I didn’t say “all digital signals are analog”, that was all you, I said digital signals do not exist, they are constructs derived from electrical impulses which are analog.
Well, are they? You might as well say, electrical impulses are electrons (or maybe holes) moving in wires, which brings it back to discrete elements again. This is pointless argument: the signals are digital; to concentrate on the way the signals are delivered, whether via smoke signals or homing pigeon or signal mirrors or even electrical impulses, is sheer flummery.
One could argue that RFC 1149 leads to bird sh!t on the porch even though the digital bits are transmitted cleanly without unrecoverable error
Yes, that’s all they are.
No one is debating data integrity, it’s about timing errors and distortion as a result of the analog transport that affect SQ.
I am aware. The analogy to this in RFC 1149 is the bird sh!t
“Analog” versus “digital” are really an audio construct – they have no real meaning at the physical level, where “continuous” versus “discrete” rule the world. In general, everything – matter, movement, light – is continuous waveforms, because that’s the kind of universe we exist in (or at least, that’s the kind of universe we perceive as existing in, to the best of our perceptions). In the real world, the things we call “discrete” are really just continuous simulations of an ideal concept. So to say that this or that is really analog – that is, continuous – is to say nothing, because everything is analog.
Analog and digital transports function in fundamentally different ways. That’s what doesn’t seem to click. Timing is completely irrelevant before the D/A stage inside the DAC; what matters is the order of bits, which is part of the data integrity and it’s thus preserved.
I’ve been a part of this thread for a couple of years. Thank you @Henry_McLeod and @Marian for your input and at this point I am going to stop tracking this conversation. I’m sure that my hearing is irrelevant regarding the physics of anything but I’m still listening and enjoying my system.
And what about if you replace a cable with an expensive one and it sounds worse? That’s happened to me - certainly my ‘bias’ would have been for it to sound better after spending that money, but that didn’t happen.
I don’t know the cable in question, but ironically there’s a simple & practical explanation as to why an ‘expensive’ cable ‘might’ sound worse and that’s because in an attempt to differentiate itself from a cheaper cable the manufacturers have deviated from an official specification and in effect produced a ‘faulty’ cable (at least for the intended purpose).
Unnecessary shielding causing ground loops or acting as an aerial is one common example.
In short you’re (possibly) noticing the effect of a cable deviating from specification which in turn is producing an actual, real world audible difference.
That’s very different to a bias for what you know or think is a more expensive (or cheaper) cable when comparing two cable that actually sound identical or rather, equally have no affect on sound quality.