the fact that both are electrical signals.
In digital transmission via cables the 'retrieval' of data (the determination if a '1' or '0' is received) is quite robust.
Only at about halfway into the transmitted bit there is a clock signal that tells the circuit to (very shortly) 'sample' the incoming signal.
That sample can have a 'range' of voltages which all result in a logical '1' being received.
The same for a '0'. At about the middle of the received 'bit' a certain range of voltages determines it is a '0'.
So any noise on the line would have to be substantial on the transmission cable and would result in a misinterpreted bit.
This can be detected (depending on the transmission method).
So VERY robust. The 'quality' of the signal, within a range, has NO influence on the transmitted data and when it does it is a misinterpreted value.
When the transmission rate is too high and/or there are high reflections (impedance mismatch, long cables) then the signal can become
Analog is clear. When you change the signal in any way this is audible.
When you change the digital transmitted signal, up to a certain point NOTHING changes in the transmitted data.
We are in agreement.
Makes no sense, very poor analogy.
Let me get my meaning across a bit better (hopefully!)
- Unwrapped food (analogue audio) sent by Amazon (transmitted as is), will get contaminated.
- Wrapped food (e.g. Modulated analogue audio, etc. ) sent by Amazon, has a better chance of getting a lot less contamination.
- The recipe (digital audio signal, as no audio is actually included, only instructions), sent by any means - either gets received or not - if received, the resultant constructed audio (cooked fresh from the recipe) is untainted. Any contamination on the paper that the recipe is printed on (after error correction) is discarded.
This whole thing, started from another thread that implied (to my understanding) a digital signal sent electrically through a cable is ultimately analogue, so at the mercy of noise, interference etc. just as an analogue audio signal would be.
My other example, "Someone once said, a square wave ..." related to this! The square wave I mentioned was what a "digital signal looks like" (not any output from a DAC), it was argued that since the digital signal is transmitted by square waves, and square waves are constructed from multiple sine waves and sine waves are analogue, therefore digital signal transmission is analogue and no different. ( I don't fully agree with that).
My beef was, that although technically true, the digital data within the digital signal is almost immune to those ills, since it is nothing but an instruction-list (a recipe) to construct the audio from fresh (cook an identical batch). There is no analogue audio present within a digital audio stream, so for as long as the medium (cable) behaves within operational limits, those ills are irrelevant.
It either works, or not! Better cable, better Toslink etc. have no effect.
 
This whole thing, started from another thread that implied (to my understanding) a digital signal sent electrically through a cable is ultimately analogue, so at the mercy of noise, interference etc. just as an analogue audio signal would be.

In essence a digital signal, transmitted via wire, is simply a voltage varying in amplitude over time.
When we unleash some interference on that cable (and impedances involved would be the same) then the electrical signal would be affected in a similar way.
I figure that's what was meant by it. So the electrical signal will be 'changed' in a similar way.

In that sense of the word (the electrical signal fidelity) there is no difference between 'analog' and 'digital' and people start attributing the same 'audio degradation' thingies to 'digital' signals as they would to analog which it totally incorrect.
 
In essence a digital signal, transmitted via wire, is simply a voltage varying in amplitude over time.
When we unleash some interference on that cable (and impedances involved would be the same) then the electrical signal would be affected in a similar way.
I figure that's what was meant by it. So the electrical signal will be 'changed' in a similar way.

In that sense of the word (the electrical signal fidelity) there is no difference between 'analog' and 'digital' and people start attributing the same 'audio degradation' thingies to 'digital' signals as they would to analog which it totally incorrect.
The concept of clock and data recovery circuits and how they (things like phase-locked loops) can reject the noise and distortion is lost upon many... The idea that the things achieving virtually perfect recovery from a completely closed eye at the receiver (so no obvious signal present) for your computer network, drives, and so forth at billions of bits per second are somehow inadequate for audio-rate transmission (orders of magnitude slower) is baffling.
 
In essence a digital signal, transmitted via wire, is simply a voltage varying in amplitude over time.
Varying? not switching!
When we unleash some interference on that cable (and impedances involved would be the same) then the electrical signal would be affected in a similar way.
I figure that's what was meant by it. So the electrical signal will be 'changed' in a similar way.
Sure, but for as long as it remains within a certain limit . . . So be it!
For as long as the Recipe is legible, The paper on which it is printed can get all the germs and the creases along the way.
I am gonna chuck it anyway, after I read it :)
 
Varying? not switching!

yes, varying.
Eventhough the line driver is 'switching', for a cable it is varying because real world squarewaves are not infinite bandwidth and the cable as well as the driver and receiver are all bandwidth limited.
 
A signal is "digital" because it has been " sliced" at a pre-determined voltage level. For example, the peak-peak may be 3.3V, going from 0 up to 3.3V; but at 2V (for example) you decide it is indeed a 1. Below 2V it's a 0. Yes, there's more to it than that, but that's the concept.
Hysteresis is used to get around the level transition problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom