Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Analog vs Digital mixers.....????

  1. #21
    ^^ What Elliot said.

    KLH.. you are confusing the idea of digital "0dBFS" which means literally, the absolute highest number the system is capable of representing, beyond which you have complete clipping. The lowest number is just one bit.. the lowest number you can differentiate.

    In an analog circuit this would be the absolute highest voltage the amp stage is capable of producing.. that's the absolute top.. and the bottom would be the level of noise in the circuit.. because below that you cannot hear the signal.

    The only difference between these two is that with digital, everything is perfectly clean and linear, right up to clipping. Whereas with analog, you can have a small range where you are not into hard clipping just yet, but it's non-linear (distorted).

    In both of these types of mixers, the actual 0dB you see on the meter is far below the actual limit.. then there's headroom. Sometimes a LOT of headroom. So yea, it is not a matter of one mixer being able to handle levels above 0 and the other not.. In both cases the circuit is designed so that when the system is running at 0dB there is enough headroom to avoid hitting the absolute max, but at the same time, keeping it high up above the lower limit (noise floor).

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    463
    Sorry to revive this thread and make it even longer...But the wheels in my head have been spinning and I am still confused ....

    So...I started researching Bit Rates and kHz rating. When it comes to the signal that is coming out of the mixer and going to speakers, amps or signal processing...

    1. Which consistently produces the higher/better bit rate/kHz (24bit/96khz)...Analog or Digital...???

    2. Higher bit rate/kHz "always" = better sound/quality right...???

    3. Is that the reason why manufacturers put a internal DSP (digital signal processor) into their mixers to "improve/increase" the bit rate/kHz...??? (Pioneer DJM series...claiming 32 bit...don't know about kHz though).

    4. How about soundcards (int. & ext.)...??? Manufacturers also advertise heavily about how high the bit rate/kHz ratings for their soundcard is...so...do soundcards "improve" the signal too and if so...why have DSP...I don't get it ...???

    5. If my tracks are lower quality (320 kbps mp3)...that it does not matter when it comes to track quality if my equipment can output a 24 bit/96 kHz quality right...??? So why all the hype for WAV, AIFF and lossless tracks...???

    Still trying to wrap my head around track quality and signal processing, conversions, paths and equipment.
    Last edited by DjBetta; 08-28-2014 at 11:57 AM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by DjBetta View Post
    Sorry to revive this thread and make it even longer...But the wheels in my head have been spinning and I am still confused ....

    So...I started researching Bit Rates and kHz rating. When it comes to the signal that is coming out of the mixer and going to speakers, amps or signal processing...

    1. Which consistently produces the higher/better bit rate/kHz (24bit/96khz)...Analog or Digital...???

    2. Higher bit rate/kHz "always" = better sound/quality right...???

    3. Is that the reason why manufacturers put a internal DSP (digital signal processor) into their mixers to "improve" the bit rate/kHz...???

    4. And than....How about soundcards (int. & ext.)...??? Obviously...Manufacturers advertise heavily about how high the bit rate/kHz ratings for their soundcard is...so...do soundcards matter (even with a int. DSP) when it comes to achieving the "best quality" sound...???

    Still trying to wrap my head around signal processing, conversions, paths and quality.
    1. Sampling rates (eg 44.1K, 48K, 96K) only apply to digital systems. Bit depth (16 bit, 24 bit) also only apply to digital systems. The sampling rate tells you how many samples per second the system is processing.. which must be at least two times the highest audio frequency passing through the system. The bit depth is the number of binary digits used to store each sample.. Larger number means more resolution.

    2. Yes, sort of, but it's not that simple. In theory greater bit depth equals greater S/N ratio (signal to noise).. more dynamic range, and greater sample rate means better frequency response. But mathematically speaking, 96K sampling is actually unnecessary and shouldn't make any difference. Yet sometimes it does. Why this is true and actually whether it is true is the subject of a lot of debate.

