Is Digital Audio Transmission Analog? [video]

[Killingbeans]

Recently listened to Darko‘s podcast episode with golden sound. If you want to understand darko‘s opinion on measurements, I recommend listening to it.
I generally don’t recommend trying to argue with tryhard subjectivists because it’s mostly just a waste of time.
But Darko is a bit more open towards different opinions as the podcast has shown IMHO

From what I can tell GoldenSound is know for "interpreting" measurements in ways that speak to the subjective side of us.

I think what Darko is really open towards, is people who say things he'd like to hear

 

[Gee2]

Looks like ranting is part of 'reviewing' (he is a shop owner) this product. From 1.35 to 2.05 is the "highlight".

 

[Ken Tajalli]

OK, this is of great interest to me.

Could you elaborate a bit as to from where this noise might originate, and the mechanism by which it could affect the analogue section of the DAC, or the amp?

The situation with Noise, specifically random RF noise , is that although the noise can be picked up at various points, it only becomes a menace if it can flow from one point to another in a circuit. Consider this:
- A mobile phone, with its internal transmitter blasting RF out.
- The said phone is connected to a portable rechargeable DAC with USB.
- The portable DAC is being used with headphones.
99 out of 100, the DAC wouldn't see the noise as this noise can not flow.
Now the above scenario, but this time with no headphones, but connected to an amp. Still, noise can not flow! Replace the phone with a grounded PC and a grounded amp, now noise can flow! Why? Because there are two connections to ground, one at PC and another at amp! You have completed the circuit, noise can now go from one ground plane to another.
The DAC may still not be sensitive to the noise and continue to work perfectly, with a small noise floor elevation, that could be inaudible, but what if the amp is sensitive to the noise?!
It is not just USB, electrical spdif can cause it too. Optical by default is isolated, galvanic isolation on USB, also cures this.
But some DACs such as Chord portable DACs (Mojo, Mojo2 and Hugo2), do not have isolation on the USB input, they are portable and isolation costs them battery juice. They are also sensitive to this random RF noise, so if ground loop is allowed to occur (used as desktop DAC, connected to two grounded devices), then the noise can pollute the DAC. The digital section is immune to it! But, the analogue section is not! It causes small distortions that can spice up the sound, making them sound a little brighter (almost audible)!
At any rate, as far as the topic of this thread goes, Noise on digital audio, can not bother the digital section of the DAC (unless it becomes so huge for DAC to shut down).
But in a ground loop situation, it can bother the analogue sections of the DAC and/or any amp that comes after.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

There seems to be disagreements as to what constitutes Analogue signal or Analogue Audio.
I have created a new thread to discuss this:
Back to basics. Definition: Analogue Audio

 

[beagleman]

If Darko’s so sure he can hear a difference in these devices, but the measurement types just won’t listen, why not settle the debate with a double blind test? He can in theory prove what he asserts but doesn’t try, which tells me a lot.

So you must surely be a Hater, Troll, or Non believer!!

((The typical reply......when asking to verify a claim))

 

[JSmith]

Letters to the editor – Weeks #28 – 30, 2022 | Darko.Audio

Amir M. writes... re. Happy to be on your show Hi Darko. This is Amir Majidimehr from Audio Science Review. I just finished listening to the interview you had with Karman on importance of measurements. I actually found your questions and attitude overall quite friendly and flexible which I...

darko.audio

Amir M. writes…

re. Happy to be on your show

Hi Darko.

This is Amir Majidimehr from Audio Science Review. I just finished listening to the interview you had with Cameron on importance of measurements. I actually found your questions and attitude overall quite friendly and flexible which I appreciated. Alas, you brought someone on your show which has little expertise in these topics. Cameron has no formal experience in signal processing, psychoacoustics, research into audibility of measurements, engineering design, etc. While he has learned some things from measuring gear, he is by no means “an expert” as you called him. He is also quite contradictory. He made his mark by criticizing MQA using objective tests and no listening tests. Yet now he routinely discards measurements and goes by purely subjectively tests. I don’t see how he can have it both ways. Well, I can but I won’t go into it.

Anyway, I am fortunately enough to have experience in all of these fields. My job and career for years depended on understanding measurements, signal processing, hardware and software design, psychoacoustics, etc. If you want to know the true answers — as much as they exist — I am happy to explain them on your show in any manner you see fit. Until then, the picture he and others paint of “us” is quite a caricature that doesn’t match reality at all. To wit, we love, absolutely love listening tests and value them well above measurements. The only requirement we have is that the testing be limited to what you hear and other variables eliminated from it. Our goal is always being able to back our opinion with something reliable. Only this type of listening tests and proper measurements do this.

