[pd-ot] electric circuits in software

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Wed Apr 26 13:16:34 CEST 2006

On Apr 26, 2006, at 4:27 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:05:21PM +0200, Hans-Christoph Steiner  
> wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Chris McCormick wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:25:26AM +0200, Hans-Christoph Steiner
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:50 PM, hard off wrote:
>>>>> what is so inherant in analogue and even digital hardware that  
>>>>> makes
>>>>> the sound hard to recreate by software?
>>>> Its not really that hard to model analogue sound in digital.  But
>>>> there is a cult of analog sound which believes that it is.  I mean,
>>>> you could measure the difference between the real analog and a high
>>>> quality digital recreation, but you couldn't hear it.
>>> Do you have empirical data to back up this statement? Has  
>>> neuroscience
>>> really progressed to the point that we can claim absolutely that the
>>> human brain is incapable of the task of high frequency signal
>>> analysis?
>> that much about neuroscience.  But I do know enough about science to
>> tell you that humans cannot tell the difference between such things
>> in double-blind tests.  So you don't need to know anything about
>> In a carefully controlled environment, with very nice equipment,
>> something like 99.5% of people cannot tell the difference between
>> things like tube and transistor amps, digital or analog audio, or
>> electronic circuits or digital recreations.  Try it yourself  
>> sometime.
> I believe you, but could you point me to any articles that back this
> up? I've often wondered whether such research has been conducted,
> and have never managed to find it, but maybe I'm reading the wrong
> journals. Performing a double-blind test on myself would result in  
> purely
> anecdotal evidence, which I'm not that interested in.

About 10-15 years ago, I used to build my own speakers and amps, so I  
was in the "audiophile" world.  There is some discussion about this  
kind of thing in audiophile magazines, but then there are many  
audiophiles that say things like "double-blind tests hide the  
differences in equipment".  But basically none of them will argue  
that its hard to tell the difference between such things in double- 
blind tests.

I don't remember any specific studies off hand, but I do remember  
reading the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (aka JAES) and  
the journal Speaker Builder a fair amount, and things like  
Stereophile magazine.



If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Eldridge Cleaver

More information about the PD-ot mailing list