    Analog systems do not have a sampling rate or bit depth because those describe the functioning of digital audio circuits, which analog gear does not have. Analog gear is just rated with analog specs eg frequency response (in Hz/Khz), S/N Ratio, THD (total harmonic distortion).. etc. Digital gear has these numbers too, they are the actual measure of the audio performance of the gear.. whereas sample rate etc just tells you the internal processing that determines the theoretical maximum performance. So, a piece of equipment with 24 bit samples may have a theoretical S/N of 144 dB (if I remember correctly) but in practice the measured system S/N number will be much less.

    3. No, those parameters ONLY apply to digital circuits.

    The reason digital mixers exist is because digital circuits have gotten so cheap that it is actually cheaper to implement ALL the circuits of the mixer as emulations in computer code rather than as individual circuits, rather than having separate circuits for each feature of each channel, it is possible to implement features like complex fader curves, complex eq curves, multiple effects, multiple filters etc.. without adding any extra circuitry (just as long as you have enough memory and processing power) and you get a more consistent result. Whether you can get better sound quality from a digital mixer than analog is debatable.. it very much depends on the design of the gear and how you use it. I think it is fair to say that a very simple but high quality analog mixer will usually sound better than a cheap-ass digital, if the sources are high quality analog sources, but if the inputs are all from digital sources then maybe not?? And it is also safe to say that a very highly featured digital system with many stages of processing can easily outperform an all-analog version of the same system.

    4. The bit rate and sample rate (not to be confused with frequency response, which is a related but different thing) only matters if your source material uses it. So if you have a sound card capable of 96K max sample rate but you are only playing music at 48K rate, the fact that your card can do 96K if you ask it to means nothing. It's like a car that can hold four people but you only have two people in it so it doesn't matter. Also, other factors affect the sound quality so if you have two sound interfaces (aka cards) converting a 24bit/48K (because that's what a "sound card" is.. it's a digital to analog converter, and sometimes also analog to digital).. one might sound better than the other, because it's a better design.

  4. #24
    Deez Beats! KLH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by emarx View Post
    This isn't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by light-o-matic View Post
    ^^ What Elliot said...
    Thanks for the clarifications, guys. So much for keeping it high-level. After hitting "post", I realized that I hadn't differentiated the digital stage versus amplifier stage in digital mixers.

    Rep to both you guys for the clarifications.
    -KLH
    Visit DJF's Beginner's MEGA thread and drop by my Facebook Fan Page.
    I've read the books like How to DJ right... to learn about... beatmatching, phrasing w/e , Speed Test Scrabble Word Finder Solitaire but when I go to mix...

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by light-o-matic View Post
    1. Sampling rates (eg 44.1K, 48K, 96K) only apply to digital systems. Bit depth (16 bit, 24 bit) also only apply to digital systems. The sampling rate tells you how many samples per second the system is processing.. which must be at least two times the highest audio frequency passing through the system. The bit depth is the number of binary digits used to store each sample.. Larger number means more resolution.

    2. Yes, sort of, but it's not that simple. In theory greater bit depth equals greater S/N ratio (signal to noise).. more dynamic range, and greater sample rate means better frequency response. But mathematically speaking, 96K sampling is actually unnecessary and shouldn't make any difference. Yet sometimes it does. Why this is true and actually whether it is true is the subject of a lot of debate.

    Analog systems do not have a sampling rate or bit depth because those describe the functioning of digital audio circuits, which analog gear does not have. Analog gear is just rated with analog specs eg frequency response (in Hz/Khz), S/N Ratio, THD (total harmonic distortion).. etc. Digital gear has these numbers too, they are the actual measure of the audio performance of the gear.. whereas sample rate etc just tells you the internal processing that determines the theoretical maximum performance. So, a piece of equipment with 24 bit samples may have a theoretical S/N of 144 dB (if I remember correctly) but in practice the measured system S/N number will be much less.