Anyway, please let me know if you are interested. If not, I can go ahead and post a video answer on my channel.

Best regards,

Amir

Me:

Hi Amir

Nice to hear from you and I’m glad that you dig the friendliness and flexibility of my podcast presentation style. If only I could manage the same with the written word. Please forgive me if I sound stuffy or stiff via the elevated formality of the written word. It’s an ongoing issue that I can’t seem to shake loose.

Summarising the first paragraph of your email, you claim that Cameron:

has little expertise in measurements
has no formal experience in the various fields that you mention
is not an expert
is contradictory (I think you mean self-contradictory?)
made his mark by criticising MQA
now routinely discards measurements and goes ‘purely’ by subjective tests
I can’t speak with 100% certainty to the first four points but on the fifth re. MQA, I would agree. On the sixth point, Cameron’s website remains chock full of measurements and as recently as this week he measured the ENLEUM AMP-23R. See here: https://goldensound.audio/2022/07/12/enleum-amp-23r-measurements/

One of the reasons I invited Cameron onto my podcast was because of the extensive measurements published on his website. Next to Michael Lavorgna and me, he is a measurement expert. It’s why I referred to him as such. His sizable YouTube following, almost identical to your own, Amir, I think also speaks somewhat to Cameron’s good standing as an Audio Precision user and measurement data interpreter.

But please know that I also invited Cameron onto my podcast because he and I have spoken on the phone at length where he comes across as just as agreeable as he does in his videos. Of considerable further appeal is that Cameron is someone who speaks from (and to) the middle ground of the measurement/listening test dichotomy.

It pleases me immensely that you wish to do likewise, Amir – that you value listening tests just as much as measurements (maybe more so!). However, the specifics of your email as they relate to Cameron (listed above) give me pause. I’m not sure my podcast is the appropriate place for you to challenge Cameron’s standing as an expert on measurements and/or rebut his assessment of ‘you’ (ASR) as having become a “caricature” of itself. Heck, I’m not sure that he even said that — but as you point out, you can respond on your own YouTube channel.

I am in no position to tell you how to conduct your affairs, Amir. I don’t know you and we’ve never spoken but I would ask: why make your disdain for Cameron’s expertise so public? Why not email Cameron directly and in private?

I believe that demonstrating public collegiality is more important than being ‘right’, especially when dealing with a difference of professional opinion. Doubly so when dealing with a colleague who is, all things considered, a ‘net benefit’ to the audio community.

Would you not expect the same degree of courtesy?

Perhaps not, as evidenced by yours and Danny Richie’s very recent tit-for-tat. I believe public exchanges of minor hostility and/or passive aggression between prominent professional members of the audio community diminish the overall standing of the community. And I am sure you will understand that in wanting to remain ‘friendly and flexible’, I want no part in anything that might devolve into a public spat.

This is Cameron’s email address: redacted AT redacted .co.uk. I have bcc-d him into this reply so that he is aware of the background to any email that you may send him. I’m using bcc because I don’t wish to be a part of any conversation that might ensue from the use of cc.

Lastly, if you choose to publish this email on your website, Amir, I ask that you publish it in its entirety without alteration and alongside your original email to me. I will do likewise if only to underscore that my engagement in this matter starts and ends with this email.

Wishing you all the best,

John

I find Darko's response combative and dismissive of Amir's solid points about Goldfinger... in fact quite rude towards the end of the reponse. So if anyone thinks Amir is ganging up on Darko... think again, as contact was made and an opportunity given before this video was posted here.


JSmith

 

[Awsmone]

I am with you but if you listen to the podcast, he makes it sound like he is a layman hungry for technical explanation. This is/was quite contrary to the content of his videos. I took him on his word when I made my offer, only to realize that the demonstrated openness in his podcast doesn't really exist.

That is so true, he sucks you with “oh I am so technical” but then it turns into an advertisement , his rubbish recounting about his uncle , I found out the equipment was a rebranding of the same rebranded company before he finished the boring story , that’s when I gave up I could learn anything useful from watching him, plus his musical taste is not something I am interested in

 

[BDWoody]

Letters to the editor – Weeks #28 – 30, 2022 | Darko.Audio

Amir M. writes... re. Happy to be on your show Hi Darko. This is Amir Majidimehr from Audio Science Review. I just finished listening to the interview you had with Karman on importance of measurements. I actually found your questions and attitude overall quite friendly and flexible which I...

darko.audio

I find Darko's response combative and dismissive of Amir's solid points about Goldfinger... in fact quite rude towards the end of the reponse. So if anyone thinks Amir is ganging up on Darko... think again, as contact was made and an opportunity given before this video was posted here.


