D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org)

What Hacker News said

Strong rec combatentropy · 2018-09 · on “Ask HN: Favorite teachers on YouTube?”

Monty Montgomery's explanation of digital audio might be the best explanatory video I have ever witnessed, [this video]

Strong rec mhh__ · 2019-07 · on “A Pixel Is Not A Little Square (1995) [pdf]”

[LINK] The talk [this video] <-- Youtube backup in case it doesn't work (YMMV) I wish I could force any audiophiles to watch it before they waste their money on snake oil. I think a similar point can be made about analogue synthesis, e.g. You pay Moog £1500 for what is ultimately a fancy box for a relatively simple analogue circuit.

Strong rec SeanLuke · 2023-01 · on “Why Cassettes?”

> Audiophiles might point out that analog audio sources can theoretically hold details you can't hear in digital. This is true because values in analog media are continuous. Over imperceptibly short periods of time, the numbers that represent different values on a sound wave in a digital recording jump instantaneously from one discrete value to another with no gentle slope between. Analog signals instead form smooth curves, so at some level they can contain tiny variations in slope that are too subtle for the digitization of that signal to represent. > The problem with analog superiority in general is that, when that digital signal is of standard CD quality (44,100 samples per second at 16-b

Strong rec sramsay · 2024-03 · on “Sampling: What Nyquist didn't say, and what to do about it (2018) [pdf]”

This is the most lucid explanation of aliasing I think I've ever read. I mostly deal with this stuff in the realm of audio where the matter of analog vs digital rages regularly. The reason one hears "Nyquist says" so often from people defending digital audio is that the pro-analog people are imagining stair-stepped signals in which the information that is "lost" results in a noticeable degradation in sound quality. This (11-year-old) video is the gold standard for addressing this concern: [this video] Curiously, no one ever seems to mention the actual problems (like aliasing).

Strong rec hackingonempty · 2026-07 · on “24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense”

@xiphmont also made an amazing video response to the many responses he received to this article. Using analog equipment he busts a bunch of myths and demonstrates what really happens with digital audio. [LINK] or on YT if you can't play it [this video]

Recommends olau · 2017-08 · on “24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)”

Try watching this video (hope I found the right one): [this video] I think you're right that recording equipment has a long way to go, though; regardless of format I think people can relatively easily distinguish real acoustical instruments from recordings.

Recommends louthy · 2018-05 · on “A 1970s Teenager's Bedroom (1998)”

It's worth watching the video in my references [1] - it's a proper hacker's view of digital audio and how it translates to the analogue domain. Even with a 20khz sound you're not going to get any aliasing at 44khz sample rate. Most people's hearing starts to fall off significantly after around 12khz or so (depending on age). Most cymbals have a fundamental frequency around 2-5khz in my experience. Also, because cymbal sounds are pretty close to being noise, it's arguable whether it would matter or not. Although if you listen to a 128 kbps MP3 then you can often hear the top end frequency sounds (like cymbals) becoming 'mushy'. To the vast majority of people once you get to 192 kbps it's inau

Recommends mc32 · 2019-02 · on “The Vast Re-Education Program of the Superbowl Ads”

Exactly. I like Monty Montgomery from Xiph's explanation video[1] on Sine waves, sampling and digital stairsteps. [1] [this video]