    3. No, those parameters ONLY apply to digital circuits.

    The reason digital mixers exist is because digital circuits have gotten so cheap that it is actually cheaper to implement ALL the circuits of the mixer as emulations in computer code rather than as individual circuits, rather than having separate circuits for each feature of each channel, it is possible to implement features like complex fader curves, complex eq curves, multiple effects, multiple filters etc.. without adding any extra circuitry (just as long as you have enough memory and processing power) and you get a more consistent result. Whether you can get better sound quality from a digital mixer than analog is debatable.. it very much depends on the design of the gear and how you use it. I think it is fair to say that a very simple but high quality analog mixer will usually sound better than a cheap-ass digital, if the sources are high quality analog sources, but if the inputs are all from digital sources then maybe not?? And it is also safe to say that a very highly featured digital system with many stages of processing can easily outperform an all-analog version of the same system.

    4. The bit rate and sample rate (not to be confused with frequency response, which is a related but different thing) only matters if your source material uses it. So if you have a sound card capable of 96K max sample rate but you are only playing music at 48K rate, the fact that your card can do 96K if you ask it to means nothing. It's like a car that can hold four people but you only have two people in it so it doesn't matter. Also, other factors affect the sound quality so if you have two sound interfaces (aka cards) converting a 24bit/48K (because that's what a "sound card" is.. it's a digital to analog converter, and sometimes also analog to digital).. one might sound better than the other, because it's a better design.
    I think I am starting to get it I think its just gonna take me some time and some analytical thinking to get all of this down in my head.

    Seems like I should be studying or looking up "Electrical Engineering" and "Computer Engineering" .....because that's what DJ/Sound equipment is made from...basically....computer parts/chips and electrical circuits

    Uuuuuuhhhhhhh
    Last edited by DjBetta; 08-29-2014 at 12:17 PM.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    315
    Don't confuse digital domain's 0dBFS with 0dBVu on the mixer's average loudness meter.

    https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net...BYe_bACGew.jpg

    The reason digital mixer companies advertise specs of chips, software implimentation, and their own measurement results on what they've achieved with all that stuff is because distortion and noise is cummulative in audio rather than capped or truncated based on some lowest denominator. If they have lower distortion, lower noise, higher headroom prior to the output stages, and other feats they've accomplished, you're potentially treating the signal (or data) more transparently or gently. This is the same for a 128kbps MP3 as it is for a worn-out piece of vinyl or a new vinyl pressing or even a 24/96 studio lossless file played on a CDJ2000.

    As Light said, the core advantage of a digital mixer is it's cheaper to do the same level of quality or the same features as an analog counterpart. Some digital mixers now are so good, though, they're arguably better than just a lengthy pair of analog interconnect cables, just comparing analog to analog, not even doing anything else. In some of these digital mixers, the designers go out of their way to minimize the tiny lengths of the analog input paths inside so they get digitalized as quickly as possible.

    This also means you can get crazy stuff implimented in digital that's really unlikely anyone's going to attempt in some analog DJ mixer. I don't just mean FX. For instance, there are obscure techniques used in like analog radio and radar applications involving phase compensation that have eventually shown up modeled in live & studio pro audio digital and now finally in a few digital DJ mixers. Sure, this stuff can be done in analog, since that's where it was originally invented (non-audio RF applications), but it's just never going to get implimented in even the highest-end analog audio gear (DJ or not) due to the expense. I also get the sense the the analog purists could care less about that stuff, wanting colored sound and certain vintage results, anyway... often because they tell me that.

    Then there's the option of staying digital from source all the way into the next piece of gear after the mixer. Some digital mixers used this way will end up like nearly 20dB lower noise floor and a fraction of the distortion of even the best analog mixer where you have to convert to analog from the player first.

    I could also swear that some of this digital stuff seems to make the digital info you pipe into them sound even better to my ears than the original digital file! I think maybe that's some interpolative upsampling wizardry adding subtle, pleasing-sounding, even-order harmonics when you send a lower digital sample rate into some units with these algorithms and set higher "work" sample rates they run at internally. I could be wrong, but man oh man, sometimes it sounds like it's doing something special.

    I think in-general I find that the differences in high-end digital DJ mixers has a lot more variety and interesting nuance than analog mixers that seem a bit more same-ish. I do enjoy my analog mixers, too, though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
a