JSmith

So, to summarize:

I will find people who support my ignorance, not someone who can expose it.

I truly don't care if I am correct or not, I have people to sell shit to, and can't be bothered with reality.

You are a meanie-head.

Insincerely,

 

[pma]

As Nelson Pass used to say, "this is an entertainment business". Do not expect any "scientific exactness", on any popular audio forum or commercial forum, or in any commercial audio magazine.

 

[KSTR]

There seems to be disagreements as to what constitutes Analogue signal or Analogue Audio.
I have created a new thread to discuss this:
Back to basics. Definition: Analogue Audio

I would think there acutally is universal agreement among circuit design engineers about what analog and digital is supposed to mean in audio. Other views may or may not be valid but are not of any concern here, with regard to the thread topic.

[...] then the noise can pollute the DAC. The digital section is immune to it! But, the analogue section is not!

That's the whole point of it. For a DAC this means the bit stream is not affected at all by any RF-, hum/buzz- or whatever noise present on the digital connection (and the supplies, mid you). Modern USB DACs further all have their local master clock so jitter isn't an issue either.

So what's left then?
This noise can still enter the final analog output of the DAC and that's for example what's measured in an EMC-compliance test (or more typically, a set of EMC pre-compliance tests iterated during the whole design phase): A RF generator is swept through a range of RF frequencies like 100kHz to several GHz and the signal is amplitude-modulated with a LF sine, say 3kHz. This signal is capacitively coupled to the shield (or direct conductor) of any of the cables attached to the device and the analog output is checked (while excited with another, unrelated test signal) for contamination at 3kHz in the spectrum, created by demodulation. Other methods exist, of course.

By these mechanisms, it is actually not impossible (though IMHO very rare) that changes made upstream in the digital domain (change of device/system, cables, OS, player, CPU-load and I/O-activity, etc) will effectively change the noise patterns a DAC is exposed to. Say, in the simplest case, an USB bus-powered DAC and HP amp. Even when the feeding computer is floating (mobile/tablet, laptop on battery) the RF problems still can exist whereas gound-loop noise is virtually eliminated, root-cause gone.

It is also quite possible that electronic designs with these kind of problems are already polluting themselves to certain extent, and sometimes they may even pollute the downstream equipment like amplifiers (which also tend to demodulate RF).

Once you are at this point of looking at it, it is clear that seemingly completely unrelated changes and conditions on the digital side, even though resulting in always bit-perefect data, may still have a hidden impact on the analog side which is not obvious to most of the people.
So when they say "I've changed USB cable and now it sounds different" we cannot simply dismiss these reports on the idea alone that "it's only ones and zeros". A possible mechanism does exist by which the analog output can be affected by different levels of noise.
Further thorough examination and DBT-testing would be required but that is not likely to ever happen for obvious reasons.

Then the question remains how relevant is this? IMHO the answer is: currently, we don't know.
Note that we (Amir and others) usually never measure that kind of susceptibility because this requires RF gear and procedures. We also seldom check for any effect of "ground loop" cross currents through the device, with the noise current (up to low RF frequencies!) literally flowing across the PCB generating voltage errors on the GND reference points.

I will repeat that I don't think this indirect pollution from the digital side is bad enough to be audible or show up significantly in measurements, typically. My thinking is based on the hope that most modern audio circuit designers and layouters are aware of all this stuff and have a solid background in precision instrumentation and therefore they wouldn't create overly susceptible circuits. But likely there are exceptions now and then, notably in boutique equipment as well as ultra low-cost stuff.

 

[juliangst]

From what I can tell GoldenSound is know for "interpreting" measurements in ways that speak to the subjective side of us.

I think what Darko is really open towards, is people who say things he'd like to hear

I hope he does a post or something about Amir‘s video. I‘m excited what pseudo science he comes up with to defend his “streamers sounding different“ claims. I think he is open minded about this but not open minded enough to accept the reality

 

[Pablo27]

"I am in no position to tell you how to conduct your affairs, Amir. I don’t know you and we’ve never spoken but I would ask: why make your disdain for Cameron’s expertise so public? Why not email Cameron directly and in private?" (Taken from Darkos email to Amir)

It would certainty suit Darko that things be kept "private"!!! After all why would he want any light shining on matters that would expose his complete snake oil shillary (I suspect there is no such word as shillary).

He's knowingly (in my opinion) encouraging audiophiles, the poor things, to spend a small fortune on products that simply do no do not deliver. I can only conclude that Darko has the morals of an alley cat or that he's in too deep now to claw himself out..

 

[Vacceo]

Letters to the editor – Weeks #28 – 30, 2022 | Darko.Audio

Amir M. writes... re. Happy to be on your show Hi Darko. This is Amir Majidimehr from Audio Science Review. I just finished listening to the interview you had with Karman on importance of measurements. I actually found your questions and attitude overall quite friendly and flexible which I...

darko.audio

I find Darko's response combative and dismissive of Amir's solid points about Goldfinger... in fact quite rude towards the end of the reponse. So if anyone thinks Amir is ganging up on Darko... think again, as contact was made and an opportunity given before this video was posted here.


JSmith

Darko knows, or at least guesses, that Amir on his podcast would be akin to Ken Ham debating Bill Nye about evolution. Demonstrating public colleglity? Are you bullshiting us? Would you equate Adolph Reed to Dinesh d´Souza on marxism just because both have covered the topic? Do you even understand how accademic debate works?

I know (like a lot of you) how damage control works when you publicly spouse an easily debunkeable discourse. When that discourse is wrapped around all the post-modern hip bullshit (music included), it is easier to hide it behind a lot of pleasantries. Material phenomena, however, do not care about literary constructions.

I wonder now who is the cultist? I started considering that I (or any of you) owe nothing to Darko. Now it is even more clear. Amir at leasts, answers questions.

 

[pjn]

A new argument has developed that transmission of digital audio is really analog. And for this reason, everything digital can be subject to audible difference from digital audio cables to digital output of streamers. This was emphasizes in a video by Darko Audio saying this explains his subjective opinion of streamers sounding different. I address this in this video and how there is some validity in what he says but his end conclusions are incorrect:

Great overview - really enjoyed it.
However, there are people who will get more pleasure out of spending 1000s vs 100s and due to to the workings of the human brain and its fantastic ability to lie, they will genuinely think it sounds better, even though the data shows that this is wrong, or even very wrong in rare cases where the performance difference is audible.
Someone has to keep the cool-aid manufacturers in business to keep the wheels of the economy working!

 

[tomchris]

I applaud Amir's attempt, although futile. It is not about doing measurements and understanding various subjects at hand - It is about intent and Darko's agenda is O B V I O U S and self-serving. Can't fix stupid.

 

[Somafunk]

Darkos' electronica reminds of the cheap speaker in my 80's 286. IMHO music is what you get when humans play instruments not when they write Excel macros.

Ok grandad, 90%+ of my listening is electronic music, I find such genres as classical, rock, etc turgid and bloody awful to listen to.

 

[Vacceo]

Great overview - really enjoyed it.
However, there are people who will get more pleasure out of spending 1000s vs 100s and due to to the workings of the human brain and its fantastic ability to lie, they will genuinely think it sounds better, even though the data shows that this is wrong, or even very wrong in rare cases where the performance difference is audible.
Someone has to keep the cool-aid manufacturers in business to keep the wheels of the economy working!

I do too. I wish I could spend that much money. It'd be a bunch of stuff such as Kef Blades or Genelec ones.

Speaking of Kef, Darko's mention of Amir and Danny Richie's is akin to place Richie at the same level of Dr. Oclee-Brown. His not wanting to take sides is pure marketing strategy.

Sorry John, your word is worthless.

 

[Puddingbuks]

The bluesound has a d/a converter whereas the auralic is purely digital, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
But on the digital to digital side, unless one of the units is very poorly designed, no, there should be no audible difference if both units are streaming digital to the same d/a converter.

Yes I am curious about the digital part only. What can justify the price of such an Auralic unit over the bluesound in the digital domian, as my speakers have a digital aes input.

 

[MRC01]

Woah, you clearly have not understood what I wrote. Show me where I said it's "the numbers that make it discrete". ..I went out of my way to separate the terms.

I was replying to your original statement: "Digital means numbers".

"and discrete encodings may or may not use numbers"—of course, we can store it as a voltage in a BBD or CCD—I said this.

Yes and I agree.

... Are you worried that I don't understand the process, or that I'm not describing it the way you would, and are taking me to task for it?

Fundamentally, the difference between digital & analog encodings is that digital uses discrete states and analog does not. The difference is not about numbers, which can be discrete or continuous. In short, we're quibbling about semantics. But I did say that in my first reply...

 

[sq225917]

Bloody he'll that response from Noel at hifiworld is just so incredibly incorrect I'm struggling not to believe a junior writes the responses for him.

Surely he doesn't actually believe that high frequency samples are represented by shorter bits of data or transmitted at different speeds. That shows an absolute failure to understand the structure of pcm audio data transfer.